Criminal Procedure Outline—Huffman, Fall 2008
I. OVERVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
A. How a case enters the system
a. See case flow (C)
b. In a felony prosecution, the case enters as follows:
i. Complaint is filed in front of Magistrate.
1. Magistrate does not have authority to try this case, but is to see to arraignment and conduct hearings re: D’s custody or put him into trial court.
2. Magistrate can have prelim examination to determine if enough facts to keep D in custody, while grand jury determines if should bring case to trial court; i.e. if there is enough probable cause to bring case to trial.
3. If in state court, the magistrate can determine if there is probable cause
ii. D will then be moved to Trial Court.
1. Indictment: means grand jury have met and heard testimony from gov’t and decided: probable cause exists to believe D is guilty of crime or crimes. This becomes the charging instrument.
B. What agencies are involved
a. Criminal Justice System is a collection of entities—FBI, DEA federal orgs function separately from the other 50 state police forces.
b. More than 10K police groups; no basic standard by which they are accountable.
C. Case flow through the system
a. Police Contact
b. Detention = seizure for limited time
c. Arrest = seizure w/in meaning of 4th amendment, which requires p.c.
d. Charging = prosecutor files charge in court, accusing person of committing crime.
e. Arraignment = there will be issues as to whether this process was speedy
f. Preliminary Examination
g. Trial Court
i. new pleading, an Information, is filed
h. Pretrial Motion
i. Motions in limine (e.g. motion to suppress statements.)
i. Jury Trial
j. Verdict
k. Appeal
l. Post Conviction Review
D. Significant stages in the system
a. We focus on earlier stages of process (stages a –e )
b. Majority of material focuses on police evidence gathering practices
E. Sources of law relative to criminal procedure
[end notes 8.25]
II. ARREST
= taking a person into custody in a criminal case.
Intro Notes
· Rule 4: Criminal Complaint = contains info that claims D has already committed a crime.
· If complaint establishes p.c., then judge must issue arrest warrant
· 4 items to consider when evaluating an arrest:
1) When did the arrest take place? This is important b/c the arrest generates the search, and generates the evidence.
2) Was the arrest justified? Aka Was there Probable Cause or whether or not the seizure was reasonable.
3) Was there a warrant? Was the warrant valid?
4) Was the search incident to the arrest?
A. Probable cause defined
a. Giordenello v. US
i. Facts—officer put information in complaint alleging D committed a crime. D was arrested while carrying bag w/ narcotics.
ii. Held—Insufficient information contained in the complaint to determine whether p.c. existed.
iii. Analysis—
1. Officer only stated that D committed crime, did not give magistrate enough info to determine if p.c. existed. If there’s not enough info and yet complaints were found valid, there’d be no need for a mag to evaluate whether p.c. existed.
2. Don’t know how the officer knew where the information about D came from/whether informant was reliable, thus cannot track its credibility or weight.
b. Aguilar v. Texas to assess reliability of information in a warrant or p.c. assessment:
i. Who is the source/information?
ii. How to tell if source is reliable?
c. Jaben v. US
i. Facts—Gov’t wanted to charge D for tax issue. The statute of limitations for the tax prosecution was about to run, so the gov’t filed a crim complaint to get additional time to bring the case to trial. Gov’t argued: no need to show p.c. yet, only must file criminal complaint
ii. Held—Gov’t must establish probable cause for the complaint.
iii. Analysis—court determined that the Gov’t did establish p.c. because:
1. Agent looked at tax returns
2. Consulted 3rd parties business associates
3. Public records
4. income amount of alleging petitioner’s income
iv. Note—this case was interpreting probable cause for tax prosecution, not probable cause for purpose of an arrest warrant (if this case were for arrest warrant, facts would fail aguilar test.)
d. Coolidge v. New Hampshire (note case)
i. In NH, the A.G. did not usually prosecute criminal cases, under that constitution, AG was a justice of the peace and used to be able to issue search warrants.
ii. Issue—Can the AG be a neutral detached magistrate?
iii. Decision—No. The Court held that the A.G. was not a neutral and detached magistrate’, his role is that of a prosecutor of law enforcement.
e. Search Warrant v. Arrest Warrant
i. Search Warrant = looks to future. Cops think there is evidence they want to locate during a certain time period and they have p.c. to believe it is true
ii. Arrest warrant = looks to past. Cops say: “We have evidence this person committed a crime. Does not expire and may toll the statute of limitations.
B. Arrest without warrant
a. If one is going to arrest without a warrant, one must still establish probable cause, which the magistrate will later review.
b. Presumption: all seizures w/o warrants are presumed to be unreasonable
c. U.S. v. Watson
i. Facts— Informant told cops D was selling stolen cards. Informant met w/ Watson, gave cops a signal to move in, they moved in, did not find card on him, but then asked him to search his car. Found stolen cards in D’s car. D filed motion to suppress claiming arrest was illegal for lack of p.c. and an arrest warrant; and b/c he was not told he could withhold consent for them to search his car.
ii. Issue– Can one make an arrest for a felony without having an arrest warrant, even if you had time to acquire one?
peal). Thus, appellate courts need not give deference to trial court.
v. Analysis—
1. This means: the record must be sufficiently developed and contain historical facts to preserve the record.
2. Or, if there is an arrest warrant, then the historical facts should be established in the affidavit.
h. Whren v. US (Pretextual stop case)
i. Facts—Whren stopped by detectives in unmarked police car. Detectives have probable cause to believe Whren committed a traffic violation. But the stop was pretextual. (In this context, once the car was stopped, assume the rest of the conduct was lawful.) Didn’t stop Whren for traffic, they stopped to check for something else.
ii. Issue–Should it be illegal to stop a person based upon a pretext?
iii. Isn’t there a risk of harassment, if police officer can stop anyone based on small traffic violation, to look for something else?
iv. USSC Held–: Police conduct is measured objectively. Objectively, Whren violated traffic law. Thus, police had authority to stop.4th amendment merely requires some objective basis to conduct the stop.
v. Yes, it does give rise to harassment/improper use. There are profiling issues that may arise from there. But 4th amendment is not the vehicle to deal with this, there are other remedies to deal with this type of concern.
C. Arrest with Warrant
a. If one is going to arrest based upon a warrant, one must estab. Probable cause with an affidavit and bring it before a magistrate.
D. Requirement of a Warrant
a. Exigent = need for immediacy; a reason why it is reasonable not to engage in the full-on warrant requirement.
i. Examples of exigent circumstances:
1. 1) harm to people
2. 2) flight/escape—principle: we want to seize people where there is a justification that they committed a crime. There is a public interest in arresting those for whom there is justification for an arrest.
3. 3) loss of evidence.
4. 4) timing: e.g. if officer observes something happen at the moment, it is probable not reasonable for the officer to run to the court to get a warrant.
b. Payton v. New York (Arrest inside dwelling case)
i. Background—This is not an exigent circumstance case; there was time to get a warrant. There was P.C.
Facts– Cops got info (and probable cause) that D had murdered someone. They went to his apartment intending to arrest him and they
