Criminal Procedure Outline

Criminal Procedure Cases
I. Introduction
Overview of the Process –
The Good Old Days
Incorporation Doctrine
Barron v. Baltimore
Slaughter-House Cases
Hurtado v. California
Twining v. New Jersey
Powell v. Alabama
Palko v. Connecticut
Adamson v. California
Duncan v. Louisiana
Graham v. Connor
Gerstein v. Pugh
U.S. v. Good Real Property
Albright v. Oliver
Principles of Due Process Clause and Its Application –
A citizen cannot rely on due process if a specific Bill of Rights guarantee would provide the same constitutional protection
Where a specific Bill of Rights protection has traditionally regulated an area of criminal investigation or prosecution, and yet provides no protection in a particular case, it is very unlikely that a citizen can rely upon a more general due process guarantee
Independent protection under the Due Process Clause remains viable where governmental activity, as in Good, has some purpose other than enforcement of the criminal law
Independent protection under the Due Process Clause remains viable even in criminal cases where no specific Bill of Rights guarantee has been traditionally applied
pp. 16-17:(1994) p. 15 – No substantive right under Due Process Clause to be free from criminal prosecution except on probable cause(1993) p. 15 – 4th Amendment compliance not enough when government seizes property for civil forfeiture (1975) p. 15 – 4th Amendment, NOT “procedural due process,” determines when arrestee is entitled to probable cause hearing (1989) p. 14 – Excessive force claims must be examined under 4th Amendment, NOT the broader “substantive due process”(1968) p. 8 – 6th Amendment right to jury trial is binding on states; “selective incorporation” established (1947) p. 7 – Majority reaffirms Twining, Black dissents (1938) p. 7 – 14th Amendment enforces some rights in Bill of Rights against states, but double jeopardy clause is not one of them (1932) p. 7 – Denial of counsel in capital case effectively denied right to be heard and thus denied a fundamental right (1908) p. 7 – Self-incrimination privilege not binding on states (1884) p. 7 – California could institute criminal proceedings by information rather than grand jury (1873) p. 7 – Reinforced Barron view after Civil War; 4 justices dissented(1833) p. 6 – Bill of Rights only applies to federal government– Handout
II. Search & Seizure
A. Introduction
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urdiquez
(1990) p. 32 – 4th Amendment inapplicable to property owned by non-resident alien and located in foreign country
B. Reach of 4th Amendment – Is Government Activity a “Search”? (Reasonable Expectation of Privacy)
Katz v. U.S.
1. An actual, subjective expectation of privacy exists, and
2. It is an expectation society recognizes as reasonable
U.S. v. Place
Texas v. Brown
U.S. v. Oliver
3. No legitimate privacy expectation outdoors, except in curtilage
4. No societal interest in protecting privacy of activities occurring in open fields
5. Fences and “No Trespassing” signs do not generally protect open fields from public view
6. Only curtilage warrants 4th amendment protections that attach to the home
7. Curtilage defined by factors determining whether an individual may expect an area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private
8. An open field need be neither “open” nor a “field” (“Discuss!”)
(Also, trespass has no applicability to the 4th Amendment
U.S. v. VanDamme
Husband v. Bryan
U.S. v. Dunn
Four factors determine curtilage:
Proximity to home
Included in enclosure surrounding home?
Nature of use
Steps taken to protect privacy
U.S. v. White
Maryland v. Macon
California Bankers v. Shultz
U.S. v. Miller
Smith v. Maryland
People v. Bialostok
U.S. v. Meriwether
U.S. v. Chan
State v. Neisler
California v. Greenwood
U.S. v. Hedrick
U.S. v. Scott
Connecticut v. Mooney
D’Aguanna v. Gallagher
U.S. v. White
U.S. v. Delaney
California v. Ciraolo
Dow Chemical v. U.S.
Florida v. Riley
Sarantopoulos v. State
U.S. v. Place
U.S. v. Ludwig
U.S. v. $5000
U.S. v. Trayer
U.S. v. $30,060
U.S. v. Lyons
U.S. v. Thomas
U.S. v. Colyer
U.S. v. Lingenfelter
U.S. v. Jacobson
State v. von Bulow
Skinner v. Railway
U.S. v. Pinson
U.S. v. Taborda
U.S. v. Mankami
Texas v. Brown
Dow Chemical v. U.S.
Hudson v. Palmer
Bell v. Wolfish
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
O’Connor v.
Lopez v. U.S.
Lewis v. U.S.
Gouled v. U.S.
Hoffa v. U.S.
(1966) p. 371 – Misplaced confidence in an associate does not give rise to 4th Amendment protection; we assume some risk whenever we speak(1921) p. 371 – Undercover activity in home may not exceed scope of invitation(1966) p. 370 – When you invite an agent into your home to engage in illegal acts, the belief that you are dealing with another lawbreaker does not require constitutional protection from the belief(1966) p. 370 – Wired undercover agent not a search because by engaging in illegal activity, one runs the risk that it will be reproduced in court by some means Ortega (1987) p. 66 – Public employer’s intrusions upon constitutionally protected privacy interest of employees should be judged by reasonableness under all circumstances(1985) p. 65 – Students do not waive all rights to privacy in legitimate, noncontraband items merely by bringing them onto school grounds(1979) p. 65 – Prisoner’s expectation of privacy against body searches is “of diminished scope”(1984) p. 65 – Prisoner has no constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in his cell or papers or property therein(1986) p. 64 – Mere fact that human vision is enhanced, at least to some degree, does not give rise to constitutional problems; decided on facts of each case(1983) p. 64 – Use of flashlight in darkened area is not a search(1984) p. 64 – Overheard conversation through pre-existing hole in hotel room wall does not violate reasonable expectation of privacy(1980) p. 64 – Using telescope to see things not visible with naked eye from across the street violates reasonable privacy interest(1994) p. 59 – No reasonable expectation of privacy in the heat that radiates from your home into surrounding airspace; thermal detection devices upheld in U.S. v. Feeney (1993), U.S. v. Ishmael (1995); not followed in State v. Young (1994)(1989) p. 58 – Urine testing for drugs IS a search because of other info it may reveal (1984) p. 58 – Chemical test of pills, retrieved by victim’s children from defendant’s closet and bathroom, was improper without a warrant(1984) p. 57 – Chemical test to reveal whether a substance is contraband does not compromise a legitimate privacy interest(1993) p. 57 – Not search to sniff building or item, but left open the question of whether sniffing a person is a search (1989) p. 57 – Dog sniff of train sleeping compartment not a search(1985) p. 57 – Dog sniff of a home IS a search(1992) p. 56 – Dog tearing open drug package is not a search, but a natural act(1994) p. 56 – Alert is probative but must be combined with other evidence to support probable cause(1990) Less than scrupulously neutral proceedings creating possibility of unconscious cuings may jeopardize dog sniff’s reliability (1994) p. 56 – Dog sniff NOT probable cause because of widespread currency contamination(1993) p. 56 – Positive dog alert suffices for probable cause; random vehicle sniffs NOT searches(1983) p. 55 – Investigation that can ONLY uncover illegal activity not a search; canine sniffs for drugs(1993) p. 55 – No search where officer stands on tiptoes to peer over fence(1989) p. 54 – “Ordinary overflight” case; if information is available to the public, then an officer can act as any member of the public could, and obtain the information free from 4th Amend