The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that state action be consistent with principles of liberty and justice.

Brown and others convicted of murder based only on their own admissions induced by torture/beatings.  

Confessions cannot be induced by violence - violated due process clause, hard to convict based on confessions alone

Involuntary confessions not allowed - voluntary is key

Due process requires that criminal defendants have the right to counsel both at trial and in the time leading up to trial when consultation and preparation take place.

Powell and other illiterate blacks convicted of rape, were not given chance to get independent counsel, given local counsel 1 day before trial,  three separate trials held 6 days afterward convictions.  

Capital case, trial judge must appoint counsel per due process clause, even if def rejects counsel.  

The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to state court proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Duncan convicted of battery by judge in Lousiana, but LA law says trial by jury only for capital punishment or hard labor.  Duncan appeals for trial by Jury, wins.  14th amendment guarantees right of jury trial for all cases eligible under 6th amendment.  

As usual, a check against abuse of power

6th vs 14th Amendment

also do 4th and 5th amendment

6th Amend - trial by jury, assistance of counsel, speed and public trial, impartial jury, able to confront witnesses and evidence. 

14th Amendment - no state can abridge rights of citizens, cannot deprive life liberty, pursuit of happiness without due process or law, cannot deny any person equal protection under the law.  

bill of rights and other amendments not directly applicable to state and local govs - only applicable fed gov action - but 14th amendment then applies bill of rights to state gov (no state shall abridge..)

14th amendment has: citizenship clause, privileges and immunities clause, deprive of Life Liberty due process. property clause, equal protection clause

Citizenship if born in US

P&I (only right to travel, slaughterhouse cases)

Due process clause (Liberty --> includes all bill of rights)

Equal protection

14th amendment does not incorporate 3rd (housing infantry) or 5th(only grand jury indictment) or 7th (jury trial in CIVIL cases) or unamiminity of jury conviction.  

The United States and federal officials are prohibited from executing unreasonable searches and seizures upon people; 14th amend incorporates this into state/local officials.

Weeks convicted of gambling, convicted based on letters taken by officer without warrant. Birth of the EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Be careful that it is a search or seizure that is being challenged, what is probable cause, place to be search must be particularly described and what are to be seized.  

It is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for state actors to gather evidence through unreasonable searches and seizures, but such evidence need not be excluded from state criminal proceedings.  Including fruit of the poisoned tree

Inadmissible for federal crimes, but can still be used to convict for state crimes  

Overruled with Mapp vs Ohio - state actors with no warrant NOT admissible for state crimes

Does not apply to private acts where evidence is provided without proper warrant - landlord search apt finds drugs - this evidence is admissible.  

The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures of physical items extends to recordings of oral statements.

Katz convicted of fed gambling laws based on a unwarranted wire tap of a public phone that Katz used.  

Even though no invasion/tresspass, still unwarranted search and seizure - not limited to a specific place - if there is an expectation of privacy, there is protection against search seizure. 

Search and Seize does not apply to misplaced expectations of trust and therefore there is no 4th protection with an undercover officer wearing a wire.  

Police can write down undercover discussions and is same as recording conversation. 

Phone booth is expected privacy, privacy is not extended when speaking to others, but cannot otherwise violate a reasonable expectation of privacy

Subjective/actual expectation AND reasonable/legitimate/objective expectation - did not have objective expectation because you told someone else.  

A person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information that the person voluntarily turns over to third parties. Also no expectation of privacy to contraband (dog sniffer allowed). 

Smith convicted based on pen registry of records of phone numbers he has called or recieved calls from.  Everyone knows that the phone company keeps these records.  Access to these records do not violate 4th S&S. 

In 1986 congress gave more rights to protect against pen registries - can only be accessed now with a warrant. States can provide even broader protection than 4th S&S.  

Law enforcement's use of sense-enhancing technology to see details of a private home that would not be discoverable without physically entering the home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

Kyllo arrested for growing weed, police used thermal imaging of house to see grow lamps.  

Dissent said other evidence can be seen such as snow melting outside faster and search was not INSIDE as thermal detection looks at outside heat

Warrant allowed the placement of the tracker for 10 days and only placed when in DC, but was put on the 11th day and put on in MD. 

S&S extends to vehicles ("effects") and must be done within parameters of the warrant.  Search is whenever gov physicaly intrudes on personal property, S&S occurs - think tresspass laws.  Also when/where there is reasonable expectation of privacy (phone booth). Tresspass AND reasonable expectations theory of S&S

A drug-sniffing dog on a porch to investigate the contents of the home is a 4th amend search 

Violation because the dog was not implicitly permitted to go on porch of home like a mail carrier. Was a physical trespass to the property even when they did not enter house.  

Dissent said police officer allowed to go to door, should be same for dog and reasonableness of privacy expectation does not apply to smelly marijuana that emanates from house. 

(1) A party unknowingly receiving a container containing a tracking device is not a 4th Amnd seizure. (2) The continued monitoring of a tracking device inside multiple private places is a 4th Amend search.

Gov informant sold container for making cocaine, put tracker in container which was taken inside home and many other private commercial structures.  

Seizure is when gov meaningfully interferes with possessory interest in the persons property, tracker is trespass but not interfering with property.  

Was a search because infringes on reasonable expectation of privacy.  

What are the remedies for violation of the 4th amendment - civil tort suits, etc.  but ultimately is the exclusionary rule - cannot use evidence in trial.  

Dog sniffers allowed because they only detect contraband and no expectation of privacy for illegal substances.  

Police can also enter into "open fields" privately owned (does not need to be open or field) - open field does not constitute a person, house, paper or effects - no reasonable expectation of privacy - even if private property or with no tresspassing sign - curtilage is deinfed as house and around the house, garage, pool, tennis courts, etc. Even a barn that is outside of a house fence can be searched.  

Trash on the curb can be searched as well.  no expectation of privacy.  abandoment, giving to 3rd party. 

An affidavit that lacks sufficient detail to explain why an informant is reliable does not provide the necessary probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

Spinelli convicted of gambling based on evidence obtained with warrant.  Warrant was obtained based on info from a confidential informant.  Spinelli challenged based on 4th S&S. 

Sup said judge must establish credibility of info for a warrant, affidativ must have sufficient detail to explain why informant is reliable.  Some info corroborated, but need good showing of reliability of witness, which they did not have against spinelli.  

 A warrant application satisfies the Fourth Amendment probable cause requirement so long as it establishes a substantial basis for concluding that a search will uncover evidence of wrongdoing. 

Police get anonymous letter saying Gates drug dealing, had lots of detail - almost all of it was correct.  Police get warrant to search home and car, find drugs, guns etc.  

Gates objected saying police affidavit for warrant did not support probable cause to get warrant.  Gates loses, Partially Corroborated statements made by unknown informant is probable cause.  

Cell phone location records are protected under S&S of the 4th amendment.searches undertaken to discover criminal activity are typically not reasonable. (ASK to ensure this is correct page 2221 of carpentr)

Users expect their data to be private, times have changed since Smith vs Maryland (telephone records were searchable) 

As technology has enhanced the Government's capacity to encroach upon areas normally guarded from inquisitive eyes, this Court has sought to 'assure[ ] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.

Seizure is a material interference with a possessory interest in property - but not before the property being owned by the purported owner (Karo canister case) 

Can seize contraband, fruits of a crime, instruments in the conduct of the crime, and mere evidence (such as bloody shirt) that will aid in the demonstrtation of a crime 

sizeure of a person occurs when the liberty of the citizen by law enforcement. 

1) basis of knowledge prong (officers personal observation, police informant, informant incrimination hearsay from informant, etc) .

2) Veracity prong (Credibility of informant spur and reliability of information spur)

Both are not required (Gates where anonymous letter that is corroborated with other evidence is sufficient prob cause). 

Common sense, practical determination of probable cause

Absent exigent circumstances, the police may not enter a person’s home to make an arrest without a warrant.

Police had probable cause that Peyton committed murder, go to his house, knock on door, does not answer.  THey break in and get evidence against peyton but he is not there. 

Exigent Circumstances are hot pursuit, invited in, suspect flee or destroy evidence. 

All arrests require probable cause, arrests in public places do not require warrants.  Probable cause determination wihtin 48 hours by impartial magistrate - like a warrant after the fact (because was in public area) in a non adversary proceeding.  

If warrant to arrest at home but suspect is in another house, can they go in to other house - need search warrent for other house - unless exigent circumstances. 

Cannot use excessive use of force - reasonableness standard - substantial and imminent risk injury to others

A warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, based upon probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and it must describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

Detective buys obscene video from store, presents to magistrate as probable cause, says there are "similar items" for sale - warrant was not well defined and judge went with officer to search and seize.  Amended warrant listed all items that they seized after the fact.

Judge was not impartial and was part of the investigation.  Also not met the particularly requirement for search for specific items, 

Police entering a home must knock and announce their identity and purpose before attempting forcible entry, unless exigent circumstances exist and to do so would undermine law enforcement interest.

Richards drug dealer in a hotel room, police with warrant come to door, do not identify themselves and kick down the door.  Confiscate evidence.  Needed to act quickly. 

In this case, sup ct say that it was OK in this case as Richards was likely to run, destroy evidence, and other exigent circumstances justifying no knock rule.  

Cannot arise from officers unreasonable or unconstitutional conduct (banging on door and announcing police)

hot pusuit

violence

destruction of evidence

community caretaking (see heart attack, fight)

consent by person in house is ok to serach

In connection with a lawful arrest, warrantless search in the area in close control by the accused can be done  (wife lets police in, suspect arrested with warrant inside home, then search, search of house was violation of 4thS&S)

Cannot search cell phone of arrested person unless there is exigent circumstances (rare with smartphones)

Can search the car, but not trunk even in an arrest; but only if arrested in the car not if suspect got out of car.

Cannot conduct a warrantless search a cell phone seized incident to an arrest absent exigent circumstances (Chimel). Can search the case but not digital data.  Can prevent phone lock if already unlocked. Expectation of privacy upon arrest is already low, can look at screen. Cannot search phone records on cell despite penn register because more medidata in cell phone call log. 

Riley arrested, phone was searched, found incriminating evidence leading to conviction.  

Search person for officer safety and to avoid destruction of evidence.  Once they confiscate the phone, neither safety or evidence reasons justify search of cell phone.

1. Knock and announce with warrant unless exigent 
2. Wait 15-20 seconds before entering.
3. Able to search reasonable places associated with teh search warrant,
4. should stop search once key evidence found. 
5. May seize an item not in warrant w/reasonable belief.
6. if wrong apartment in good faith, still can use evidence seized. 
7. Search of place does not give carte blanc to search people inside unless specified in warrant. 
8. Can keep people in house from leaving when warrant for house.  
9. Can frisk people if reas believe they are armed. 

Can search person upon lawful arrest even if not suspected as violent and likely to have a weapon - will not require this justification because will be searched when put in cell to inventory the suspects' possessions. 

Pulleed over for DWI, it is a crime to refuse a breath or blood test.  

Breath test is not invasion, can be compelled. not sure of the law here - may differ state from state.

Incident to a lawful arrest, the police may search the area within the arrestee’s immediate control.

Belton pulled over for speeding, smelled marijuana, was then searched and found more drugs.  All OK because probable cause and their wingspan/ under immediate control.  

Courts also said that they could search luggage and closed containers within the passenger container.Must make search rules clear and easy for cops to work under.  Search must be contemporaneous to arrest.  

Cannot search if only for citation, only can search car if there is an arrest.  However, can arrest for nearly any reason during a stop with a citation violation.  

Can search car after appropriate arrest but only if:

1) the suspect is still in car and only search the area he can access 

OR

2) there is reason to believe that evidence associated with the crime - such as liquor if arrested for drunk driving. only search compartment in searchable reach 

Then can impound the car and do an inventory search of the car to document the items in the car - this can then be legal evidence.   

Can search all containers and within the containers in the car.  Cannot search trunk and other areas inaccessible to the passengers. 

If you have probable cause to seize and search containers if there is evidence or contraband of the crime that you stopped them for - such as smelling weed or booze - but cannot search if evidence cannot fit in the container (such as stolen tvs) - if think evidence is in trunk, cannot search glovebox.  

Can search passengers containers even without probable cause to arrest passenger.  

Can stop a car for one reason such as minor traffic but really stopping for ulterior motive.  

US Sup Court allows this by unanimous decision - would be a default argument/defense against additional evidence for every additional crime - subjective standard hard to administer, so US SUp ct said pretextual stops are acceptable.  

Cannot arrest under false pretenses and then impound vehicle to search the car.  Does raise concerns that it could be abused.  Cannot be racial profiling.  

A warrantless search of a car made at a police station is constitutional so long as there is probable cause to believe the car contains items that the officers are entitled to seize.

Four men rob gas station in blue station wagon, gets pulled over, arrested and impound car.  Then find guns and $$$  

This was appropriate search, because there was reason to believe that there may be evidence in the car.  THis is a automobile exception.  Must be contemporaneous to impounding.  

Under the Fourth Amendment, a vehicle that can be readily moved and that has a reduced expectation of privacy due to its use as a licensed motor vehicle may be searched without a warrant provided probable cause exists.

Carney selling marijuana out of his mobile home - police entered and found evidence. 

Mobile home is a vehicle not a home if readily movable and registered as a vehicle.  

Can seize items without warrant that are in

 "plain view" coincidental to search but can be covered, etc. but must

1) have lawful vantage point,

2) have right of physical access to it,

3) must be immediately apparent that it is contraband or evidence

4) probable cause (more than reasonable suspicion) to search for the evidence (cant move audio equipment to see serial numbers)

OR have freely and voluntary consent to search (look at totality of evidence)

does not need to be inadvertent finding of evidence

Once warrant evidence is found, search is over - cannot continue to search.  

The court must look at the totality of the circumstances in order to determine whether consent to a warrantless search absent probable cause was voluntarily given.

Routine traffic stop for broken headlight lacking prob cause for anything else, asked permission to search car, gave consent, found three stolen checks. Cannot falsely say police say they have warrant.  Can give limted consent of location or duration. 

Gov has burden to prove consent given was voluntary, do not have to tell the driver search is voluntary. WILL BE ON TEST - factors to include are age, education, etc to determine if they knew they could decline.  

The police may not enter a home without a warrant to search for evidence where they obtain consent from an occupant but a co-occupant is present and objects to the search.

All occupants who have real or apparent authority to give consent and are currently present must no object the search without warrant. Police Cannot without reason remove the objecting occupant.  

Under the Fourth Amendment, the police may enter a home without a warrant if they reasonably believe the person who consents to their presence has the authority to do so. real or apparent authority is ok.  

Woman abused in house, called police who came, gave them authorization to search, found drugs belonging to abuser, but she did not formally live there, but police believed she had authority to consent to search, but she did not.  Police acted reasonably to believe she had authority; search was acceptable.  

When an officer observes unusual conduct that reasonably leads him to assume that criminal activity is afoot and that the people he is interacting with are armed, the police officer may conduct a limited search for weapons.

SPACES anagram - searches allowed without warrant

Search incident to lawful arrest (within wingspan)

Plain view exception (immediate recognize evidence)

Automobile exception

Consent (voluntary and with apparent authority)

Exigent Circumstances

Special needs, protect others

The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless searches of containers found in automobiles provided the police have probable cause that the container contains contraband.

Acevido enters and exit a house with a package believed to be marjuana, puts bag in trunk of car, police stop searched trunk and found marijuana.  

Privacy expectations low for car, dont want two separate rules for container

Hot pursuit

Suspect leaving

Destruction of evidence

Harm to others

Warrantless ok if reasonable circumstances indicate urgent need to search/sieze and warrant is impractical.  

Except in the case of temporary stops on the street where the police need only have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the police may only seize a citizen based upon probable cause.

Dunaway asked to come to popo station for questioning re murder based on a suspision by police -  was not arrested but read miranda rights - but made incriminating satements and was convicted. 

A Fourth Amendment “seizure” occurs when a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave police custody.

Mendenhall exits plane, DEA plain clothed agent questions in separate room (seizure), medenhall consents to search, police find drugs she is trafficking.  Was not a seizure bc she could have left at any time.  

This may be different now given TSA and terrorist environment

The police may request consent to search a person, even if they have no basis for suspecting that individual of illegal activity, and the citizen is not subject to a Fourth Amendment seizure if a reasonable person would feel that he is free to leave. (police did not say you cannot leave).

Similar to car search consent - this was greyhound bus general search of bags, ask to frisk Drayton, consents, holds hand up as if consenting, finds drugs - no "reason" to believe that they could not deny the request

A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs where the police exercise physical force over a subject or where a subject submits to an officer’s show of authority.

Cops patroling park, youths huddled around car then took off running, cops pursue, one kid tosses cocaine - gets convicted.  

need more information - dont understand

To determine whether an informant’s tip provides reasonable suspicion, the totality of the circumstances must be analyzed, with attention given to the veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge of an informant.

Anonymous Informant - provides specifics where to find cocaine-defendant consents to search of purse, finds coke- contemporaneous reported, 

if seizure/car stop was lawful, then consent is also OK, if not, then consent is not OK.  Car stop was lawful because anonymous informant had already proven correct with pre-stop information - like terry stop in a car-suspicion. 

Incident to an arrest, the police may conduct a protective sweep of a premises based on reasonable suspicion that other people who pose a threat are in the building, provided the search is limited to those areas where a person may be hiding. - "protective sweep"

robbery suspect hiding in basement, comes up for arrest, another cop goes to basement to ensure no one else there that may pose risk to cops, finds red jumpsuit 

Can seize luggage if reasonable believe drugs & do dog search which is also legal

Terry Car frisk-check for weapons in passenger compt. always with specific and articulate facts.  

Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the police can establish checkpoints if the 1) state interest outweighs the2) intrusion into people’s privacy interests and the 3) checkpoint is proven to be an effective means of achieving the state’s goal. tHREE PART BALANCE TEST.  but very deferential to efficacy part of test. 

Drunk driving checkpoints are OK because it advances states interests of keeping drunks off road - even when only 1.6% of people stopped were drunk. 

25 seconds for each stop - not high burden on non drunks - NOT appropriate to only check for registration/licence. 

A suspicionless roadside checkpoint established for the purpose of deterring general criminal activity is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.

Random stops to search for drugs in cars not reasonable because states interest in DUI is higher (safety of roads) than capturing people with drugs that are otherwise not impaired.  

Standard rule (reasonable suspicion to stop/arrest  seizure) has few narrow exceptions, this is not one of those like DUI stops are one. 

Analysis - 1) does def have standing to raise 4th amen right (who has reasonable expectation of privacy), 2) are they a person protected by 4th- if it US citizen inside US or US citizine outside done by US law enforcement, also standing, also 4th applies to lawful resident who is not citizen, then 3) ??, then 4) it is a search or seizure curtilage analysis, paper and effects, does this apply, then 5) did police activity implicate search or seizure - what is a search or seizure - expectation of privacy, trespass theory - 6) was search or seize REASONABLE - did police have adequate grounds for S&S - was there a neutral magistrate, ws there a warrant, 7) does exclusionary rule apply?  Get from supplement from dressler - 

Search incident to lawful arrest

Plain view and immediately recognized as evidence

Automobile when impounded or suspect in car

Consent voluntary and with apparent authority

Exigent circumstances

Special needs, see someone having heart attack

A police officer may stop and frisk a citizen on the street when he has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and may pose a threat to the officer - espeically when he flees without provokation. 

high crime area, police come, Wardle flees without provokation, police stop and fisk, find gun or drugs - OK- also look at high crime area and fleeing - reasonable suspicion.  

Proper arrest warrant - requires probable cause

Arrest under proper reasons - can search body for weapons

Terry stop - reasonable suspicion there are weapons - needs to be based on something specific/articulate facts to gives reasonable suspicion from experience also

stopping car is seizure of driver and passengers

Warrantless searched OK for closely regulated industry due to reduced expectation of privacy. 

Other special needs where privacy interest are low and gov interests is high, warrantless searches of commercial business also OK

For schools, dont need warrant or prob cause for searches by public school administration - only need reasonable grounds.  

can go way beyond scope if search can be too invasive like a strip search

airport searches can occur even if the person turns away and chooses to not go through metal detector.  no more extensive than necessary.  

• Need to have balance interest of citizen privacy vs interest of law enforcement
• Can seize without arrest or prob cause based on REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIME OR WEAPON
  
  • must be very limited in time/space eg Terry
• Search by police after reasonable suspicion would include passenger compartment and containers
• Reasonable stop vs arrest factors: duration, free to leave, questioning, items seized, where stop was
• Sieze only occurs physical force of submission to authority of police, not when 'stop in name of law

ask question to professor if reasonable suspicion in car stop can extend to passenger and compartments

find out why it is important to know that a seizure is not when the show of force is presented (stop - police!) but when physically forced to stop or when submitting to authority 0 kid throws away drugs, how does this affect anything?

also what does it mean:Unlawful seizure will not disallow or taint evidence when the seizure occurs after evidence is uncovered by police - not sure what this means. 

Only if reasonable person would feel free to decline the search of bags on bus - presupposition of innocent person

Unlawful seizure will not disallow or taint evidence when the seizure occurs after evidence is uncovered by police - not sure what this means. 

YOur specific civil rights must be violated to have standing.  If they break into Pauls house and find evidence against john, it is pauls rights that were violated - not Johns.  Therefore, evidence against john is OK (not excluded) as John does not have standing for a violation of rights.  

Key test is if you have expectation of privacy - objectively - do not have this when you are passenger in a car.  

A passenger does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car or in items found in the car that do not belong to him.  Exceptions include if you are driver (or residence) and owner not present and you have right to drive the car (think rental car) - also extends to owner not present-have expectation of privacy unless complete control of car/house for extended time. 

Overturned that a def had standing if, 1) own/possessory interest in premises searched(still good), 2) was legititmately on premises (now overturned), 3) you own property that was seized, 4) lawful possession of property seized (baliee)

To claim Fourth Amendment protection, an individual must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched.

Apartment where drugs were being sold was owned by another woman, arrested visitors bagging cocaine. 

Search of apartment found evidence against Carter and accomplish, THEY were not overnight guests and had no expectation or privacy.  

Evidence and information obtained in violation of the 4th Amen may not be presented at court or used by the government in any way to help develop its case - fruit of poisonous tree - not just exclude evidence, but exclude subsequent progression of case . However, if gov can get same info through another independent and legal way, that same evidence will be allowed.    

Straightforward case, warrant to arrest silverthorne, then search his office and get more evidence without warrant  

Exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceeding

The independent-source doctrine does not apply if police officers were subjectively motivated to obtain a search warrant by what they learned during an original warrantless search of the premises, even if the warrant application does not rely on information gained during the original search.

Unwarranted search of warehouse finds marijuana, then get lawful warrant without mention of marijuana, then search warehouse and get marijuana.  courts said this is OK if they have prob cause outside of the evidence of marijuana.  

Also can be OK if evidence if it would have been found anyway - inevitability doctrine. 

THe connection between the illegal police conduct and a relevant piece of evidence can become so attenuated (distanced) as to dissipate the taint, and such evidence may then be admissible

Wong sun unlawfully arrested, released, then came back and provided confession (unsigned)- confession was admissible because confession was separated from the illegal arrest.  Factors include time, free will of confession, interviewing circumstances, flagrancy of misconduct (negligent error or abusive)

Evidence obtained in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a objectively and facially valid warrant is not subject to the exclusionary rule, even if the warrant is later deemed bad.

Police get tip that two people selling drugs, got warrant to search but may not have had probable cause; found drugs; still admissible because warrant was facially valid/good faith. 

Warrant was in good faith, exclusionary rule is a remedy to correct harms from improper/abusive conduct. Cost bene analysis of preventing police abuse, preventing def rights, suppression of good evidence, societial benes, etc.  

The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the knock and announce rule.

Police had warrant to search Hudson home, knocked, announced, waited 3-5 seconds, came in.  Found drugs and guns. Hudson sues to suppress evidence due to invalid knock

Once warrant issued, no expectation of privacy.  Exclusionary rule there to stop police misconduct only when misconduct outweighs society cost of letting crime go

Where police personnel act negligently, but not recklessly, (IN GOOD FAITH) and lead an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, the evidence obtained pursuant to that unlawful arrest is admissible.

Police ask if Herring had any warrants in Coffee county, had none, asked Dale county, who said yes.  Searched car based on prob cause, but warrant was revoked and in the computer system incorrectly.  Found drugs and guns. 

Police acted in good faith

Under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S 477 (1981), police are only required to stop a custodial interrogation if the suspect has unambiguously requested an attorney.

Davis suspect for murder, POPO interview him, davis said he may want to contact an attorny, but did not, then clearly requested attny.  Convicted of murder

Police should ask if def/suspect is asking for an attny, but not a formal requirement. 

Suppression/Exclusion of evidence is always the last resort - Exclusionary rule will not be applied when:

1) Independent source - warehouse case

2) attenuated taint/time - wang son

3) Facially valid, good faith warrant

4) Breach of knock and announce policy- Hudson

5) Negligent but Good faith reliance on warrant- Herring

6) ambiguous request for lawyer (will be excluded if there was an unambiguous request for lawyer). 

A coerced confession is not made voluntarily and is therefore inadmissible at trial

Spano queststioned for 8 hours straigt, overnight, lawyer told him not to say anything.  Requested lawyer multiple times, old friend now police officer said he would lose his job if Spano did not answer questions (lie)

Was a coerced confessions with leading questions. 

To be admissible at trial, a confession must be voluntary and may not be coerced by fear, no matter how slightly the emotion is implanted.

Bram was stripped search during the confession, was coerced by fear associated with strip search. 

Cannot be coerced in any way.    

Without certain hallmark warnings regarding the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, statements made during custodial interrogation are inadmissible at trial.

Miranda was intellectually challenged - was questioned without notice of right to counsel and advise to remain silent, got confession.  Confession was not therefore valid.  

There is a public-safety exception to Miranda warnings 

Woman raped, provides attacker, says was carrying a gun, Quarles fit the ID of rapist, police finds him in a store, arrests him, finds empty holster, asks the rapist where is gun, he says over there-Then the police give miranda rights

"The gun is over there" is excluded from miranda requirement as it was a safety issue.  5th amendment rights do not preclude all statements, just coerced ones. 

Miranda warning only effective for statements given before miranda rights, statements after rights are admissible in court even when other statements were given before miranda rights read. 

Elstad suspected of robbery, admits he was part of robbery,  then given miranda rights, and then provides full statement in writing after miranda warning. 

Later Statement was not "tainted" with previous admission before miranda rights given.  No fruit of poisoned miranda tree.    

Congress cannot supersede a constitutional right determined by the United States Supreme Court 

Dickerson indicted for bank robbery, gets interrogation statement suppressed because he did not get mirandized.  Congress then passes law that allows statements without miranda rights if voluntary.

Miranda determined to be a constitutional right that congress can not eliminate.  Applies to state courts, is a new law enforcement guideline, stare decisis forbids congress overriding supreme court. 

A second confession after a Miranda is admissible only if there enough time following the initial confession without a Miranda waiver to give a reasonable suspect the belief that she did not have to give second confession. 

Seibert burns dead kid in trailer.  Cops deliberately did not give miranda, Siebert confesses. then police give miranda rights.  20 min later, police remind her that she already confessed, she gives a post miranda confession.  

Both confessions thrown out - both were determined to be part of same interrogation w/o miranda

A motorist temporarily detained on the side of the road after being pulled over by an officer is not “in custody” for the purpose of Miranda.

Key difference between questioning at police station (custodial interrogation) vs questions during a routine traffic stop (not custodial) - no need to mirandize. 

CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IS KEY REQUIREMENT (not misdemeanor v felony) - DOES NOT APPLY TO TRAFFIC STOPS - key issue is coercive environment in police station vs less coercive in public traffic stop. 

Under Miranda, “interrogation” is when the police should know or are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Innes suspect for murder, mirandized- asked to have lawyer- police were concerned that a child would find gun - asked innes to show where gun was, was read rights again, still led police to gun.  

Miranda applies to broad circumstances including line ups - cops were not trying to trick or guilt Innes into confession.  Confession of gun was allowed.  

A suspect need not make an express statement waiving his right to counsel.

butler arrested for kidnapping, was read rights and given a paper to confirm and verbally said he understood rights.  did not sign paper indicating that he waived his rights, but nonetheless made self incriminating statements. argues that he did not waive right to lawyer (but did waive right silence)  

Waiver of rights can be done implicitly and does not need to be explicit or in writing.  Butler statement are allowed.

Can be in prison and not be in custody

Can be in police interrogation room and still not be in custody - if he was free to leave.

Must be in custody and under interrogation

If defendant requests lawyer or asserts his right to silence, interrogation must stop - silence is not an affirmation of rights

Where a defendant does not invoke his right to remain silent after fully understanding his Miranda rights, he implicitly waives his Miranda rights by making a voluntary statement to police.

Thompkins suspected of murder, was questioned, police had tompkins read out his rights, he did not sign form, then interrogated 3 hours, never said he wanted attorny, then asked if he prayed that god would forgive him for killing the victim, he said yes.  

Thompkins waived right to remain silent.  

After request for lawyer, interrogation must stop unless the suspect initiates further talks with the police. 

Edwards arrested for murder, got mirandized, agreed to answer questions, then invoked right to lawyer and taken to jail.  Police initiate discussion the next day and given miranda again, then incriminates himself.  

Since Edwards did not initiate the new discussion, police cannot interrogate, incriminating statement invalid. NOT CRIME SPECIFIC, ONCE RIGHTS INVOKED, CANNOT ASK ABOUT OTHER CRIMES - DIFFERENT FOR 6TH AMEN RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHICH IS CRIME SPECIFIC.

A person who has been invoked right to counsel has right to counsel at all times until after trial - police cannot elicit statements from defendant without a lawyer present.

Massiah indited for drugs, pleaded not guilty and released on bail, co defendant wears wire for police and said incriminating statement to co defendant.  

Massiah's 5th (proper indictment) and 6th (right to lawyer) amendments violated because he invoked right to counsel fed agents deliberately elicited incriminating statement, statements are invalid. Offense specific - applies to only for crime you were indited of.  

Coerced Statements (guilting person into confessing) made to police without an attny after invoking right to remain silent are invalid.  

Williams suspect in kidnapping, turns himself in after speaking with lawyer, invoked rights, had 160 mile trip in car with cops who guilted him into confessing.  

police intentionally deprived def of right to attny in car for 160 mile trip, played upon def mental deficiencies also (deliberate elicitation of statements was therefore illegal)

Provided a defendant is made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of representing himself or not having lawyer, by use of the Miranda warnings, his waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during post-indictment questioning is knowing and intelligent.

Patterson was gang member charged with murder, said another gang member planned everything, cops gave miranda rights, patterson signed form, then tells police incriminating evidence.  Patterson given miranda rights again and continues to implicate himself.  

Even after a lawyer has engaged the defendant, Police may seek a knowing and voluntary waiver of a defendant's right to have a lawyer.  

Montejo suspect in murder, waives miranda rights, after several hours, confessed to murder, get court appointed lawyer, waives rights again, writes apology letter to widow, was sentenced to death.   

Jackson rule overruled - small benefit of avoiding coerced confessions after lawyer given vs ability to convict murders - Edwards is good to give Montejo protection

Heavy burden on state to prove waiver by defendant without written statement - must show that def 1) Knowingly - biggest element, 2) Voluntarily and 3) Intelligently waived rights

State burden is prepond of evidence (51%, low bar) 

 Waive rights to all crimes at the time - miranda not crime specific.  

After giving miranda, can interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked or waived their rights.  must unambiguously invoke rights.  

Invoking one’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel for an offense where formal charges have been brought, does not automatically invoke one’s Miranda rights for other offenses where charges have not yet been formally brought.

McNeil arrested for robbery, was mirandized, did not ask for lawyer but got public one for bail.  While in jail, another detective asks about a different armed robbery, gives miranda again, McNeil incriminated himself. 

He had rights to lawyer for first crime, but not 2nd.  

A post-indictment witness identification of a criminal suspect, conducted without notice to and in the absence of the suspect's counsel, violates the Sixth Amendment  (note that most line ups occur before indictment).

Wade suspect in bank robbery, appointed lawyer assigned, FBI then set up suspect line up but did not tell lawyer.  Wade was IDed as robber.  Corporeal lineup done in custody vs not in custody (photos)

Objective (fingerprint, DNA) vs subjective (line up ID) evidence needs counsel for subjective.  

A suggestive identification procedure does not violate due process if the police are not involved in creating the suggestive circumstances.  Focused on improper police conduct and abuse.

Police heard african americans were breaking into cars, finds Perry with two stereos.  Police ask victim to describe the person who entered their car and points to Wade.  Was suggestive because Perry already in custody.  Nevertheless allowed the suggestive identification because was not improper by the police.  

Police informant in jail- yes elicitation

Police informant outside of jail - elicitation (Massiah)

Informant paid but only listens and does not elicit statment - OK

Deliberately and elicitation are both required to reject the statements that are made by defendant.  - 

Since 6th amendment is specific to accused crime, elicitation f other statements are acceptable.  

DO CARD FOR 5TH (MIRANDA) VS 6TH (RIGHT TO COUNSEL) SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES