Term
|
Definition
Consideration of reasonableness of seizures less intrusive than a tradition arrest depend on (1) the gravity of the public concerns served (2)the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and (3)the severity of the interference with individual liberty.
Seizure of a person must be based on individualized suspicion or be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers.
Additional info:
1979-Police stopped man in alley of high drug area. He looked suspicious. That is not reasonable suspicion and not stopped pursuant to neutral criteria.
Absence reasonable suspicion, balance tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Upheld sobriety checkpoints. Found them to be neutral. Applied Brown v. Texas 3 prong balancing test.
Additional info:
(1990) sobriety checkpoint pilot program. One night, 126 cars-2 arrests (1.6%), average of 25 sec delay.
1. gravity--drunk driving huge concern
2. effectiveness--1.6% higher than the .12% upheld in Martinez-Fuerte.
3. Intrustion
Objective--25 sec. delay is minimal
Subjective (fear & surprise of law-abiding citizen from the stop)--far less than roving stop, can see other cars being stopped, less likely to be feared or annoyed by intrusion. |
|
|
Term
| City of Indianapolis v. Edmond |
|
Definition
held drug interdiction checkpoints were in violation of Fourth Amendment.
Additional info:
(2000) Court must determine the PRIMARY PURPOSE. checkpoint to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing (as apposed to roadway safety) not ok. The gravity of the threat alone is not enough. Does not make it ok if it includes license or sobriety check if the purpose is detecting crime. Inquiry is at the programmatic level (not to question minds of individual officers at scene).
1,161 vehicles stopped. 104 arrested (55 drug related) = 9%
average stop = 2-3 minutes
searched on consent or particularized suspicion only. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Brief stops at highway checkpoint are not presumptively invalid, where the stops were brief and sough voluntary cooperation in investigation of a recent crime.
(2004) highway checkpoint where police stopped motorists to ask them for information about a recent hit-and-run accident.
purpose was not to determine if motorists were committing a crime (like edmonds) but to ask, as members of the public, for help in providing info about a crime probably committed by others. Police are not asking questions designed to elicit self-incriminating information.
Also, law permits police to seek voluntary cooperation in investigation a crime, from the public.
Uses Brown balancing test. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
disallowed random, suspicionless stop and search for license and car registration.
additional info:
(2000) patrolman did not observe any violations, made stop only to check DL.
4th Amendment requires reasonable suspicion. stopping a car is a seizure. permissibility is judged by balancing intrusion against promotion of a legitimate governmental interest. (here, roadway safety did not outweigh the physical and psychological intrusion from a random stop). However, the Court did not rule out checkpoints, which would not be random and would have less intrusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
excludes evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment in FEDERAL criminal prosecution.
(Does not apply exclusionary rule to the states).
Allowing evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment to be held and used as evidence would make the protection of the 4th Amendment of no value. It would reduce the 4th Amendment to a form of words. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
applies the 4th Amendment to the states, but NOT the exclusionary rule.
the security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society, as such it is enforceable against the states through the due process clause. However, 14th Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained unreasonably, though the evidence would be inadmissible in federal court. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
applies the exclusionary rule to state criminal proceedings.
Additional info:
Ms. Mapp refused entry to police without a search warrant after consulting her attorney. Police made entry anyway. Held up a piece of paper, she took it and stuffed it down her bosom. Scuffle, Mapp arrested, police recovered paper. Searched entire house, found obscene material in a trunk in basement. no warrant produced at trial.
rationale:
other remedies have been worthless and futile.
to hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment.
Purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty by removing the incentive to disregard it.
Black concurrence: exclusionary rule not from 4A, but is judicially created rule of evidence. 4A does not say anything about precluding evidence. 4A standing alone would not be enough to bar evidence, but 4A with 5A forms a constitutional basis which justifies and even requires the exclusionary rule. It makes no sense that police cannot extract by force what is in his mind but can extract by force what is in his stomach.
Douglas concurrence: evidence inadmissible in federal court but admissible in state court creates a double standard, which leads to "working arrangements" that undercut federal policy.
Dissent:
Wasn't the question brought before the court, Court reached out to overrule Wolf.
This not only imposes search and seizure standards, but also the basic federal remedy for violation of those stadards. Dissent would not impose federal exclusionary remedy on states. The question in wolf was not the desirability of the exclusionary rule, but whether the states are constitutionally free to follow it or not. dissent does not believe the 14A allows sup ct to mould state remedies. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| fruit of the poisonous tree extends exclusionary rule to indirect as well as to direct products of violation. (also standing: violation must infringe defendant's rights to trigger exclusionary rule. Thus there could be a violation but if not against Def's 4A protection--no exclusion). (violation was done to co-defendant) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Attenuation occurs when there is sufficient due process between the violation and the evidence which follows to conclude that the unfair advantage obtained by the violation has dissipated. (finding a post violation statement to be voluntary and therefore admissible). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Attenuation: violation of knock-and-announce requirement did not require suppression of all evidence found in search since the interests violated had nothing to do with the seizure of evidence and the injuries suffered (unnecessary destruction of door, indignities suffered by a surprised occupant) are not redressed by exclusion.
Also, the violation did not cause any subsequent discovery of evidence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the causal link between the violation and the fruit. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
adopts inevitable discovery; preponderance of the evidence; pros not required to prove absence of bad faith;
evidence would have ultimately or inevitably been discovered regardless of violation (as in a search party looking for a body would have inevitably found it even without def's statement) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
independent source: allows evidence if the discovery is due to a source independent of a violation. (lawful seizure after an unlawful entry)
Deterrence is accomplished by placing the police in the position they would have been had the search not occurred. It does not require placing them in a worse position. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| State act must be against a personal interest of the defendant to trigger a violation. (passenger had neither a property nor a possessory interest in the car being searched or the drugs seized. no expectation of privacy in glove compartment or under seat). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Exclusion does not deter if it's good faith.
Groh: Reasonableness of the good faith (if the warrant is so facially deficient that no reasonable officer could rely on it in good faith)
Leon: magistrates (search warrant defective due to magisterial misconduct)
Krull: legislature (state statute later determined to be constitutionally invalid)
AZ v Evans: Court employees (4A violation as a result of clerical errors of court employees does not require exclusion).
Herring: police record keeping error (warrant had been recalled but recall not entered). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| establishes fruit of poisonous tree, where all evidence derived from a violation of defendant's rights must be suppressed based on deterrence rationale, except evidence so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. (wong sun extended to indirect fruit) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| state actions requirement: protection against unlawful search and seizure only applies to gov actors. |
|
|
Term
| coolidge v. new hampshire |
|
Definition
| state action: private motive immunizes a search and seizure from constitutional constraints. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
state action: 3 tests to determine if state action
1. public function (functions tht are historically and traditionally governmental in nature--i.e. police)
2. symbiotic relationship or nexus test (when private party is a joint participant with state actors under color of state law)
3. state compulsion test (private individual who enlists the compulsive powers of the state to seize property) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| duplication of wrongful private acts: no new violation of privacy where the state merely follows in trace of a private search. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| exceeding the invasion of privacy already violated by a private search is a new violation. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Impeachment exception: exclusionary rule applies to gov case in chief. evidence can be used for specific impeachment (def's testimony he had never possessed narcotics opened the door to introduce evidence that heroin had been unlawfully seized to attack his credibility) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| impeachment exception not expanded to permit prosecution to impeach testimony of all defense witnesses with illegally obtained evidence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| live witness exception. witnesses testimony was of own free will and not result of illegal search . breaks link to the violation. |
|
|
Term
| forum exceptions to exclusionary rule. |
|
Definition
exclusionary rule goes to gov's case on merits, does not apply to other types:
1. grand jury (calandra)
2. parole hearings (PA bd. of probation and parole v. scott)
3. deportation hearings (lopez-mendoza)
4. civil hearings (janis)
5. sentencing (torres). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| does not exclude defendant's presence at trial. |
|
|
