Criminal Procedure Skinny
Thom Bittick Fall 2003 – Prof Nowlin’s class
Duncan v Louisiana (1968)
*Convicted of Battery…wanted jury trial but LA said “minor crime” no jury.
SCt: 14th Amend makes 6th Amend applicable to states
Rule: Serious Crimes afforded Jury Trial
Boyd v US (1886)
*Gov takes papers (mere evid) w/o a superior possessory interest (i.e. contraband, stolen goods, and instrumentalities of crime).
*4th Amen seen as protecting property rights.
Rule: 4th and 5th cyclic protection of one another in protecting property
4th……search w/o warrant = prohibited
5th……seize w/ warrant = prohibited as against Self Incrimination.
*FBI wiretap OUTSIDE home
*Had tap been inside, it would have been violation of Boyd
Rule: No property rights in conversation…. b/c “intangible.”
Schmerber v CA (1966)
*DUI case – blood taken over objection
*FIRST case to reject “Property Rights” (Boyd) analysis of 4th and 5th
4th = Privacy
5th = communication (written and oral) testimony
Rule: 5th Amend: Gov’t can’t force to testify against self
4th Amend: Gov’t can force to hand over physical evidence with a search
warrant & P/C or P/C and warrant exception
Warden v Hayden (1967)
*Rejects “mere evidence rule”
*Protecting “Property Rights” = crude way to protect “Privacy”
Rule: Search for “mere evidence” is no more intrusive than searching for contraband/ stolen goods/ or instrumentalities.
Katz v US (1967)
*Guy in phone booth, Gov’t taps outside of booth.
*SCt: 4th Amend protects people, not places!
Rule: THRESHOLD QUESTION –
“IS THIS A SEARCH?”
KATZ TEST———à 1) Actual Subjective Expectation of Privacy
2) Reasonable Justifiable Objective Expectation of Privacy
**Katz had a justifiable objective “reasonable expectation of Privacy”
Schmerber (1966) ——-à
Hayden (1967) —à
Katz (1967) ———à Kills Boyd
Search? Or No Search?
US v White (1971)
*“False Friend” has wired phone – state’s evidence to police
Rule: No reasonable expectation of privacy regarding other party on phone
“ASSUMPTION OF RISK”
Katz Modified Rule
(1) Actual Subj Expectation of Privacy (all criminals say they have subj exp)
(2) Reasonable Justifiable Objective Expectation of Privacy
Rule: No reasonable expectation of privacy in TRASH
*Squeeze luggage on Bus
*Tactile search triggers (#2 INTRUSIVENESS)
Rule: Touching an item in an “exploratory manner” = Search
Kyllo v US (2001)
Rule: Sense enhancing equipment = search unless technology in general use (binoculars etc.)
Emp – no one expecting
1. Value of home the highest
2. Intrusive b/c sense enhancement – couldn’t do w/o
3. Very costly to guard against
4. Law enforcement – easily abused.
Western Alfalfa Corp
Rule: Visual observation of smoke from “open fields” not search or seizure.
Rakas v Illinois
Rule: AUTO PASSENGER no legitimate privacy interest in unlocked glove box or under front seat.
Hudson v Palmer
Rule: PRISONER has no legitimate privacy expectation in CELL.
New York v Class:Rule: AUTO OWNER has no legitimate privacy interest in VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER