CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I (INVESTIGATION) OUTLINE

Questions to Ask: Who is the accused? What happened to him or her/What was the sentence that they received? What is the holding and the impact on our everyday lives?

Only have to read Supreme Court cases. Skim everything else. Course focuses on activity of the police. Midterm ­ Should the court suppress the evidence? Argue both prosecutor and defense

counsel. (Argue even if ­ for example, bring up up good faith for the prosecutor even if it isnt the applicable test.)

Four Main Points

1. Standing ­ person bringing claim must be aggrieved. 2. State Action ­ Aggrievance must be from the state 3. Remedies ­ Remedy for constitutional violation (Crux of the problem of Crim Pro ­

Criminals can get off because of technicality ­ Example: Suppression ) 4. Whether the police acted constitutionally and whether it was determined in a

Pre­Trial Hearing

PROBABLE CAUSE

United States v. Draper Facts: Two envelopes of Heroin found on Draper based on information of informant Issue: Was there probable cause? Rule: Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the arresting

officer’s knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to a warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. (Reasonable officer standard).

Justice Douglas Dissent: 1) Crim Pro is discussed in cases only where there was evidence 2) Sometimes guilty go free to enforce 4th Amendment 3) What is recovered is irrelevant to Probable Cause ­ Paid informant does not amount to reliable/reasonable information.

Aguilar v. Texas

Facts: Houston police officers applied for a search warrant to look for narcotics in the home of Nick Alford Aguilar. In support of their search warrant application, officers submitted affidavits explaining that they had received information from a confidential informant, not named in the application, which they believed to be reliable.Forcing their way inside, officers found Aguilar attempting to dispose of narcotics. Aguilar was arrested and indicted for drug possession by the State of Texas.

Issue: Was there Probable Cause for the judge to issue the warrant? Rule: In an affidavit, law enforcement must show that an informant has a basis of

knowledge and reliability

1

Florida v. Harris

Rule: Certification of narcotics dog is enough to establish a dog as a reliable basis for probable cause

Illinois v. Gates

Facts: The police received an anonymous letter outlining specific details about the Defendants, Gates and others (the “defendants”), plans to traffic drugs from Florida to Illinois. When the details were corroborated by the defendants’ actions, police obtained a search warrant and found drugs, weapons and other contraband in the defendants’ home and automobile.

Issue: Are anonymous tips reliable information Rule: Spinelli/Aguilar no longer dispositive. Reduced to factors: Basis of

Knowledge and Reliability Totality of Circumstances Test: Whether there was a fair probability based on

the totality of the circumstances that there was probable cause. (Appellate Determination ­ Whether there is a fair basis for determining that there was probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances) (Trigger ­> Cop goes to get warrant and acts on that warrant)

Commonwealth v. Dunlap

Facts: In this case, a trained police officer, working in what the officer termed a high­crime neighborhood, observed Appellant and another individual exchange currency for an unknown object without seeing any other suspicious activity. Shortly thereafter, Appellant was arrested and searched without a warrant. As it turned out, Appellant was in physical possession of crack­cocaine. He was thereafter charged with various narcotics­related offenses.

Issue: Was there probable cause Rule: No probable cause. Factors to be considered for Totality of Circumstances:

The time is important;  the street location is important;  the use of a street for commercial transactions is important;  the number of such transactions is important;  the place where small items were kept by one of the sellers is important;  the movements and manners of the parties are important. (Typically courts want to see more than one transaction unless the time is early in the morning). Court states that there must be nexus between Police Officer’s training and experience and his actions. Mere suspicion does not give rise to probable cause. Commercial transactions between citizens on a street does not give rise to probable cause.

EXCLUSIONARY RULE/SUPPRESSION

Stated goal is to deter the police from violating 4th Amendment because police will know evidence will be suppressed. Judicially created remedy(corollary to the 4th Amendment ­ its a privilege granted at the court’s discretion). Only a remedy if contraband is discovered on your

person.

2

Mapp v. Ohio

Facts: Cops force their way into woman’s home after receiving information that a person was hiding out there. Police discover “obscene materials”

Issue: Whether to apply the exclusionary rule to the states? Rule: Exclusionary Rule should apply against the states because of 1) Judicial Integrity

and 2) Deterrence United States v. Leon

Facts: Judge grants a warrant based on unreliable informants. Police then behave reasonably in reliance on warrant.

Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule should be used when an officer reasonably relies on a neutral magistrate’s warrant that turns out to be unsupported by probable cause.

Rule: Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule ­ If the officer acts in good faith there is nothing to deter. The evidence is not suppressed. Evidence is only suppressed when it furthers the policy of the exclusionary rule: deterrence (Factual Trigger ­> Judge issues a warrant and cop relies on it and there is no probable cause for warrant)

Three circumstances where good faith does not apply Officer knowingly or recklessly aware of falsehoods in the application Judge was a rubber stamp for police warrant Officer must have a substantial basis for determining that there is

probable cause

***Ultimate Question: Was the officer’s actions objectively reasonable?*** Undermines Totality of Circumstances Test ­ Brennan & Marshall: Inconceivable that

an officer would find that there was no substantial basis for a warrant. Now there is reasonable reliance on an unreasonable warrant.

United States v. Hudson

Rule: Cost benefit Analysis If police officers actions is not too egregious then there Three disqualifiers of Good Faith Exception therefore have no merit.

Herring v. United States

Facts: Officer believed that there was outstanding arrest warrant but the belief turned out to be wrong because of negligent bookkeeping by another police employee.

Holding: Cost Benefit Analysis is used to determine when to use the Exclusionary Rule: The benefits of deterrence must outweigh the costs. Exclusionary Rule only applies when there is deliberate, reckless, or gross negligence. Bigger error was that the bookkeeping was not attenuated. (Response to those who thought that Exclusionary Rule was too broad) (Trigger ­> Cop 1 is relying on information from another)

3

Davis(Commenting on Herring) Applicability of Good faith exception depends on:

flagrancy of the error ­ was there gross negligence? was it deliberate? (Isolated negligence by the officer is not flagrant)

whether similar errors will be deterred in the future whether the deterrence value outweighs the social cost

United States v. John Perry Ryan

Facts: Warrant ultimately signed and handed over contained no description of the items to be seized. Only the addressed was seized. Agents goes to execute warrant. Agent knows what to look for. Recovers photos and documents. At suppression hearing, defense attorney cite 4th Amendment violation. Prosecutor asks judge to reconsider in light of Herring.

Rule: Distinguished from Herring. Here, officers relied on a facially invalid warrant. Suppression is necessary. First case where Herring is applied to a Leon type scenario

United States v. Patton

Facts: Search warrant application contained no information regarding the reliability of the witness. No probable cause. Defense counsel argues that there is no good faith because affidavit for warrant is lacking.

Ruling: Officer had good faith because he had know

WHAT IS A SEARCH? Search is the threshold issue. You must first establish if there was a search. What did the officer

know and what did the officer do? The moment the search occurred is important.You must established that you were illegally searched or seized to obtain a remedy. Remember ­ no such thing as probable cause to search. Remember: Searches without a warrant are presumptively

unreasonable. There must be an exception to have a search without a warrant. Goldman v. United States

Facts: Detectaphone held up against a wall to hear a conversation. Rule: Trespass Doctrine ­ A search requires a physical trespass.

United States v. Olmstead

Wiretapping not a trespass because a phone convo is intangible Silverman v. United States

Penetration into the wall amounted to a trespass Katz v. United States

Facts: FBI put a recording device on outside of telephone booth. They do so without a warrant because they believed that it wasn't a search.

Issue: Can there be a search without physical trespass?

4

Rule: Physical trespass no longer necessary for a trespass because of modern technology. Searches conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable under the 4th Amendment unless there is a specifically established and well­delineated exception.

Harlan’s Two­Pronged test: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Individual must have indicated an actual subjective expectation of privacy(Subj) That expectation is one that society as a whole is recognize as reasonable (obj)

Site or nature of property inspected (Home is more sacred than an open field)

Extent to which the individual has taken steps to keep something private Degree of police intrusion

Oliver v. United States

Facts: Police ignore no trespassing sign and a locked gate Rule: Individual has no legitimate expectation that open fields will remain free from

warrantless intrusion from government Curtilage ­ land immediately surrounding the home

Proximity of the land to the home Whether the area is included within enclosures surrounding the house Nature of the use to whcih the area is put Steps taken by the resident to protect the land from observation

California v. Ciraolo (Aerial Observation)

Defendant knowingly exposed his home to aerial Even looking at the curtilage from aerial observation is not a search

California v. Greenwood (Garbage)

Respondents exposed their garbage to the public and diminished their expectation of privacy.

Kyllo v. United States (Thermal Imagining Devices)

Facts: Thermal­Imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat.

Rule: Police usage of a thermal imaging device is a search because thermal­imaging devices are not of general public use. You shouldn’t be able to use technology for something you couldn’t have done without physical intrusion

United States v. Jones (GPS Devices)

Facts: GPS device planted on car by law enforcement to track movements. Law enforcement tracks him. Defendant says you need a warrant. Government says its not a search because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy because police can follow driver on public streets.

5

Rule: Court holds this is a search. Scalia ­ Emphasizes physical trespass. Reasonable expectation did not replace physical trespass. It supplemented it. Believes 4th Amendment dealt with physical intrusion when it was adopted. Majority ­ Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. Sotomayor ­ There is an expectation of privacy when police follow you for an extended period of time

Leaves option open for the police to track phone gps and car black boxes Have to look at time, how long the search was, and the device used

Davis v. United States

Issue: What happens when the gps device was affixed it was permitted. Rule: Good Faith in Caselaw Exception: Court expand Good Faith. Objective reliance

on binding appellate decisions are not subject to the exclusionary rule. 4th A and ECPA: Electronic Communications Privacy Act (includes the Patriot Act) govern the debate today.

Government needs a subpoena to get info United States v. Forrester (9th Circuit)

Facts: Law enforcement monitor man because they believe that there was a large ecstasy ring. They obtained permission. They install a mirror port and obtain information including ip addresses.

Holding: No search because no expectation of privacy when you volunteer information to third parties. Email to and from with the help of a third party provider abandons a reasonable expectation of privacy.

United States v. Rorschach

Facts: Guy charged with the fraudulent sale of supplements. Government obtained through subpoena 27k of the man’s emails without his permission. Subpoena was legal because of ECPA.

Holding: Individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his email. Court then goes to the good faith exception and allows the evidence because government objectively relied.

ACLU v. Klapper Facts: Constitutional and statutory claims brought against NSA. Lawsuit after Snowden revealed that NSA got meta­data from Verizon on a daily basis. Centers around 4th A and Patriot Act. They have been doing so since 2006. Holding: You do not have an expectation of privacy because you’re going through other people Klayman v. Obama

NSA Program infringes on expectation of privacy. Florida v. Jardines

6

Facts: Law enforcement were walking dogs up to people’s homes. Issue: Did that amount to a search? Holding: Scalia ­ Such an action amounted to a trespass. Emphasis on the sanctity of

the home.

SEARCH INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST Police can arrest without a warrant as long as there is probable cause. They can conduct searches incident to that lawful arrest. Remember: Searches without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. There must be an exception to have a search without a

warrant/rationale. Underlying policies are officer safety and preserving evidence that might be destroyed or

discarded.

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest Requirements Underlying arrest must be lawful and valid The search must be incidental to the arrest (Temporally & Spatially)

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest Contours

Police can search the arrestee’s person (plus items immediately associated) (Robinson) Search flows naturally from the arrest itself. Bright line.

Police can search area within arrestee’s immediate control (Always been dicey) (Chimel) Context­based analysis. No bright line.

In a home arrest ­ police can search spaces immediately adjoins from which attack could be launched. (Policy: Officer safety) (Maryland v. Buie)

Search flows naturally from the arrest itself. Bright line. If officer can point to particular facts where a reasonable person would believe

there was a lurker, they can perform a full protective sweep of the premises. Rochain

Facts: Police enters home and person swallows evidence. Police grab him and try to remove it from his mouth. They then bring him to the hospital and force him to vomit out evidence.

Holding: Activity cant shock the conscience. Violates Due Process. Schmerber v. California

Holding: Court okay with police taking blood from a defendant as long as it is done by a doctor.

4 Factors to consider: There must be clear evidence that the evidence that you’re searching for

will be found in the body There must be exigent circumstances (No time to get a warrant)

7

The chosen test must be reasonable, likely to extract without risk, trauma, or pain

Must be conducted in a reasonable manner (according to accepted medical practices)

Chimel v. California

Facts: Police conduct search on the basis of an arrest warrant even though they did not have a warrant to search

Issue: Whether the warrantless search of a person’s house can be constitutionally justified as an incident to that arrest.

Holding: Police cannot search the entire house. When a lawful valid arrest is made, police may search the person and the grabbable area within his immediate control.

Case by case determination. No bright line rule White & Black ­ Issue should be whether the search of the other houses were

reasonable Maryland v. Buie

In a home arrest ­ police can search spaces immediately adjoins from which attack could be launched. (Policy: Officer safety) (Maryland v. Buie)

Search flows naturally from the arrest itself. Bright line. If an officer can point to particular facts where a reasonable person would believe

there was a lurker, they can perform a full protective sweep of the premises. United States v. Robinson

Facts: Traffic arrest. Improper driver’s paperwork. Officer conducts search incident to that arrest. He finds cigarette pack with capsules which later turns out ot be heroin.

Issue: Whether the police may search an arrestee incident to a traffic arrest even if they have no reason to believe they are in danger or if no evidence would be destroyed

Holding: Courts no longer have to engage in case by case analysis. In every lawful custodial relationship, police can conduct a search. Bright Line Rule.

Brennan, Marshall, Douglas Consent: Decision raises potential for police abuse because the discretion the officers

have whether to arrest. Undermines the presumption that there must be a warrant for a search.

State v. Smith (Supreme Court of Ohio)

Facts: Police recover cellphone and go through emails. Holding: Cellphone is an item immediately associated with the person at the time of the

arrest. People v. Diaz(California Supreme Court)

Facts: Officers arrest man and searches text messages on cellphone. Issue: Was this a search incident to law arrest

8

Holding: Whether the item seized was personal property that immediately associated with his person. (Similar to Robinson)

Knowles v. Iowa

Facts: Police officer stopped Knowles and gave him a citation. Officer then conducts a full search.

Holding: You can only search incident to an arrest. Not a citation/ticket. (Critcism: might lead to more arrests)

Whren v. United States

Facts: Individual stopped on the basis of racial profiling Holding: Subject motivation of law enforcement is irrelevant as long as there is an

objective basis for the stop. New York v. Belton

Facts: Officer arrests everyone in car and separates them from each and goes back to the car.

Holding: Police officers may, contemporaneous to the passenger, may search compartments therein. Cannot search trunk. (Adopts Robinson)

Thornton v. United States

Facts: Police arrest man and put him in police car. Police then search his car. Holding: Belton rule applies whether the arrestee is in the car or steps out of the car.

Arizona v. Gant

Facts: Gant arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car. They thereafter search his car and find drugs.

Holding: A vehicle search after a recent occupant has been secured removed from the scene is not authorized. Search incident to lawful arrest no longer applies to car cases. However, search is permissible if officer has reason to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle. (Deals with traffic stop fact patterns)

Criticism ­ only protects people with minor traffic infractions. Cops can have reason to believe in all arrests concerning drugs etc.

In non­vehicle cases, does this holding apply? State v. Manuel

Facts: Defendant arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant. PD lift up box spring of mattress. Governt argues there a valid search incident to arrest. Defendant argues that

Holding: Gant holding does not extend to Buie

9

STOP & FRISK

Terry v, Ohio

Facts: Arresting Officer ­ Detective McFadden (39 years on the job) observed from 300 feet away in 2:30 in the afternoon that individuals were casing a stick up. Based on his experience, he walks over to the 3 and asked their names. They mumbled a response. He spins Terry

Issue: Is it always per se unreasonable if a police officer does a search without probable cause? Is there anything a cop can do if they dont have probable cause but suspect is doing something is wrong?

Defense argument: 4th Amendments states that you cant search and seize without probable cause

Prosecution argument: 4th Amendment only protects you in situations of seizures. Holding: Defendants were stopped but not seized. They were frisked but not searched.

Only need reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk. Court recognizes the need for police to engage in seizures that are short of arrests. Court also recognizes the need for police to frisk if they have a good faith basis.

Reasonable Suspicion is determined by the totality of the circumstances When conducting a pat down, police must believe that they come into contact

with a gun to conduct a search. Reasonable Suspicion Stop & Frisk Probable Cause Arrest Search

Incident to that Arrest Harlan Concurrence ­ The right to walk away. Mere act of walking away cannot serve

as a reason for an officer to have reasonable suspicion.

Four Level Test for Evaluating Street Encounters Initiated by Law Enforcement

Level 4 Probable Cause Seize(Arrest) + Search Incident to that Arrest

Level 3 Reasonable Suspicion Stop + Frisk (Limited Seizure)

Level 2 Founded Suspicion Right to Inquire (New York)

Level 1 Objective Credible Reason

Request Information (People v. Debour)

Sibron v. New York

Facts: Officer sees defendant speaks with several known narcotics addicts. Defendant goes into restaurant. Officer approaches him and tells him to step outside. Reaches into his pocket and finds heroin.

10

Defense Argument: Even if he had reasonable suspicion, he could not reach into his pocket because that goes beyond a stop and frisk.

Holding: No reasonable suspicion. Alabama v. White (Hearsay)

Issue: What happens when an officer acts on hearsay? Holding: Police officers can rely on hearsay for reasonable suspicion as long as it has a

predictive quality. It must have some indicia of reliability that can predict future behavior.

Prado/Navarette ­ Anonymous information/tips can be relied on for predictability sufficient for reasonable suspicion (Limited to erratic driving?)

Florida v. JL ­ Anonymous tips regarding guns still require indicia of reliability similar to Alabama v. White. It does not amount to reasonable suspicion.

Illinois v. Wardlow (Flight)

Facts: Area known for serious narcotics trafficking. Police in car investigate area. Police look and defendant flees.

Prosecution Argument ­ Unprovoked flight from the police should be per se unreasonable and is inherently suspicious. Police should be allowed to be stop and frisk because of reasonable suspicion.

Holding: Flight is simply a manifestation of one’s constitutional right to move on. There was reasonable suspicion but there will be no bright line rule. Need flight + knowledge of a high crime area to get reasonable suspicion.

U.S. v. Weaver(Racial Profiling)

Facts: Officer sees defendant get off flight. Caught officer’s attention because he was a black man with bag going towards taxi stand.

Holding: It is ok to consider race as long as it is coupled with other factors. Race considerations by themselves are unconstitutional.

What is a Terry Seizure for which reasonable suspicion is necessary?

Terry Definition ­ Not all interactions between police officers and citizens are seizures. Only by means of physical force OR show of authority where the officer restrains a citizen’s liberty may we conclude that a seizure has occurred.

United States v. Mendenhall

Facts: Officers use drug courier profile to approach Ms. Mendenhall. They ask to see her ID. She produces a driver’s license but her ticket was in a different name. She becomes shaken and clearly nervous.

Defendant argument ­ She was seized the moment the officers went up to her. Even if they had reasonable suspicion, they were only limited to a stop and frisk

11

Plaintiff argument ­ Gloss to the Terry Test ­ Would a reasonable person feel free to leave. Even if there was a seizure, there was ample reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk.

Holding ­ Free to Leave Test: A person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th Amendment only if in the view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Reasonable person in that person’s shoes.

Factors: Threatening presence of several officer Display of a weapon by an officer physical touching use of language or tone

Florida v. Royer

Facts: Police see person in airport. They stop him and ask him for his ID and asked him to accompany them to their office. They hold his ID and ticket.

Holding: The initial encounter was not a seizure. By keeping the ticket, the encounter transformed into a seizure because a reasonable person would believe that they were not free to leave.

Michigan v. Chesternut

Facts: Police see kid look at them and run. Police gives chase in their car Issue: Would a reasonable person would feel that they were seized when a car is

chasing them? Holding: No seizure until police give chase. No reasonable person would believe that

there was a seizure because no flashlights, no sirens, no guns drawn. Reasonable person would believe they were free to leave. Pursuit in a police car does not constitute a seizure.

Hodari D (When does pursuit constitute a seizure?)

Facts: Kid takes flight from cops and drops drugs. Holding: Even if the reasonable person would have felt was not free to leave, no

seizure here occurred because the defendant didn’t stop. In order to be seized you have to submit to the authority or be subdued.

US v. Jeter(6th circuit)

Facts: Police bumrushed known loitering spot. Defendant is riding his bike out of the parking lot when the police enters. Two cops approach him. He tries to get away. Police get out the car. He stops for a moment and then runs.

Defense Argument: When the defendant got off his bike, that was a seizure because he submits to authority at that point. Flight alone was not a reasonable suspicion.

Holding: The momentary pause is not a submission to authority. Therefore there was not a seizure.

12

When does a Seizure Equal an Arrest for which probable cause is needed? Factors to determine a Terry Stop from a De Facto arrest (United States v. Rabbia ­

1st Circuit): Location and duration of the stop Number officers present degree of physical restraint placed on the suspect Information conveyed to and from the suspect

SEARCH OF THE HOME

Police officers cannot enter the home without a warrant. There are some exceptions Peyton v. New York

Facts: Police have probable cause to arrest peyton. They go to his house without a warrant to arrest him

Holding: The 4th Amendment prohibits warrantless nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine arrest. (“Physical entry in the home is the chief evil” ­ Police cant cross the threshold of your door)

Exceptions: Consent: Voluntary relinquishment of a constitutional right (Murky

proposition) Don’t need a warrant if its not exactly in the home (Police still must

have probable cause) Exigent Circumstances (No time to get a warrant + Police must still

have probable cause) Four Exigencies:

1. Hot Pursuit (Gravity of the crime matters) 2. Imminent destruction of evidence 3. Escape 4. Danger to police and to others

United States v. Santana

Facts: Santana retreats into the vestibule and gets arrested Issue: Was the vestibule a public or private place Holding: The arrest was initiated in a public place and you can’t defeat an arrest made

in a public place even if you retreat into a private place Warden v. Hayden(Expansive View of Hot Pursuit)

Facts: defendant committed robbery before entering house. Later, police search house without warrant.

Holding: The exigencies of the circumstance made it imperative. (Potential to expand hot pursuit because the robbery happened moments earlier ­ an expansion of hot pursuit)

13

Vale v. Louisiana

Facts: Police have warrant for arrest but not a warrant to search. Police arrest defendant on front steps. Police then search the house and find drugs.

Holding: Mere presence of third persons is not an exigency that will allow a search of the home. The good seized were not in the process of destruction or being removed. (Imminent destruction of evidence not at issue here)

Kentucky v. King

Facts: Narcotics officers follow a drug suspect into an apartment complex. Defendant they’re looking for sold crack cocaine to informant. Suspect does not know the police are chasing him. Police lose sight of the suspect. They turn the corner and there are 2 apartments. They smell marijuana and assume that the door was recently opened. They knock on the door and shout police. They heard sounds inside and were concerned that evidence was being destroyed.

State Court Holding: Illegal search. You need a warrant. By banging on the door, the police created the exigent circumstance themselves.

Supreme Court Holding: Remanded back to state court because the officers may create the exigency

State Court on Remand: Not enough evidence here to show imminent destruction of evidence. Therefore no exigent circumstance. Noises not enough.

Turrubiate v. State

Facts: Investigator goes to defendant’s home and knocks. Owner sticks out his head and smells marijuana. Calls police and and they do the same. They smell marijuana and go inside home.

Holding: Insufficient evidence to to permit a warrantless search of home because no imminent destruction of evidence. Mere presence of drugs does not mean that they would destroy the drugs. If they were to grant the police to search the home, then t

State v. Walker

Facts: Defendant opens door while smoking pot. Holding: There was exigent circumstance because he closed the door ­ imminent

destruction of evidence US v. Ramirez

Facts: Well known drug dealer opens door and sees cops. Then shuts the doors Holding: No exigent circumstances because no evidence.

No sink, toiler, deadbolt lock sounds

14

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF CARS, CONTAINERS, AND OBJECTS

Automobile Exception to a Search without a warrant

If police officers have probable cause to believe that there is evidence in the car, they can search the car without a warrant

Carrol v. United States

Holding: Ready mobility of cars makes it impractical to get a warrant California v. Carney

Facts: Defendant’s home is a fully mobile motorhome. Police had info that defendant use the home to exchange sex for drugs. Police knock on door, defendant steps out and police go in and search the home.

Holding: New Automobile Exception ­ You have a lesser expectation of privacy in a car because of pervasive regulations. As long as probable cause requirement is met you can dispense with the warrant requirement. No requirement of exigency for a search without a warrant

Wyoming v. Houghton

Facts: Car with 3 passengers stopped by cops for speeding and driving for a faulty brake light. They see a syringe. Police then search car and find a purse with narcotics.

Issue: What happens when the probable cause is not directed at an innocent party Holding: Expectations of privacy for passengers are also reduced. Police can search.

Plainview Doctrine (Deals with Seizure without a Warrant)

If officers are lawfully on the premises and see contraband, they don't need a warrant to seize it.

3 Requirements Is the officer viewing the item from a lawful vantage point

exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, etc. Police officer must have a right of physical access to the object The object’s nature has something subject to seizure that is immediately

apparent guns, drugs, incriminating evidence Officers have a lot of latitude to search items because of Texas v.

Brown Arizona v. Hicks

Facts: Police officers enter the defendant’s house without a warrant because bullet fired into the apartment below. Officers see stereo thats out of place and believes they are stolen. Officer flips stereo over to get serial number. He gets serial number and it turns out they're stolen.

15

Holding: Not an appropriate seizure because the officer’s act of flipping stereo over Texas v. Brown

Holding: In order to seize evidence the officer must have probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity based on any articulable facts/reasonable belief (doesn’t have to be 51%). Modifies Immediately apparent requirement of the plain view doctrine. Court looks to what the officer reasonably knew at the time of the seizure. (Officer has a lot of latitude to seize items when they are lawfully in the home)

CONSENT SEARCHES

Consent (Exception to the Warrant Requirement)

Consent can’t be the result of coercion ­ express or implied. It must be more than mere acquiescence to a show of authority.

Four Elements: Actual, valid consent (by words or actions) Voluntary (was there any duress/coercion such that will is overborne)

hard to prove that consent was involuntary Third Party (real vs apparent common authority over premises or personal property) Scope ­ Revocation

Test to determine if consent is voluntary ­ Totality of circumstances. Bumper v. North Carolina

Facts: Officer says he has a search warrant to search defendant’s home Grandmother says go ahead. Turns out there is no valid.

Issue: Was the consent voluntary? Holding: Not voluntary consent because of the nature of the police lie. Basically told

defendant that she has no right to resist. United States v. Basquez

Holding: Erroneous mistake still amounts to involuntary consent United States v. Christian

Holding: Consent based on a false rep that police could secure a search warrant is involuntary.

Consent based on a true representation that a police could search a warrant is voluntary United States v. Worley

Facts: Police officers stop defendant and ask to speak with him and defendant says yes. Officers ask “can we look in your bag.” Defendant says “you’ve got the badge, I guess you can”

16

Holding: It was involuntary. One of the factors: officer did not inform him of his right to refuse. Other factors: language, show of authority etc

Commonwealth v. Rogers Facts: Officer knocks on the doors and says hes looking for Rodgers. Rose Hopkins

points to the direction of the apartment and cop walks in. Finds Rodgers Holding: Court holds there is no consent. Court recognized that occupant’s gestures

such as this can be implied consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Facts: Police see a car where headlight burned out. They ask for permission to search the car. One of the men in the car says sure go ahead. Police recover evidence.

Defense’s Argument: Defendant wasn’t told he had a right to refuse. (Factor in totality of circumstances)

Holding: Court draws a distinction. General principle that you can waive your rights if its voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently is for jury trials. Police need not inform of a right to refuse. (Takeaway ­ it is a factor and not dispositive).

Revocation or Withdrawal of Consent

Consent once given may be drawn, revoked or limited at any time prior to the consent of the search. You must do so unequivocally.

Burton v. United States (DC Court of Appeals)

Facts: Officers approach Burton ask for consent to search his luggage and person for drugs. When they started to search his jacket, he grabbed his jacket pocket. Officer ordered him to move his hand.

Issue: Was the act a revocation of consent? Holding: Not a revocation because officers going forward would have to analyze every

gesture. Slippery slope argument. Florida v. Jimeno (Scope of Consent)

Issue: Whether consent to search a car amounts to consent to search containers therein Holding: Objective reasonableness standard. What would a reasonable person would

believe the scope was. A person may also limit consent. State v. Howell

Facts: Defendant stopped for speeding. Police ask to search entire car. Finds giftrap box and opens it. Finds marijuana.

Holding: Defendant did not limit scope or did not try to revoke it. United States v. Lopez­ Cruz (9th Circuit)

Holding: Asking for cellphone and then using it to call PO is outscope the scope of consent.

17

Stoner v. California

Facts: Officers ask clerk to take them to defendant’s room. They find evidence. Issue: Can a third party provide valid consent to searches? Prosecutor Arguments: Hotel guest is giving implied consent. Clerk had apparent

authority to apply consent. Holding: Evidence suppressed. No evidence that the defendant expressly authorized

the clerk to consent to a search. Frazier v. Cupp

Facts: Police officers search duffle bag owned by both Frazier and Frazier’s cousin. Frazier did not give consent even though cousin did.

Holding: Frazier assumed the risk. Allows for a 3rd party to consent to a search to communal property.

US v. Matlock (What amounts to common authority)

Facts: Shared home occupants. Defendant arrested in front yard. Police take him away and ask if they can search the room that they shared. They never asked the defendant.

Holding: Consent to a search by one who shares a common authority or premises or effects is valid against an absent party even if they did not consent. Defininition ­ Common authority rests on joint access or control for mutual purposes.

Wisconsin v. Sobczak

Facts: Sobczak invited Padella and she arrived at his residence to spend the weekend. Sobzcak reported to bar for work. She asks to use his laptop. She observed and called grandmother to call police. She invites officer inside.

Holding: Court rejected that the argument that 3rd party consent does not extend to weekend guests. She had common authority.

Hubert v. State of Texas (Relatives)

Facts: Officers arrest defendant. They ask grandmother to search defendant’s bedroom. They find a gun.

Defendant’s Argument: Grandfather cant have common authority over defendant’s private bedroom

Holding: Grandfather was imbued with the common authority to search the bedroom because of the nature of their living arrangement. (Family context)

Georgia v. Randolph (Dueling Consent & Common Authority)

Facts: Janet and Scott Randolph. Janet calls police and tells them that Scott is drug user. Janet said there are items of drug evidence in the house. Police asks for consent to search the house. Janet says yes and Scott says no.

Issue: Is there consent where there is dueling responses from 2 occupants.

18

Holding: Valid consent was not given. Police could not enter. A warrantless search of a shared dwelling against the expressed consent of a physically present individual cannot be valid. If there is domestic violence and/or exigent circumstances, they can go in.

People v. Fuerst Holding: You have to be physically present at the moment the consent is being given

United States v. Johnson (6th Circuit)

Holding: As long as 1 individual has common authority Fernandez v. California

Facts: Police officers approach door of a home. Police ask to come in. Defendant says that he knows his rights and the police cannot enter. Police arrest him and come back later. They ask the wife to enter and she says yes. They enter and find incriminating evidence.

Holding: A resident’s objection to a warrantless search will not prevent police from obtaining consent to search if they remove the nonconsenting party lawfully from the premises. Randolph was a limited exception. It applies only when the objector is physically present.

Illinois v. Rodriguez

Facts: Police respond to Dorothy Jackson’s house. Daughter opens the door. Signs of physical abuse. Says defendant rodriguez is the cause. He’s in another apartment Tells the police that she will open the door for them. Referred to apartment as “our apartment.” Officer go and find evidence.

Issue: Does she have common authority. Is a warrantless entry valid based on a 3rd party when the police reasonably

Holding: Test ­ Reasonable. Officers must be reasonable in believing that consenting party had common authority over the premises. They don't have to be correct (Good Faith)

Commonwealth v. Lopez (Massachusetts State Court)

Facts: Officers asked if they could come inside when the manager wasn't present. Holding: Police must do more by way of assent before determining a 3rd party has

common authority. They must exercise a diligent inquiry. Arriguin (9th Circuit Case)

Holding ­ Police had a duty to clarify. Police may proceed on the notion that ignorance is bliss

United States v. Hassak (2nd Circuit) ­ Can Protective Sweep be used after a Consent Search?

19

Holding: Police can’t extend protective sweep to consent searches. Police create the danger in those instances as opposed to exigent circumstances and SILA.

MIRANDA ­ THE WARNINGS Coerced confessions violate 5th Amendment due process clause and are inadmissible even if there is ample evidence that the evidence is true. Reason: Deterring police from mistreating

people.

Brown v. Mississippi Facts: Two individuals were convicted of murder, the only evidence of which was their

own confessions that were procured after violent interrogation. Holding: The confession might be false and could lead to the conviction of innocent

people. Dickerson v. United States

Facts: Congress passed a law overturning Miranda Holding: Court upholds Miranda. The warnings have become part of our national

culture.

Miranda v. Arizona

Facts: Issue: Holding: Prosecution may not use statements of a defendant stemming from custodial

interrogation unless it shows that procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self­incrimination were used.

Custodial interrogation = custody or otherwise deprived of freedom in a significant way

Miranda warning ­ must be told of the rights Waiver ­ any waiver must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent ­ statements must

be truly the product of free choice. Police only have to read rights only if they are engaging in a custodial

interrogation. Miranda Issues

What is custodial? ­ coercive atmo What is interrogation? Adequacy of warnings given? Waiver of right/revocation of waiver Invocation/Assertion of rights? (Main issue is silence) Exception to Miranda Requirement?

Public Safety Routine booking question. (As long as long as it isnt reas likely to elicit an

incriminating response.)

20

Rhode Island v. Innis (Interrogation) Facts: Defendant accused of murder and robbery of taxi driver. Officer reads defendant

rights. Defendant asks for a lawyer. On the way to the precinct, the officers passed by a school

Holding: Warnings are required when there are expressed interrogation or their function equivalent: words or actions that officers should know would be reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

People v. White Facts: 17 year old Defendant arrested and read rights. Defendant says “I dont want to

speak to you.” Officer, said “I’m just telling you, I hope nobody else gets hurt from the gun”

Holding: Officer’s rumination about the location of the gun were not calculated to take advantage of the suspect’s vulnerability.

Soto (6th circuit)

Facts: Officers book defendant at precinct. Officer sees picture of defendant’s family. Asks defendant “what are you doing with crap like that when you have a family waiting at home?”

Issue ­ Was it an interrogation? Holding: There was an interrogation. Brevity is not dispositive. Rhetorical questions can

amount to interrogation Payne

Facts: defendant arrested for drug sale. In car on way back to precinct. On way back to precinct, officer says to defendant that “we found a gun in your house”

Holding: Statements can equal interrogation. They were reasonably likely to ellicit an incriminating response.

Prioleau

Facts: Police investigating drug activity and sees defendant. Police bring defendant over. No one read him his Miranda warnings. Detective recognizes him and says “What's up Maurice?” Defendant then added

Holding: Not reasonable for officer to believe that the question would elicit a response Blake

Facts: 17 yr old Defendant arrested and received warnings and asked for a lawyer. Defendant placed in cell. Officer complies with state law to give defendant copy of charges. One of the charges includes “death” in capital letters. Cop says “I bet you wanna talk now, huh?” 30 mins later and defendant wants to talk.

Holding: Not interrogation. Taunt was a completely isolated remark that didn’t amount to an interrogation.

Berkermer v. McCarty (Custody)

21

Issue: Are miranda warnings required of a custodial interrogation in a traffic stop. Is road­side stop to ask questions an interrogation?

Holding: Test for Custody ­ Whether the defendant would feel such pressure that his free exercise of his right to remain silent would be impaired? Whether there was a coercive atmosphere?

Factors: Detention was brief and public. Temporary detention. Miranda warning only require for seizures. Not for stops and below. (see chart on

page 10 of this outline) Illinois v. Perkins

Facts: Defendant is in a jail cell. Police place undercover officer in cell to get evidence and ask him to attempt an escape. Undercover asks defendant if “he done someone.” Defendant gives incriminating response.

Holding: Central ingredients of a police dominated atmosphere were not present. No evidence of compulsion. Defendant spoke freely and Miranda was not required. Missing the element of coercion.

US v. Perdue (Factors for Custody?)

Factors: time, place, person officers words, tone of voice, demeanor mood of the interview nature of suspect’s verbal or nonverbal responses

3 Places of Custodial Interrogation

Jail Precinct Home/Place of Employment

Carter

Facts: Defendant suspected of mail fraud at bank. defendant interrogated at bank. call into office of bank president for 90 mins and interrogated by officers. After giving incriminating evidence, officers give miranda.

Holding: Defendant was in custody Factors: Isolated from others, Unfamiliar surroundings, was not told that he was

free to leave Vermont

Facts: defendant led to a small windowless room. instructed to sit in the chair. Holding: Custodial because reas person would not feel free to leave

State v. Wearing

Facts: Police take defendant’s shoes

22

Holding: Under totality of circumstances, no custody United States v. Rabbia (1st Circuit)

Facts: Police stop frisk and handcuffed. Holding: Suspect was not in custody because it was brief and because it was done to

preserve police safety JDB v. North Carolina (Custody and Age/Capacity)

Facts: 13 year old boy questioned without Miranda Warnings at his school. Urged to do the right thing. Confesses.

Holding: You have to consider the age of the suspect when determining whether the suspect was custody. Reasoning: children are more susceptible to coercion. Recognition that you have to take the capacity of individual into consideration.

Duckworth v. Eagan (Adequac

Facts: Officer read Miranda and said he had right to lawyer “if and when you go to court” Holding: Inquiry is whether the warnings reasonably convey to the suspect his or her

rights. No exact words have to be uttered. People v. Nitschmann

Facts: Defendant recites Miranda before officer does Holding: There was reasonable conveyance.

Gonzales v. State (Language & Reasonable Conveyance)

Facts: Defendant could not speak english. Spanish speaking trooper attempted to read rights in spanish and defendant could not understand

Holding: Not reasonable conveyance. Matteo Rosales(9th Circuit ­ Language & Reasonable Conveyance)

Facts: Defendant is spanish speaking. Detective at precinct reads rights in spanish with improper translation.

Holding: No reasonable conveyance. NY v. Quarrles (Public Safety)

Facts: Armed perpetrator runs into store. Defendant matches description of rape suspect. Officers catches him and find gun holster on him. They ask him without Miranda warning and asks “where's the gun”

Holding: Public Safety Exception: Police officers were confronted with an immediate necessity to protect the public

23

US v. Hernandez

Facts: Defendant admits he has heroin. Officer then asks whats in the bag. Defendant says more drugs

Holding: Drugs connection to safety and disease brought the officer’s question into the public safety exception

US v. Ferguson

Holding: Passage of time does not diminish the applicability of the public safety exception

MIRANDA ­ THE WAIVER

Waiver ­ You can waive miranda right as long as its Voluntary, Knowingly, and Intelligent

Voluntary = not coerced Knowing = officer informed them Intelligent = an express statement that a suspect was willing to speak without an

attorney Two Issues concerning Miranda Waivers

Right to a lawyer and right to remain silent? Is the issue coming up at the outset or during interrogation after waiver

North Carolina v. Butler (Miranda Waiver)

Facts: Defendant was read his rights. He said he understood but refused to sign a form. Defendant said, I will talk to you but I will not sign any forms.

Issue: Was there a waiver of his rights? Holding: Mere silence is not enough to indicate a waiver of rights. Needs silence +

understand of rights + course of conduct. Explicit statement of waiver is not invariably necessary. In some cases, waiver can be inferred.

Miranda Language (a valid waiver will not presumed if there is silence after reading Miranda rights. A waiver will not be presumed if a person speaks after giving a waiver.

Moran v. Burbine (Waiver)

Facts: Defendant arrested in murder case. Attorney called the precinct and wanted to be present for interrogation. Police officers did not tell defendant that he now had a lawyer. Police officers then read Miranda and then defendant gives incriminating evidence.

Holding: Police officers weren't required to divulge the information that the defendant had a lawyer. Miranda warnings are not a constitutional right. Court explicitly rejects the view that a defendant should get a lawyer as soon as feasible.

24

Kirk v. Ohio (Ohio Supreme Court)

Facts: 18 year old with cognitive impairment. Defendant read miranda and waives. Holding: The mere existence of impairment is not at issue. The focus is what the

defendant manifested at the moment he was read his rights. Michigan v. Mosley (Asserting Miranda Right to Remain Silent)

Facts: Defendant arrested for robberies. Advised of rights. Says no. Another detective comes in later. Detective read him his rights again and defendant waives.

Holding: An interrogation can resume as long as law enforcement scrupulously honors the defendant’s assertion of his rights. (Fact­based determination ­ Totality of Circumstances)

Factors: Reasonable period of time has passed, same or diff officers, new set of miranda warnings, discussion of same or different crime

Edwards v. Arizona (Invocation of the Right to Counsel)

Facts: Defendant agrees to speak but wants a lawyer present. Next morning, 2 officers come to him to resume questioning. Defendant answers questions.

Holding: When a suspect asserts his right to consult an attorney, no interrogation can resume until a lawyer is present unless the accused himself initiates further conversation with the police.

Arizona v. Roberson (Invocation of the Right to Counsel ­ Protective Shield)

Holding: Police can’t continue interrogation after suspect asserts right to counsel because defendant he doesnt have knowlege or intelligence.

Minnick v. Mississippi

Holding: Defendant cannot be interrogated once he asserts his right to attorny. State v. McKnight

Facts: Defendant states that he wants a lawyer. Officer then asks defendant for the description of his home, so that they can get a search warrant. Defendant then asks what was going to happen next.

Holding: Defendant’s inquiry about what is going to happen about his home did not re­initiate discussion about the investigation

US v. Hutchins People v. Elliot (Michigan Supreme Court) Connecticut v. Barrett (Invocation of the Right to Counsel)

Facts: defendant tells police he will not put anything in writing until a lawyer is present. He had no problem with talking though

25

Issue: Was this an invocation of a right to counsel? Holding: Defendant made a limited request for counsel that was accompanied by

affirmative announcement of willingness to speak. Therefore, not an invocation of right to counsel.

Davis v. United States (Invocation of a Right to Counsel ­ Ambiguous/Unambiguous Requests)

Facts: Defendant charged with beating victim to death. Defendant initially waives. 90 minutes in, defendant says “maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” After, that there was further interrogation and incriminating statements.

Issue: Was this is an invocation of a right to counsel? Holding: If the suspects reference to a lawyer is ambiguous or equivocal in that a

reasonable officer in those circumstances would understand that the suspect might have been an invocation, an officer can proceed with the interrogation. The suspect must unambiguously articulate that they want a lawyer so that it would be clear to a reasonable officer. Court declines to adopt a rule requiring police officers to clarify.

State v. Eastlack

Facts: Defendant says “I think I better talk to a lawyer first. Holding: Police can continue interrogation because no clear invocation. Was not a

sufficiently clear articulation. People v. Romero

Facts: Defendant says “I should talk a lawyer” Holding: Romero’s pattern of speech taken into consideration. His words were deemed

to be unambiguous and therefore an invocations. Harden v. Mississippi (Mississippi Supreme Court)

Facts: Defendant diagnosed with mild retardation says “I have a right to a lawyer? I cant afford one.”

Holding: No clear or unambiguous request for counsel. Therefore no invocation People v. Soseda­Contreras

Facts: Defendant read his rights. Defendant says “If you can bring me a lawyer, then I can tell you.”

Holding: It was ambiguous. Motley

Facts: Defendant says I might want to talk to my lawyer. Then says his lawyer’s name and gives his business card.

Holding: Unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel

26

United State v Okendo­Livas (1st Circuit)

Facts: defendant is given a miranda waiver form. Defendant refuses to sign the form. 20 minute later a federal agent comes to talk to him and gives him another form. Defendant says “I don't understand this. My lawyer speaks.” Later he signs the form and incriminates himself.

Issue: 1) Was his right to remain silent scrupulously honored? 2) Was there an invocation of the right to counsel?

Holding: His right to remain silent was scrupulously honored because of Mosley factors. This was not an invocation of a right to counsel.

Right to Remain Silent

Must asserted unambiguously or unequivocally from the viewpoint of a reasonable officer

United States v. Mikell (Invocation of Right to Remain Silent) Holding: A suspect’s refusal to answer questions is not tantamount to an invocation of a right to remain silent State v. Williams

Facts: Defendant waived rights and is being questioned. Says “ i dont have to take any more of your bullshit” and walks to the back of his cell. Officer then goes into his cell and asks further questions. Defendant incrimi

Issue: Is hostile behavior an an umabiguous assertion of the right to remain silent. Holding: Not an assertion of right to remain silent.

People v. Manzo

Facts: Defendant advised of his rights. After 8 seconds, defendant says “I am doing my right” Cops continue to interrogate.

Holding: Court holds that it was an unambiguous assertion of rights DeViney v. State

Facts: Defendant waives and repeatedly says “Im done and I want to go home. I didnt do this. You show me”

Holding: The fact that he said I’m done multiple times shows that he made an assertion of hsi right to remain silent

Valo v. Ciera

Facts: Defendant stated he didnt want to talk. Officer asks are you sure? Defendant then says sure and incriminates himself

Holding: Once a suspect affiramtively invokes their right, officers cannot continue questions

27

Burgess v. Thompkins (Asserting Right to Remain Silent ­ Remaining Silent)

Facts: Defendant largely silent during the course of his interrogation. Doesn’t expressly assert rights or expressly waive rights.

Issue: Whether he invoked and whether he waived? 6th Circuit Holding: Defendant was silent for 2 hours and 45 mins. Defendant’s

persistent silence relayed a clear and unequivocal message that he asserted his right to remain silent.

Supreme Court Holding: Right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously and unequivocally similar to right to invocation to counsel. Mere silence is not enough to indicate a waiver of rights.

DUE PROCESS LIMITS ON INTERROGATION Statements made by suspects cannot be the product of coercion. They must be freely made. Statements obtained involuntarily are inadmissible. Influence by law enforcement can be exerted as long as it is not coercive. Evidence suppressed on Due Process grounds is

suppressed and cannot be used to impeach. Test to determine Due Process violation: Totality of the circumstances. Whether the person’s

will was overborne. Remember: 2 ways to assess statements made by suspects. First is through Miranda. Second

is through Due Process analysis. Brahm v. United States (1897)

Holding: A confession must not be extracted by any sort of threat or violence nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight nor by the exertion of any influence. A statement obtained by any such exertion is not admissible.

Voluntariness About Threats

Threats of physical force Violence (Statements obtained by violence are by in large inadmissible) Promises of Leniency Threats of Harsher Treatment Threat doesnt have to come from law enforcement

People v. Thomas

Facts: Defendant questioned over 2 days. Taken to a hospital and back with no sleep. Eventually confesses

Holding: Confession was a product of coercion.

28

Doody v. Schriro

Facts: Involved the murder of six buddhist monks. 13 year old interrogated extensively Holding: Interrogation was coercive.

Arizona v. Fulminante (Threats of Violence ­ Coercion and Harmless Error Analysis)

Facts: Defendant becomes friends with fellow inmate. Fellow inmate acting for law enforcement tells defendant that “I will protect you but you have to tell me what happened.”

Holding: Due Process violation because there was a credible threat (threat likely to be acted on). This was a coerced confession. However, a coerced confession is still subject to a harmless error analysis (outcome won’t be affected so the conviction wont be overturned).

People v. Rice

Holding: The fulminante rule only applies to psychological threats of coercion. You can only engage in harmless error if it involves psychological pressure

Miller v. Fenton(Psychological Coercion)

Issue: Did the interrogation include psychological manipulation of such magnitude as to render the

Holding: Psychological pressure is permitted as long as it doesn't go too far and becomes coercive.

Factors to determine whether psychological pressure goes too far Length of detention Day or night? Held incommunicado? (Held without being able to talk to anyone) Personal makeup of the suspect (Age, intelligence, etc) Lack of advice Lack of food

State v. Polk (Promises of Leniency)

Facts: Officer told defendant county attorney will be more likely to work with him if he cooperated. Officer also said to defendant that he shouldnt leave his children behind. Defendant then gives exculpatory evidence.

Issue: Was the statement involuntary Holding: Officer crossed the line between a permissible statement that cooperation

would help and making an impermissible promise of leniency. Promises of leniency will overbear someone’s will.

State v. Madsen (Iowa Rule ­ Promise of Leniency)

Facts: Officers tells defendant to come clean so that he can keep defendant’s name out of the paper and to do the right thing for his family.

29

Holding: Impermissible promise of leniency because of preying on the family. If there is a promise of leniency, any statement made by the suspect is per se involuntary.

State v. Howard (Iowa)

Facts: Detective first elicited the defendant’s acknowledgement that whoever did this needed psychological treatment. Detective then offered to help him and defendant confesses.

Issue: Whether the defendants statements were involuntary based on promise of leniency

Hill v. State (Promises of Leniency)

Facts: Child reported to police that the defendant molested her. Child then recorded the defendant to apologize with the help with the police. Police call defendant to precinct told defendant that the family didn’t want to see him get in trouble. They just want an apology.

Holding: Statement was impermissible. If an acused is induced to make a statement in reliance of an officer’s promise to escape prosecution, it is impermissible.

Unites States v. Jacques (Threats of Harsh Treatment)

Facts: Law enforcement threatened longer sentence and defendant’s father. Holding: Threat alone is not enough. Also need threat + additional facts.

People v. Ramadon (Threats of Harsh Treatment)

Facts: Law enforcement threatened deportation Holding: Threat crossed the line and constituted harsh treatment

Ledbetter v. Edwards (Deception and False Statements)

Facts: Officer falsely told Ledbetter that victim Holding: Defendant’s will is not overborne simply because he is led to believe that the

government’s knowledge of his guilt is greater than it actually is Oritz v. Olibe (False Sympathy)

Facts: Law enforcement agent pretending to be a caligrapher gets 18 year old defendant to make statements after mothering him.

Holding: Statement was voluntary Bond v. State (False Sympathy)

Facts: During 3 hour interrogation detective urged to defendant not to expose himself to the racist whims of a jury. Defendant then confesses.

Holding: Defendant’s will was overborne.

30

Lineups ­ Two Main Issues (NOT BEING TESTED)

Right to counsel Fundamental right to due process

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

evidence gathered with the assistance of illegally obtained information must be excluded from trial. Thus, if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery of physical evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence may be excluded, the interrogation because of the exclusionary rule, and the physical evidence because it is the “fruit” of the illegal interrogation. This doctrine is subject to three of important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded (1) if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity; (2) its discovery was inevitable; or (3) if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence.

Oregon v. Elstad

Facts: Defendant interrogate person without miranda warnings. Defendant confesses. Later they read miranda and get confession again. Defendant argues fruit of the poisonous tree.

Holding: Not fruit of the poisonous tree because it was inadvertent

31