Criminal Procedure Outline
A. Non-Arrest Seizures
Introduction, Police citizen interactions: Caretaking
· 2 Types of Constitutional Violations
1. Constitutional violations that do not lead of false conviction
a. Unreasonable seizure
b. Warrantless arrest
c. Unreasonable search
d. Warrantless search
o These are unlawful invasions of privacy but they do not generally lead to false convictions.
o Post Warren court reduces protections for these type of violations.
2. Constitutional violations that could lead to false conviction
a. Involuntary confessions
b. Failure to provide counsel
c. Suggestive identification procedures
d. Suggestive questioning techniques
o These violations could lead an innocent person to be convicted.
· Models of Criminal Procedure
o Crime Control Model
§ Places a premium on efficiency and quick adjudication
§ Goal is to convey the guilty as rapidly as possible toward a conviction at trial or guilty plea.
§ Presumption of guilt – that the person who enters the system is probably factually guilty
§ Emphasizes the law enforcement goals of criminal law
§ The only prohibitions that should be put on police is stopping them from committing conduct that could lead the innocent to be convicted.
§ If the prohibition does not relate to the D’s innocence or guilt, it is a mere technicality and should be abandoned.
o Due Process Model
§ Presumes innocence and scrutinizes police procedure.
§ Emphasizes not only the goal of preventing false convictions but also the goal of ensuring the integrity of the criminal process and society.
§ Whether or not they taint the trial, the governement should be made accountable for constituitional violations.
· Police Roles
o Caretaker – does not implicate Constitution
o Crime investigator – implicates Constitution
o State v. Dube p.7 (Strict line b/w caretaker and investigator roles.)
§ Initial police entry and stay while the landlord repaired the apartment were ok. Police saw violations then.
§ Staying longer than the repairs crossed the threshold into investigator role which required a warrant.
o Brigham City (supp) fuzzy line b/w roles
§ Police respond to party complaint. Went to backyard and saw 2 juveniles drinking. Saw a fight ongoing inside. Went in, announced presence.
§ Court rejects D’s suppression request due to unlawful entry. Finds police were in their caretaking role.
· Caretaking = no PC required
· Exigent circumstances = PC required
§ Look objectively and not subjectively to officers’ intent.
B. Police Citizen Interactions: Race and Civility Policing
· State v. Janisczak p.12
o Janisczak charged with obstructing government administration for yelling at officer and not backing off when ordered to.
o Argues his speech is protected. State counters that fighting words are not protected.
· City of Chicago v. Jesus Morales p.17
o Loitering statute struck down for vagueness. Definition of loitering too broad, undefined words, and didn’t limit who it targeted.
o Vague if
1. it fails to notify ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits, or
2. authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory behavior.
· Mears Thesis p. 22 (slide)
C. Consensual Encounters
· 3 categories of police-citizen interaction
1. Arrest – most intrusive. Requires PC
2. Investigatory stop represents a seizure which invokes 4th but less than PC
a. Requires RAS
3. Consensual encounter – involves no restraint of liberty and elicits citizen’s voluntary cooperation. Non-coercive questioning. (Mendenhall)
a. Not a constitutional event
· US v. Mendenhall
o No seizure when drug agents approached D in airport and asked her questions of which she voluntarily answered and consented to a search.
o Conclusion not affected by the fact that D was not expressly told taht she was free to decline to cooperate.
o Facts to consider to determine
§ Location – public concourse
§ Agents not uniformed
§ Police approached D, did not summon her.
§ Police identified themselves, and requested and did not demand answers.
· Seizure tests
o A person is seized only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained.
o A person is seized if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave (Mendenhall test)
§ An encounter b/w an officer and a citizen becomes a stop when a reasonable person in that situation would not feel free to leave or to refuse to cooperate.
· Wesley Wilson v. State p.51
o D limping spotted by police. Police inquired. Then fire. Police told D to wait. D kept walking. Police came back and ordered Wilson to wait. He did. Then more questions leading to self-incriminating statements.
o Court holds seizure started when officer told Wilson to wait at the corner.
§ The show of authority restrained Wilson’s liberty. A reasonable person would
ere the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.
o Even still, RAS? Prof doesn’t think so but high crime area, evasive behavior…
o Once you have PC of a traffic violation, you can stop a car legally.
o Police cannot use their administrative hat to do crimnal investigation when they don’t have requisite suspicion.
§ Police may use their role as a traffic enforcer as a pretext for criminal investigation though.
§ Cannot use a random traffic stop as a pretext either.
o 4th Amendment supercedes local rules.
§ Local rule that non-uniformed officers couldn’t pull over vehicles does not apply in 4th Amendment cases.
o Rejected reasonable officer standard
§ Traffic stop is legal if reasonable officer would have made a stop for the professed traffic-related reasons under same circumstances
§ Application of regulations – officers may not enforce traffic regulations as pretext for criminal investigation if such enforcement violates police procedure.
o The seizure of drugs was legal b/c it was in plain view.
· Ochoa MWS p.5
o D has the burden of making an initial showing that the police acted pretextually and unreasonably under the totality of the circumstances.
§ Factors – police regulations, plainclothes, safety, behavior of suspects…
o Positive showing creates a rebuttable presumption of pretext.
o Presumption can be rebutted if prosecution shows that the officer would have stopped the vehicle for the purported traffic reason even w/o the underlying motive.
F. Checkpoints and the Literal Stop
· Indianapolis v. Edmond p.96
o Police cannot randomly stop cars w/o suspicion.
§ Stopping cars requires PC or RAS.
o Can only stop cars for administrative reasons – public safety
§ DUI roadblocks for public safety.
§ Not criminal investigation stops.
o Officers cannot rely on a secondary purpose (Whren) such as a traffic violation.
§ There was PC in Whren.
· Steps for Roadblock
o Apply primary purpose test