
























































































Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A comprehensive outline of criminal procedure, focusing on key concepts such as consent searches, probable cause, execution of warrants, exigent circumstances, plain view, and search incident to arrest. It delves into landmark supreme court cases, including schneckloth v. Bustamonte, brinegar v. Us, ybarra v. Illinois, maryland v. Pringle, davenpeck v. Alford, graham v. Connor, michigan v. Summers, muehler v. Mena, mincey v. Arizona, welsh v. Wisconsin, and knowles v. Iowa, providing a detailed analysis of their legal principles and implications. Particularly valuable for its clear explanations of the exceptions to the warrant requirement and the evolving standards of reasonableness in search and seizure cases.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 96
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Exam.
Criminal Procedure Outline Fourth analysis Is there a search? Katz – Reasonable expectation of privacy Houghton – 1st historical 1789. 2nd traditional standards of reasonableness Kyllo – viewed as illegal search in 1789 – history Caballes – interest of ∆ is legitimate? Standing MN. v. Carter – non overnight staying/commercial guests = no standing Consent Schneckloth – Coercion – express or implied – totality test Rodriguez – who gave consent – OK as long as cops reasonably believe possess common authority Jimeno – was scope of search w/in the consent Probable Cause Gates Warrantless – actual PC v. Warrant – substantial basis for PC Exceptions o Terry – Reasonable Articulable Suspicion o Border searches - US v. Flores-Montano o Road Blocks – Sitz (drunk) OK; Edmond (crime) NO o Inventory Searches – where established by SOP Warrant PC – o Gates - Totality of the circumstances analysis – practical, common sense decision o Gates - Substantial basis for PC all that is required from reviewing court Oath Neutral magistrate Specificity – Steele – officer w/ reasonable effort ascertain place intended Franks – material misstatements that are intentional or reckless Warrant Exceptions Probable Cause + o Plain view – Hicks – can’t manipulate o Vehicles - Carroll o Exigency o Search incident to arrest – Belton (search passenger area of car too) Warrant execution – acting w/in scope Franks problem – deceitful affidavit to secure facially valid warrant If invalid suppress unless o Exceptions Inevitable discovery Intervening act of free will Was there good faith reliance on a facially valid warrant - Leon
6. But, the court did begin to use the due process clause of the 14th^ Amend. to craft rules that would apply to the states as well as the federal government II. Defining Due Process = Hurtado v. CA (US, 1884) = A. Why Important to get grand jury? b/c:
J. Part II – b/c dp consists of “any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice” K. Notes pgs. 83-93 - due process is for these things:**
B. Issue: whether the Due Process Clause permits a state to require a who alleges incompetence to stand trial to bear the burden of proving so by a preponderance of the evidence? C. Majority says don’t want to use the Matthews 3 part balancing test – should use:
1. The Right to the Assistance of Counsel at Trial I. The Right to the assistance of counsel A. this is an interesting thing
b. The case has been left behind
a. Most agree that once the criminal process has begun then have a right to counsel b. Question is what about when being interrogated? At some point yes most agree you do
VII. Strickland v. WA (US, 1984) – P. says for this class know Strickland standard and 2 part test very well!!! A. 2 general things here:
b. He has a problem with the prejudice thing: i. Suggests the right to counsel is an end in itself and have a right to have a competent atty stand by you against the power of the state ii. Ct. says they want a prejudice standard anyway b/c
I. Boyd v. US (US, 1886) A. Have a statute on pg. 278 - What is it that you need to prove to? How do you prove as prosecutor? What was going on here – smuggling? – hard to tell
IV. How do we get from Boyd to Schmerber? Why care? = law reflects a social system
1. Answer, doctrinally, is not much
th
I. The 4th^ Amend. in General (2 requirements that are linked) all this up to E on board A. Requirement of Warrant Clause
E. Why do we overrule Wolf