Select Page

Criminal Procedure
University of Toledo School of Law
Hamilton, Melissa

I. Criminal Procedure – Introduction

A. Criminal procedure balances:

Society vs. individual
Formal vs. informal social control
Ends (crime control) v. means (fairness in the control)

B. Bill of Rights
· 14th Amendment
o Not applied to states
§ Grand jury hearing
§ Excessive bail and fines
o Applies to states
§ Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
§ Unduly suggestive identification procedures
§ Cannot intentionally destroy exculpatory evidence
§ Coerced confessions cannot be used
o Feds but not states
§ 12 person jury
§ Unanimous verdict
C. Norms

Accuracy/Fairness/Intrusive gov’t/Efficiency

II. Exclusionary Rule

A. Exclusionary Rule

Def: Evidence obtained in violation of Constitutional rights is not admissible in a criminal trial against the D

Now applies to states
Silver Platter Doctrine – federal government asked state to do the search, then hand over the evidence to the feds
Mapp v. Ohio – applied exclusionary rule to states and state behavior.


Non-Trial Criminal Proceedings

i. Illegally seized evidence MAY constitutionally be introduced in a variety of non-trial criminal proceedings

Private persons collecting evidence on their own will not be excluded

Impeachment (only the D) at Trial

i. D direct testimony
ii. Answers to legitimate questions put to the D during cross-examination
1. *** can never bring in coerced confession***

“Good Faith” Exception (allows tree/direct evidence to be used)

i. Evidence obtained by a police officer in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently found invalid may be admissible. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
1. Test: Would a reasonably well-trained officer would have believed that the warrant was valid?
a. Rationale: no individual constitutional right to exclusion
b. Not good faith: part-time judge giving warrant
2. Many states have rejected this exception

ii. Circumstances Suggesting Invalidity of Warrant
1. the magistrate who issued the warrant relied on info for affidavit that affiant knew was false or recklessly disregarded the truth;
2. the magistrate’s behavior was so lacking in neutrality that it would have been apparent to a reasonable officer, e.g., signing warrant without reading it
3. the warrant is based on an affidavit lacking sufficient indicia of reliability, e.g., if a warrant is issued based on a wholly conclusory affidavit;
4. the warrant is facially deficient in that it fails to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized.

iii. Improperly Executed Warrants
1. Are not cured by good faith

iv. Extension of Good Faith Exception
1. Extension to non-warrant search based on an error by court employee (and not a police officer) Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995)
a. a police officer relied on a clerical error made by a court employee; because of the error, the patrol car computer showed that there was an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for defendant’s arrest; a subsequent warrantless search of the defendant’s car incident to the arrest revealed marijuana.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (FPTD)

Generally – the exclusionary rule extends not only to the direct products of an unconstitutional search and seizure but also to ancillary evidence (obtained later) that results from the illegal search.
Tree = constitutional violation (4th, failure to read Miranda (not traffic), 6th, coerced confession)
Fruits = physical evidence, statement, other witnesses
Subject to three qualifications:

i. the independent source doctrine;
ii. the inevitable discovery rule; and
iii. the attenuated connection principle.

Independent Source Doctrine (derivative)

i. Evidence not causally linked to unconstitutional governmental activity is admissible

ii. Applies if the challenged evidence is:
1. first discovered during lawful police activity; or
2. initially discovered unlawfully, but is later obtained lawfully in a manner independent of the original discovery.
3. Burden on gov’t to prove the second search was independent

2. D can testify at a suppression hearing about standing w/o testimony used at trial
3. Can have a privacy interest in item while no privacy interest in the area
a. Rawlings v. Kentucy (dropped jar into stranger’s purse) – no expectation of privacy in the stranger’s purse
i. May have had privacy interest if he was given permission

ii. Test: did the person who claims protection from the 4th Amendment have a legitimate expectation of privacy (in the area searched)?
1. non-owner occupant of car…maybe, if you have complete control (Rakas)
2. non-owner passenger… unlikely
3. car out of owner’s possession… split (most say legit if for a short time)
4. overnight guest… likely
5. merely present in a residence… unlikely
6. shared business office… possibly
7. Factors for residence (Minnesota v. Carter,525 U.S. 83 (1998))
a. Nature of transaction… commercial? (unlikely legit expectation)
b. temporal…how long in the residence?
c. Previous connections btwn D and occupant
iii. Payner
1. purposefully target one by conduct an unlawful search/seizure in order to protect another?

Gov’t Action

i. Need for 4th Amendment
1. Private person acting as gov’t agent (totality of circumstances) = gov’t
2. Public employees = gov’t
3. Administrative Searches

Extraterritorial Searches and Seizures

i. Citizens are not protected outside the US from searches
ii. Foreign officers can turn over the evidence to the feds (unless significant US involvement in the search)
iii. Non-residents temporarily or involuntarily in the US are not protected from foreign searches just because they are in the US
1. the gov’t can even conduct these searches