They mostly deal with trials:

Right to speedy trial

Right to public trial

Right to trial by jury

Right to onfront witnesses

Compulsory process for obtaining witnesses

&

Right to assistance of counsel in felony cases and in misdemeanor cases in which imprisonment is imposed

1) grand jury proceedings (grand jury witness may be compelled to testify based on illegally seized evidence)

2) civil proceedings

3) parole revokation proceedings

The doctrine excludes all evidence obtained or derived from police illegality, subject to 3 exclusions where government can break the chain between unlawful police action and evidence (the 3 I's):

1) govt can show that it had an independent source for that evidence, independent of the original police illegality

2) inevitable discovery:  the police would have inevitably discovered this evidence anyway

3) intervening acts of free will on the part of the defendant

1) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or involvement in a completed crime (by totality of the circumstances)

+

2) supported by articulable facts (more than a hunch)

Reasonable suspicion, although checkpoint roadblocks are OK as long as police stop cars based on

1) neutral, articulable standard (ie every car), and

2) be designed to serve purposes closely related to a particular problem related to automobiles and their mobility

1) was there governmental conduct?

2) did the search violate a reasonable expectation of privacy (ie standing)?

3) did the police have a valid search warrant?  If so, was it properly executed?

4) if the warrant was not valid, does an officer's good faith defense save the warrant?

1) publicly paid police - on or off duty (privately paid police don't count unless they are deputized with power to arrest)

2) any private individual acting at the direction of the public police

1) you own the premises searched

2) you live on the premises searched (ownership interest doesn't matter)

3) overnight guests (but not homeless dudes)

and

4) maybe:  you own the property seized (must have expectation of privacy in the item or area searched), or you are legitimately present when the search takes place

Generally:  objects held out to the public

NOTE: use of sense-enhancing technology not available to public violates

1) sound of voice

2) handwriting

3) paint on vehicle

4) bank account records

5) location of one's vehicle on public roads or arrival at private residence

6) areas outside the home and related buildings

7) garbage left out for collection (AT CURB)

8) land visible from a public place, even from plane or helicopter

9) odors eminating from luggage

1) probable cause (fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the area searched)

2) particularity (place searched + things to be seized)

1) a false statement was included in the affidavit by the affiant (the officer applying for the warrant)

2) the affiant intentionally or recklessly included the false statement, and

3) the false statement was material to the finding of probable cause

Totality of the circumstances - reliability / credibility, basis of knowledge

NOTE:  anonymous tip doesn't matter

1) the affidavid underlying the warrant is so lacking in probably cause that no reasonable police officer would have relied on it

2) The affidavid underlying the warrant is so lacking in particularity that no reasonable officer would have relied on it

search incident to constitutional arrest

automobile search

plain view

consent

stop and frisk

hot pursuit, evanescent evidence, emergency

Arrestee is unsecured and may gain access to interior of vehicle, OR

Police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle

1) police must be legitimately on the premises

2) discover the evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of crime or contraband

3) see such evidence in plain view AND

4) have probable cause to believe that the item is evidence, or contraband, or a fruit of instrumentality of crime

A warrantless search is valid if the police have a voluntary and intelligent consent.

Person must have authority to give consent: When 2 or more people have an equal right to use the property, either can consent.  However, if both people are present and the other does not consent, then the one who does not controls.

1) it offers a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing

2) the measures adopted to carry out the search are reasonably related

3) the search is not excessively intrusive in light of age and sex of student and nature of the infraction

You are in custody if, at the time of interrogation, you are not free to leave (police car, jail, confined to hospital bed)

It is an objective standard

NOTE:  probation interviews and routine traffic stops are NOT custodial

1) wait significant amount of time

2) re-mirandirize person they want to question

3) questions are limited to crime that was subject to earlier questioning

police questioning must stop until:

1) the accused is given an attorney, or

2) the accused initiates further questioning

2) accused is released from custodial interrogation and 14 days have passed

In all criminal proceedings, which include all critical stages of a prosecution AFTER judicial proceedings have begun (e.g., formal charges have been filed)

It prohibts the police from deliberately eliciting an incriminating statement from a defendant outside the presence of counsel after the defendant has been charged unless he has waived his right to counsel.

1) the lineup is unnecessarily suggestive, and

2) there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification

Exclude the in-court identification.  The victim or witness will NOT be allowed to identify the person in court.

State can defeat remedy by showing an adequate independent source for that identification (independent of bad line up)

1) witness has no right to have counsel present

2) grand jury may consider evidence that would be excluded at criminal trial (due to exclusionary rule, hearsay)

3) witness must appear when called, but can refuse to answer questions

A failure to disclose exculpatory information will constitute grounds for reversing a conviction if... (2 necessary conditions)

1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant, and

2) prejudice has resulted, meaning that there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different had the information been disclosed

1) deficient performance by counsel (particular errors!), and

2) but-for the deficiency, the result of the proceeding would have been different

The right to confrontation prohibits use of the statement (even when it interlocks with the defendant's own confession), unless

1) all portions referring to the other defendant can be eliminated

2) confessing defendant takes the stand and is cross-examined about truth of statement

3) confession of nontestifying co-D is being used to rebut the defendant's claim that his confession was obtained coercively

Judge must address the D on the record about:

1) the nature of the charge

2) the maximum authorized penalty and/or mandatory minimum penalty

3) D has a right to plead not guilty and demand a trial

1) plea was involuntary (prosecutor's threat, ineffective assistance of counsel)

2) lack of jurisdiction

3) ineffective assistance of counsel

4) failure of prosecutor to keep an agreed upon plea bargain

1) hung jury (can't decide)

2) mistrial for manifiest necessity (Ex:  appendicitus)

3) retrial after a successful appeal

4) breach of an agreed upon plea bargain

In any type of case when anyone is asked a question under oath, wherein the response might incriminate him.

NOTE:  must assert privilege 1st time ? is asked

Not claiming privilege in civil proceedings waived in later criminal prosecution

1) grant of immunity from prosecution

2) no possibility of incrimination (SOL has run)

3) waiver