Introduction To Criminal Procedure Three major topics
Car Frisk Officer may search the vehicle, even if the officer has not arrested
Download 1 Mb.
|
Car Frisk Officer may search the vehicle, even if the officer has not arrested the occupant and has ordered the occupant out of the vehicle, provided the search is limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden and officer possesses a reasonable belief that the occupant is dangerous. – Michigan v. Long Investigatory search of the car, looking only for weapons, is a valid Terry “frisk” of the passenger compartment of car. *** SUMMARY of when Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion Required *** No PC or reasonable suspicion (courts permit limited search in these circumstances) near sweep Belton inventory search Chimel wingspan search car passengers and drivers who leave car after traffic stop Reasonable Suspicion only (PC not needed) Terry Frisk of car – Michigan v. Long Luggage – only detention of luggage (they could do dog sniff on it), not search inside Regulatory and Special Needs Searches Introduction Searches not done for purposes of criminal investigation ordinarily done for some overriding social policy like public health but some turn into criminal matters like w/ DUI checkpoints Administrative inspections and searches: Searches of private residences and businesses (warrant required) Inventory searches Search of airline passengers Parolees Govt employees’ desks and files Special Needs searches Public school searches Border searches Drug testing Generally admin searches are upheld. ** Note: Although Camara–See require warrants administrative search, no one really requires that inspectors get warrant before search. Administrative Searches Warrant required for searches of private residences and businesses – Camara & See Camara and See – except in event of emergency or consent, residences and commercial buildings may not be entered to inspect for administrative code violations without an administrative search warrant. Warrant requires probable cause, but different form of probable cause does not require individualized suspicion instead, its P.C. based on general 4th Amend. standard of reasonableness showing of general and neutral enforcement plan will justify issuance of warrant PC also satisfied if there are reasonable administrative standards that mandate this search provides external standard for inspection watered down warrant requirements – reasonable suspicion not needed Warrant not required for searches of business in highly regulated industries, even in absence of emergency or consent – Burger (1987) Rationale: urgent public interest theory that the business has impliedly consented to warrantless searches by entering into a highly regulated industry Industries include: liquor, guns, strip mining, automobile junkyards (Burger) Excluded industries – not closely regulated, warrant required: car leasing and general manufacturing, OSHA Warrant also not required for seizure of spoiled or contaminated food. School Searches Special needs search Warrant or PC not required for searches conducted by public school officials 2 conditions (T.L.O.) reasonable grounds for search and search is not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction Reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school can search student lockers and backpacks etc. Rationale: Nature of school environment. Random drug testing of student athletes and students participating in any extracurricular activity is reasonable and allowed. (Earls) Border Searches Searches at borders or its functional equivalent Neither citizens nor noncitizns have any 4th Amend. rights at the border or its functional equivalent ö national sovereignty. country has right to control people in and out of their own borders Functional equivalent – e.g. point near border where several routes all leading to border merge Thus borders typically enjoy greater protection – standards more lax for border searches Roving Patrols STOPS Roving patrols inside U.S. border may stop a car for questioning of occupants if officer reasonably suspects that car may contain illegal aliens, but the apparent Mexican ancestry of the occupants alone cannot create a reasonable suspcion – Brignoni-Ponce (1975) SEARCHES Roving patrol inside U.S. border may NOT conduct a warrantless search unless the requirements of one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as the automobile exception (probable cause) or consent, are met. – Almeida-Sanchez (1973) Fixed Checkpoints Border officials may stop car at fixed checkpoint inside border for questioning of occupants, for purpose of intercepting illegal immigrants, even without a reasonable suspicion that the car contains illegal aliens. – Martinez–Fuerte Officials may disassemble stopped cars at such checkpoints, even without reasonable suspicion. – Flores–Montano (2004) But Court has suggested that nonroutine, personal searches at border (e.g. strip searches or body cavity searches) may require probable cause Airport Searches and Detentions Officials have authority to search person and luggage at airports if entering the U.S. (Not for domestic flights, only international) If officials have reasonable suspicion that traveler is smuggling contraband in her stomach, they can detain her for a time reasonable under circumstances. Rationale: stopping smuggling is important yet very difficult; stomach smuggling gives no external signs that would enable officials to meet probable cause standard in order to conduct search Montoya de Hernandez – upheld 16-hour detention until traveler, who refused an x-ray, had a bowel movement. International Mail Permissible border searches include opening of international mail by postal authorities if they have reasonable cause to suspect that mail contains contraband authorities cannot read any correspondence inside mail they open – Ramsey Checkpoints Suspicionless seizures at highway sobriety checkpoints for purpose of combating drunk driving are constitutional. Sitz (1990) – Held: State’s use of highway sobriety checkpoints for purpose of combating drunk driving does not violate 4th Am. Brown balancing: state’s interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in achieving that goal, and level of intrusion on person’s privacy caused by the checkpoints. Problem of drunken driving highlights state’s great interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers. Measure of intrusion into person’s privacy is slight. Balance of state’s interest in preventing drunken driving, extent to which system can reasonably said to advance that interest, and degree of intrusion upon individual drivers who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the program. Suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints with primary purpose of discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics are unconstitutional. Edmond (2000) – Highway checkpoint for drug possession. Too much of general interest in crime control – checkpoint programs w/ this purpose have never been approved. Drug stops not permitted, although drunk-driving stops were appropriate. Court believed that there must be reasonable suspicion that this PARTICULAR car had suspicions of drunk-driving. There is a difference between road-blocks solely to enforce criminal laws, which are NOT enforceable and laws that are to ensure public safety, which are enforceable. Edmond had a higher return rate than Sitz, however, Court believed that it cannot encourage check points for law enforcement purposes, only for public safety concerns. Upheld checkpoint to find witnesses to car accident. Illinois v. Lidster (2004) – There was an accident and the police set up road-blocks in order to ask cars whether or not they had information concerning the accident. Without the road blocks, the witnesses could have been gone and no longer remembered the facts. The Court believed that this was enough of an emergency to require that the individuals be stopped at the checkpoint. Drug Testing Drug testing is routine for certain professions. If you can come up with a good reason why drugs are an issue, the Court would allow the testing to take place. Although govt-required drug testing constitutes a search, Court has upheld such testing without a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion when justified by special needs beyond the general interest of law enforcement. Govt can require railroad employees who are involved in accidents to be tested for drugs after the accidents. The railway workers were drug-tested without reasonable suspicion that they were involved with drug use. The theory was that they were involved with operating machinery and as such, they should not be on drugs so the correlation permitted the drug tests without being considered a constitutional violation. – Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association (1989) Govt can require persons seeking Customs positions connected to drug interdiction to be tested for drugs. There is special need for such testing b/c persons employed will have ready access to large quantities of drugs. – National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989) Random drug testing of students participating in any extracurricular activity is reasonable and allowed b/c of special interest schools have in safety of their students. – Bd. of Education v. Earls High school athletes were forced to drug testing. This was considered constitutional because they believed if the students are involved with government-ran extra-curricular school activities, then the government interest is high in ensuring that students are not using drugs when participating in school activities (additionally, there was no reasonable expectation to privacy.) Govt may not require candidates for state offices to certify that they have taken a drug test w/in 30 days prior to qualifying for nomination or election–no special need for such testing. – Chandler v. Miller (1997) Georgia passed a law that every political candidate had to be drug tested bc they did not want to have politicians as negative role models. SCOUS struck it down bc they said that there was no problem with Georgia candidates. The way that the testing was done could have easily been evaded anyway (candidates could have stopped taking the drugs a number of days before the test). Special needs do not justify warrantless and nonconsensual urinalysis test to determine whether a pregnant woman has been using cocaine, where the main purpose of the testing is to generate evidence that may be used by law enforcement personnel to coerce women into drug programs. – Ferguson (2001) Pregnant mothers were drug-tested. The procedure involved law enforcement personnel. Without law enforcement, this may have been a different issue and it may have been more like the student athlete case. There is a strong government interest to deter pregnant women from using drugs, however, the problem is in this situation, the testing appeared to be focused more on criminal prosecution rather than helping out the mothers. Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violation Intro. Sometimes there is a fourth amendment violation without any actual remedy to the problem. The exclusionary rule is the primary remedy but there are other remedies for violations. Some remedies: Civil Rights Action ö You might be able to fine the officer for making a mistake. Administrative Remedies Civil suits or injunctions Exclusionary Rule Prevents evidence from admission when the evidence was improperly obtained. Punishes society: you are a victim of the crime and the defendant is released bc the officer screws up. The officers do not care if the evidence is used in trial or not. Ex: if the heroine is seized in a bad search, it does not go back to the defendant, but instead, it permanently is taken away. The drugs are confiscated and taken away irrespective of the illegal search. A lot of officers may feel justified that they have the drugs now off of the street. Exclusionary Rule: Background Cases: Weeks—1914 Wolf—1949 Rochin—1952 Mapp—1961 Exclusionary Rule = judge-made doctrine that prohibits the introduction, at a criminal trial, of evidence obtained in violation of D’s 4th, 5th, or 6th Amend. rights. Rationale: Main purpose = deter govt (mainly police) from violating a person’s constitutional rights deterrence of govt misconduct If govt cannot use evidence obtained in violation of a person’s rights, it will be less likely to act in contravention of those rights. Serves as one remedy for deprivation of constitutional rights. BUT note that Today, 4 USSC Justices think exclusionary rule needs to be reduced b/c it does not TRULY discourage improper action. Scope of the Rule – Fruit of Poisonous Tree Generally, illegally obtained evidence must be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence – the latter is the tainted fruit of the poisonous tree (tainted fruit of the illegally obtained evidence). – Nardone (1939) and Wong Sun (1963) Limitations on Exclusionary Rule: Inapplicable to grand juries Inapplicable to civil proceedings Inapplicable to internal agency rules Inapplicable tin parole revocation proceedings Inapplicable where there is good faith reliance on existing law, defective search warrant, or clerical error but see exceptions to good faith defense for reliance on search warrant Use of excluded evidence for impeachment purposes some illegally obtained evidence that is inadmissible in the state’s case in chief may nevertheless be used to impeach D’s credibility if he takes the state at trial. Miranda violations Fruits derived from statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be admissible despite exclusionary rule Exclusionary rule established. In a federal prosecution the 4th Amend. barred the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure. – Weeks (1914) In federal court, the evidence was not admitted, but in state court, it could come in. This came to be known as the “Silver Platter” doctrine. (4th Amend. case) Created bad policy bc the federal officers would call the state officers to get the evidence because it did not cover action by state officials. Exclusionary not applicable to states, so 4th Amend. does not forbid the admission of evidence in state trials obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. – Wolf v. Colorado (1949) Court still not applying the Bill of Rights to the states, so Weeks exclusionary rule not imposed upon the States. Evidence obtained in violation of 4th Amend. can be used in state criminal case. (4th Amend. case.) Evidence obtained by physical force could not be used against D at state trial b/c due process violation, not b/c of exclusionary rule (still inapplicable to states) – Rochin v. California (1952) (“The Vomit Case”) Rochin was suspected of possessing morphine. He swallowed the pills. The police tried to remove the pills unsuccessfully. They took him to the doctor and caused him to take a medic which caused vomiting and then the capsules were retrieved and used against him at trial. Rochin argued the exclusionary rule, but the problem is that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the states bc there was not an exclusionary rule in 1952, against the state court. Then he argued it was a due process violation. Court agreed – the behavior shocks the confidence and evidence by that behavior is inadmissible. Evidence inadmissible on due process grounds (not b/c of exclusionary rule, which was inapplicable to the states at this time). Fourth Amendment still does not apply to the states. We do not know how far the due process clause right extends, however, physical violence is definitely covered. Typically, counsel will try and use both due process and Fourth Amendment to win on one if the other fails. Many courts have applied Rochin to understand that it applies only to physical violence. Misc. Post-Rochin Cases: California case: D was spied upon, the Court argued it was not a DPC violation, but it may have been a Fourth Amendment case. Sacramento case: High speed chase which ended in the defendants death. The Court believed that the police behaved recklessly but it was not enough to rise to the level of Rochin and a violation of the DPC. Even reckless driving does not rise to the level of a DPC violation. Rochin is a very LIMITED case—it does not apply broadly, it is interpreted narrowly and typically is only applied in limited situations. Exclusionary rule now applicable to states – Mapp v. Ohio (1961) D had obscene materials that were uncovered and admitted against the D. All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court. Exclusionary rule now applicable to states. Now, every state now must have an exclusionary rule for violation of the Fourth Amendment. Purpose of 4th Amend. rule under Mapp: deter police from conducting bad searches judicial integrity If govt official violates the rules of 4th Amendment, then the court should not award or recognize the rights of the police officer. maybe encourages police to LIE to prevent the truth that way they can say they had a legitimate fourth amendment action. Shapes police policy ö increases police training. Exception to Exclusionary Rule Intro. Exclusionary rule is the primary remedy for 4th Amend. violations But there are situations when Court is suggesting that the 2 goals (deterring poor police activity and judicial integrity) are not served by the Rule. As a matter of federal, Constitutional law, exclusionary rule does not apply to: Federal Grand Jury hearings Probation or parole hearings Habeas corpus proceedings Civil proceedings Sentencing hearings E.R. does not apply for impeachment purposes Some illegally obtained evidence that is inadmissible in the state’s case in chief may nevertheless be used to impeach D’s credibility if he takes the stand at trial. E.R. does not apply if evidence is used to impeach. If D testifies that there is no heroine in their pocket, the illegally seized heroine may be used to impeach the D in that NARROW situation. – Walder v. United States (1954) Impeachment exception does NOT apply when the defendant does not testify. – James v. Illinois (1990) Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> womenandlaw uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program uploads -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings uploads -> Medical Radiography Program uploads -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter uploads -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter womenandlaw -> Introduction – Chapter 1 (p. 2) and Chapter 2 (p. 13) womenandlaw -> Strict liability Download 1 Mb. Share with your friends:
|