Presentation on theme: "Rights of the Accused: 4 th Amendment. Rights of the Accused The Constitution protects the innocent and the guilty. Error is inevitable: - guilty escape."— Presentation transcript:
Rights of the Accused: 4 th Amendment
Rights of the Accused The Constitution protects the innocent and the guilty. Error is inevitable: - guilty escape punishment - guilty are punished more severely than they should be - guilty are punished less severely than they should be - innocent are punished
Why are there errors? 1. Eyewitness error: A. Reality distortions: * See wrong - emotional loading; perceptual distortions * Remember wrong – false memories; memory distortions * Confabulation (particularly with young witnesses) B. Lying – coached, testilying, pressure, protect themselves, protect others, make themselves look good, attract attention, get back at an enemy C. Mistakes – simply human error, inadvertent misidentification D. Courtroom presentation issues – not precise, not articulate, lack creditability, nervous, emotional, intimidated on the witness stand and retract statements/get rattled 2. Professional misconduct (police, prosecutor, judge): A. Inadvertent (human error) B. Intentional (fabricate, alter, suppress evidence) 3. Forensic science errors: A. Inadvertent (human error - mistakes made in the lab tests) B. Intentional (fabricate, alter, suppress evidence) 4. Racial and class bias 5. Use of jailhouse informants 6. False confessions - to protect others, pressure from others, obtain notoriety, beaten by police, psycho and think they did do it 7. Ineffective assistance of counsel
4 th Amendment Unreasonable searches and seizures Warrants Probable case Exclusionary Rule – evidence that is unlawfully seized is inadmissible at trial.
Core 4th Amendment Cases Weeks v U.S. - evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court Elkins v U.S. - evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts Mapp v Ohio – Exclusionary Rule applied to the states
4th Amendment Cases and Principles Mapp v. Ohio – Exclusionary Rule applied to the states Mapp exemptions: U.S. v Havens: illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial Nix v Williams: inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegally seized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered U.S. v Leon (good faith exemption): evidence seized by reasonably well-trained officers acting in good faith, is admissible, even if the seizure technically violated the law Massachusetts v Sheppard (good faith exemption): evidence seized by reasonably well-trained officers acting in good faith, is admissible, even if the seizure technically violated the law
Search Warrant Detailed, factual probable cause Testified to by a creditable observer Specify the address to be searched Specify the evidence to be seized Specify the date and time Specify who will execute the warrant Signed by a judicial officer Wilson v Arkansas: even when armed with a warrant, the police generally must "knock and announce" before entering a home.
4th Amendment Cases and Principles Search Incident to Arrest (Maryland v. Buie): officers may search the suspect and the adjoining space region incident to a lawful arrest; ; if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that there is hidden danger present, officers may conduct a protective sweep of the area, but it is only to be a cursory search for people and may last no longer than it takes to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger Plain View Doctrine (Harris v. U.S.): if the officer is legally present, the offending objects are in plain view, and the incriminating nature is readily apparent, the items may be seized without a warrant (plain view doctrine) Rochin v. California: a search cannot be exploratory, it cannot be unreasonable, and it cannot shock the conscience Consent Search: Lawful authority to search may be obtained without a warrant in a consent setting, as long as the following provisions are in place at the probable cause level: 1. Voluntary 2. Knowingly 3. Authority (those who have equal rights of access and privacy; reasonable access, legal ownership; mutual use, common access, common control) Illinois v Rodriguez (apparent authority doctrine): if consent to search is given by someone who does not have the authority to do so, but the police reasonably believed they did, the evidence is still admissible in court (crime control or due process?) Florida v Bostick: randomized consent searches of individuals who are on public transportation is acceptable, even though such searches carry some degree of implied coercion and are not truly voluntary; the governing test is whether a reasonable person feels free to decline an officer's request to search
4th Amendment Cases and Principles: No Warrant, Probable Cause Motor Vehicle Searches (Carroll v. U.S.) : police may stop and search a potentially mobile motor vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is carrying individuals or articles that offend the law Illinois v Gates (totality of the circumstances test): taken piecemeal, the evidence may not amount to probable cause, but if taken together as a whole the evidence achieves that level, the legal standard of proof for the search has been met U.S. v Ross: if there is probable cause to believe that a potentially mobile motor vehicle is carrying individuals or articles that offend the law, an officer may stop that vehicle and search every occupant of the vehicle, every part of the vehicle, and all of the contents found in the vehicle without a warrant, but, a ROSS-type search is justified only if probable cause arises regarding a non-traffic offense violation Colorado v Bertine: a vehicle that has been impounded by police officials can be searched in its entirety; all items found in the vehicle, include closed and locked items, may also searched Delaware v Prouse: police may conduct brief, scientifically random/systemic, suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints (exception to the probable cause standard in this category)
RICO Cases U.S. v James Daniel Good: civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding Reves v Ernst and Young: liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise U.S. v 92 Buena Vista Avenue: assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
4th Amendment Cases and Principles: No Warrant, Reasonable Suspicion Stop and frisk searches (Terry v Ohio): a stop and frisk search may be conducted when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is now or is about to engage in criminal behavior U.S. v Hensley: a stop and frisk search may be performed when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law, past tense U.S. v Sokolow: an investigatory search may be conducted if the totality of the circumstances establishes reasonable suspicion to believe that a person matches the drug courier profile New Jersey v TLO: reasonable suspicion is the standard to be used by public school officials to conduct searches on public school grounds of individuals who may be violating either the law or school rules Florida v Royer: reasonable suspicion can be used as the basis for investigative searches and seizures in situations involving pre-eminent public interests; specifically, reasonable suspicion is the standard to be used to allow investigatory searches of individuals (passengers or non- passengers) on airport grounds
4th Amendment Cases and Principles: Four categories of searches 1. Searches with warrants 2. Searches without warrants, but with probable cause a. Incident to arrest b. Plain view c. Consent d. Mobile motor vehicle searches 3. Searches without warrants, but with reasonable suspicion (pre-eminent public interest situations) a. Stop and frisk/investigatory search if suspicion of present and future tense crime b. Stop and frisk/investigatory search if suspicion of past tense crime c. Emergencies/Pressing Situations: d. Stop and frisk/investigatory search: 1. if suspicion of being a drug courier 2. if suspicion is present and on public school grounds 3. if suspicion is present in an airport setting 4. if suspicion is present and the individual is on probation or parole 5. high crime areas (de facto vs de jure; organic nature of the law; soft chalk idea) 4. Searches without warrants, and no cause (arbitrary searches, pragmatic searches; outside the bounds of what Founding Fathers could have imagined at the time)
4th Amendment Cases and Principles: No Warrant, No Cause (arbitrary/pragmatic) U.S. v Dunn: no specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non- habitable buildings California v Greenwood: garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause California v Hodari D: evidence discarded by an individual fleeing from the police is admissible in court, even if the police had no advance cause to focus attention upon the person who discarded the material
4th Amendment Cases and Principles Again: Illinois v Gates (totality of the circumstances test): taken piecemeal, the evidence may not amount to probable cause, but if taken together as a whole the evidence achieves that level, the legal standard of proof for the search has been met Rochin v California: a search cannot be exploratory, it cannot be unreasonable, it cannot shock the conscience