Criminal Procedure Outline

Criminal Pro Yung Spring 2016
The 14th Amendment & Its Incorporation by the States
Incorporation Debate
Extent to which the 14th A makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states
Majority view: Selective incorporation
Not all rights in the bill of rights apply to the states, but only as particularly necessary to fundamental fairness [Duncan v. LA] Most pertinent amendments of the BofR have been incorporated
The 14th A freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures [Mapp v. OH]  
Does not include civil forfeiture [US v. Ursery]  
 
 
Does not extend to petty offenses [Lewis v. US] Recent SCTOUS cases interpreting clauses apply to states:
State liberty interests protected by Due Process Clause are generally limited to freedom from restrain which imposes a typical and significant hardship on inmate in relation to ordinary prison life [Wolff v. McDonnell] Segregation for misconduct and refusal or presentation of witnesses at disciplinary hearing are not protected liberty interest [Sandin v. Conner] Only 2 BofR guarantees have not been extended to the states:
Right not to be subject to excessive bail
Right to a grand jury indictment in felony cases [Hurtado v. CA] Minority View: Total Incorporation
The effect of the 14th A is to make all Bill of Rights guarantees directly applicable to the states
State and Federal Statues & Rules
Procedures set forth for administration of criminal justice
These procedures must not violate the US constitution
EX: Federal wiretapping statue cannot authorize conduct that is prohibited by the 4th A search and seizure guarantees
Federal rules of criminal procedure are applicable only to federal crimes
State constitutions may provide additional rights beyond federal law, but not less
The Selective incorporation doctrine requires state courts to apply nearly all the guarantees of the bill of rights in state criminal trials
States are free to place additional criminal safeguards in their own state constitutions
If a states constitutions clause articulates the same guarantee as the US condition, state courts are free to interpret their state’s clause to provide more individual protections that the US supreme court’s interpretation of the federal clause
THE 4th Amendment: Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
 
Guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures… and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized
Includes searches and seizures of property and arrests of persons
 
Limited to Conduct by the government or an agent of the government
Certain acts by private personas may be deemed governmental
Acts as agent/instrument of government
Act due to government domination or coercion
Government participates too much in the conduct
What is a Search?
Old Approach
Trespassory Invasion of persons or tangible property [Olmstead v. US] Needed actual ‘physical invasion’
Did not include blood tests, which do not “shock the conscience of the court” and therefore not an unreasonable search. [Schmerber v. CA] Modern Approach
Two Prong Test for when a reasonable expectation of privacy is violated. [Katz v. US] Prong 1: Actual Expectation of privacy (subjective)
Prong 2: Expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. (Objective).
When both prongs are met, it equals 4th Amendment search and a valid search warrant or an applicable search warrant expectation is required prior to search.
: Knowing exposure to public (even in home or office) is not a search because it fails prong1, thus not subject by the 4th A.
: That which individual seeks to keep private (even in public places) satisfies prong 1, thus may be protected by the 4th A.
subjective desire for privacy often shown by taking steps to shield area, item or activity from observation
: Use of infrared scanning of one’s homes is a 4th A. search, which requires a search warrant. [Kyllo v. Jones] Post- Katz, a 4th A search can still be found based on trespass theory; governmental intrusion into physically occupied private property for the purposes of obtaining information is a search for 4th A purposes [Jones v. US] EX: Governmental installation of a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s vehicle on private property constituted a search for 4th A purposes and thus required probable cause and a warrant [US v. Jones] Routine Traffic Stop
If suspect is validly arrested during a routine traffic stop, suspect’s person and vehicle can be searched without a search warrant (search incident to arrest exception) [Chimel v. CA; People v. Belton] : Search of the vehicle based on the arrest alone is reasonable only if there is an actual and continuing threat to officer’s safety or preservation of evidence. [AZ v. Gant] Issuing a citation during a routine traffic stop does not allow officer to search without a search warrant [Knowles v. IA] If police have probable cause to believe evidence o