Select Page

Criminal Procedure
University of Kentucky School of Law
Welling, Sarah N.

Criminal Procedure Welling Spring 2006 Outline
Miscellaneous Issues
I.                    nature and scope of 14th Am. DP
a.      fundamental fairness theory—incorporation of those provisions implicit in the concept of ordered liberty
b.      total incorporation theory—BofR completely incorporated to sts
c.      selective incorporation theory—provisions applied to sts on a case by case basis; this has replaced fundamental fairness as the approach used; everything except GJ Cl, 8th Am. excessive bail/fines cl incorporated; incorporation brings with it all interpretive fed’l caselaw
II.                 Const applies only to govt’l actors
a.      4th Am. pvt parties—4th Am. doesn’t apply when evid obtained by non-govt’l actors (Burdean v. McDowell), even when given to LE (US v. Jacobsen)
Fourth Amendment
I.                    the exclusionary rule
a.      basic ER—evid obtained in violation of 4th Am is excluded, so long as that exclusion would gen’y deter police misconduct (Mapp v. OH)
b.      exceptions to ER
                                                               i.      good faith exc—no exclusion of evid obtained from warrant issued without PC but relied upon by LE; no deterrence would result from exclusion; ER only applies when it would sub’y/systematically deter LE, not judges (US v. Leon)
1.      breadth of exc—exc doesn’t apply when, under totality of circs: 1. LE lies or is reckless with truth in affadavit; 2. magistrate wholly abandons jud’l role; 3. warrant obviously facially invalid (glaring deficiency that a reas’l person would notice) (Groh v. Ramirez)
2.      search pursuant to stat later declared unconst’l—no deterrence to LE (here: legislators), therefore no exclusion (IL v. Krull)
                                                             ii.      GJ exc—no exclusion at GJ hearings (US v. Calandra)
                                                            iii.      probation/parole revocation exc—no exclusion at revocation hearings (PA Bd. of Prob’n & Parole v. Scott)
                                                           iv.      quasi-criminal/civil cases—no exclusion at IRS assessment hearings (US v. Janis) or INS deportation hearings (INS v. Lopez-Mendoza); but ER still applies to civil forfeiture hearings (One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. PA)
                                                             v.      non-LE exc—no exclusion where actor could not be deterred (AZ v. Evans: ct clerks can’t be; NJ v. TLO: teachers can be)
                                                           vi.      foreign citizen exc—no exclusion where D doesn’t accept enough societal oblig’ns to become part of the nat’l comm’y (US v. Verdugo-Urquidez)
                                                          vii.      proposed excs—Kaplan proposes no exclusion when: 1. crime is serious; 2. LE gen’y tries to adhere to Const.
c.      other remedies—1. 42 USC § 1983 (st actors); 2. Bivens v. 6 Unknown Name

a.      Katz v. US—rejects trespass doctrine: 4th Am. protects people (interests) and not places
                                                               i.      Harlan’s conc—4th Am. applies only when there is a REP: 1. person has actual subj’v expectation of privacy, and 2. expectation one society prepared to recognize as obj’y reas’l
b.      evaluating whether there is a REP
                                                               i.      ind’l subj’v prong—essentially irrelevant today, any D would claim it
                                                             ii.      obj’y reas’l prong—multi-factor analysis
factors for a REP—1. relevance of other law low (Oliver v. US: trespass laws ignored); 2. possibility vs. probablity of violation of privacy (Katz v. US); 3. premises searched (See v. City of Seattle: bus premises and pvt areas in public places same as pvt prop); 4. manipulation of container/contents (NY v. Class: papers in car; Bond v. US: luggage); 5. tech not in gen’l public use search of a const’y protected area (Kyllo v. US: heat imager on home); 6. tracking item location in a home (US v. Karo: beeper); 7. social guest on premises (MN v. Carter)