Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Criminal Procedure Outline

Law Outlines > Criminal Justice/Procedure Outlines

This is an extract of our Criminal Procedure Outline document, which we sell as part of our Criminal Justice/Procedure Outlines collection written by the top tier of Georgetown University Law Center students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Justice/Procedure Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Criminal Procedure Outline
An Introduction to the Criminal Justice Procedure......................................................................................6
The Fourth Amendment: Interests at Stake.............................................................................................6
The Incorporation Debate: Applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process Clause.................................................................................................................7
Duncan v. Louisiana...........................................................................................................................7
McDonald v. Chicago.........................................................................................................................8
Policing in Law and in Practice...................................................................................................................8
The Exclusionary Rule............................................................................................................................8
Wolf v. Colorado (Reversed by Mapp)...............................................................................................8
Mapp v. Ohio......................................................................................................................................9
US v. Leon..........................................................................................................................................9
Massachusetts v. Sheppard................................................................................................................10
Herring v. US....................................................................................................................................10
Other cases on point........................................................................................................................11
The Fourth Amendment: Governmental Action, "Standing," and Reasonable Expectations of Privacy I. 11
US v. Jacobsen..................................................................................................................................11
Olmstead v. US (Reversed by Katz)..................................................................................................12
Katz v. US.........................................................................................................................................12
Harlan test for Protected Privacy......................................................................................................13
Other Cases on Point.........................................................................................................................13
California v. Greenwood...................................................................................................................13
The Fourth Amendment: Governmental Action, "Standing," and Reasonable Expectations of Privacy II 14
Florida v. Riley.................................................................................................................................16
Hypos on Searches............................................................................................................................17
US v. Jones.......................................................................................................................................17
Carpenter v. US.................................................................................................................................18
Florida v. Jardines.............................................................................................................................19
Protected vs. Unprotected Places......................................................................................................20
The Fourth Amendment: Governmental Action, "Standing," and Reasonable Expectations of Privacy III
................................................................................................................................................................... 21
US v. White - The Invited Eaar........................................................................................................21
Rakas v. Illinois................................................................................................................................22
Minnesota v. Olson...........................................................................................................................23
Minnesota v. Carter...........................................................................................................................23
Justification: Probable Cause.....................................................................................................................24

1 Spinelli v. US....................................................................................................................................25
Illinois v. Gates.................................................................................................................................25
Maryland v. Pringle..........................................................................................................................26
Hypos................................................................................................................................................28
Justification: Reasonable Suspicion for Stop & Frisk 1.............................................................................29
Terry v. Ohio....................................................................................................................................29
Florida v. JL......................................................................................................................................30
Illinois v. Wardlow...........................................................................................................................31
Florida v. Royer................................................................................................................................31
US v. Drayton...................................................................................................................................32
Hypos................................................................................................................................................33
Justification: Reasonable Suspicion for Stop & Frisk II............................................................................34
NYC's Stop and Frisk Policy............................................................................................................34
Brendlen v. CA.................................................................................................................................34
Rodriguez v. US................................................................................................................................35
Floyd v. City of NY..........................................................................................................................35
Reasonableness Limits on Execution of Search/Seizure............................................................................36
Tennessee v. Garner..........................................................................................................................36
Scott v. Harris...................................................................................................................................37
Warrant Requirement: Warrantless Arrests and Searches of Persons........................................................38
United States v. Watson........................................................................................................................39
US v. Robinson (1973)..........................................................................................................................40
Whren v. US..........................................................................................................................................41
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista...............................................................................................................42
Special Needs Cases..................................................................................................................................43
Cases at inception of special needs doctrine..................................................................................44
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000).................................................................................................45
Board of Ed of Pottwatomie County v. Earls........................................................................................46
US v. Martinez-Fuerte...........................................................................................................................46
Administrative Searches............................................................................................................................47
Maryland v. King..................................................................................................................................47
Warrantless Seizure and Searches of Premises/Persons.............................................................................49
Payton v. New York - No warrantless arrests in the home...............................................................49
Searches Incident to Arrest................................................................................................................49
Chimel v. California - Scope of Search Pursuant to Lawful Arrest..................................................50
Maryland v. Buie..............................................................................................................................51

2 Exigent Circumstances..........................................................................................................................52
Minnesota v. Olson - NO Exigency..................................................................................................52
Kentucky v. King - Exigency even though Police CREATED.........................................................53
Warrantless Seizure and Searches of Vehicles and Effects; Pretextual Searches.......................................55
CA v. Carney....................................................................................................................................57
Arizona v. Gant.................................................................................................................................59
CA v. Acevedo..................................................................................................................................60
Wyoming v. Houghton......................................................................................................................60
Colorado v. Bertine...........................................................................................................................61
Riley v. CA.......................................................................................................................................62
Consent Searches.......................................................................................................................................63
Consent Hypos..................................................................................................................................64
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte...............................................................................................................64
Georgia v. Randolph.........................................................................................................................65
Plain View Seizures...................................................................................................................................66
Plain View Hypos.............................................................................................................................66
Arizona v. Hicks...............................................................................................................................67
Horton v. CA....................................................................................................................................68
Exclusionary Rule Revisited: Applying the Rule (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Impeachment)...........69
The Fruit that Grows from the Illegal Tree.......................................................................................69
Wong Sun v. US...............................................................................................................................70
Taylor v. Alabama............................................................................................................................70
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine...............................................................................................................71
Nix v. Williams.................................................................................................................................71
Hudson v. Michigan..........................................................................................................................73
Herring v. US....................................................................................................................................73
Due Process "Voluntariness" Test for Admitting Confessions..................................................................73
Rogers v. US.....................................................................................................................................77
Collective Entities.............................................................................................................................78
Hale v. Henkel..................................................................................................................................78
US v. Mandujano..............................................................................................................................79
Immunity..........................................................................................................................................80
Kastigar v. US...................................................................................................................................80
Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination: Tangible Objects..........................................................81
Fisher v. US......................................................................................................................................81
US v. Hubbell...................................................................................................................................82

3 Beasley v. US....................................................................................................................................83
The Due Process "Voluntariness" Test for Admitting Confessions: Massiah and Escobedo.....................83
Equal Protection gets cozy with Due Process...................................................................................84
Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944)............................................................................................................85
Spano v. NY......................................................................................................................................86
Massiah v. US...................................................................................................................................87
Escobedo v. Illinois...........................................................................................................................87
Miranda: The Court Builds a Confession Doctrine on the 5th Amendment - Applying and Explaining
Miranda & The Meaning of "Custodial Interrogation"..............................................................................88
The Cruel Trilemma..........................................................................................................................89
Miranda v. Arizona - Shift from ex post analysis of voluntariness to ex ante avoidance of coercive interrogation......................................................................................................................................89
Remedy for Miranda Violations.......................................................................................................92
What constitutes "custody" or "custodial interrogation" for purposes of requiring Miranda warnings?92
JDB v. North Carolina......................................................................................................................93
Howes v. Fields.................................................................................................................................94
What constitutes "interrogation" within the meaning of Miranda?........................................................94
Rhode Island v. Innis........................................................................................................................94
Illinois v. Perkins..............................................................................................................................95
Applying and Explaining Miranda II.........................................................................................................96
I. What is the "right to the assistance of counsel" under the 5 th amendment and how long does it last once it has been invoked?......................................................................................................................96
What counts as invocation of the right to counsel?...........................................................................97
What does it mean that you cannot resume interrogation until counsel has been "made available"? 97
What does "re-initiating" for purposes of right to counsel mean?.....................................................97
Can police ever re-initiate for purposes of right to counsel?.............................................................98
Maryland v. Shatzer..........................................................................................................................98
II. What counts as invoking the right to remain silent?.........................................................................99
Berghuis v. Thompkins.....................................................................................................................99
Can your silence be used against you?............................................................................................100
Salinas v. Texas..............................................................................................................................100
How long does the invocation of the right to remain silent last?.....................................................101
Applying and Explaining Miranda III......................................................................................................101
"Public Safety" Exception to Miranda Requirements.....................................................................102
NY v. Quarles.................................................................................................................................102
US v. Patane....................................................................................................................................103
Missouri v. Seibert..........................................................................................................................103

4 Moran v. Burbine............................................................................................................................104
Is Miranda a constitutional rule?.....................................................................................................105
Dickerson v. US..............................................................................................................................105
Miranda is a TRIAL Right..................................................................................................................106
Chavez v. Martinez.........................................................................................................................106
After Chavez, Miranda is ...............................................................................................................107
After Chavez, what may police do?.....................................................................................................108
Massiah Revisited...........................................................................................................................109
The 6th Amendment Revisited......................................................................................................109
Brewer v. Williams.........................................................................................................................109
Kuhlman v. Williams......................................................................................................................110
Maine v. Moulton............................................................................................................................111
In class exercise: Miranda...............................................................................................................111
Review Session...............................................................................................................................111

5 An Introduction to the Criminal Justice Procedure
The Fourth Amendment: Interests at Stake

The Incorporation Debate: Applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process Clause
Timeline of Incorporation

1. Powell, Gideon, incorporated 6th amendment right to counsel (1932, 1963)
a. Argersinger incorporated right to counsel for imprison able misdemeanors

2. Duncan incorporated the 6th amendment right to jury trial (1968)

3. Hogan incorporated the 5th amendment (1964)

4. Wolf and Mapp incorporated the 4th amendment (1949 and 1961)
a. Ker incorporated the unreasonableness standard (1963)
b. Aguilar incorporated the warrant requirement (1964)
Duncan v. Louisiana
Facts
Gary Duncan (defendant) was convicted of simple battery by a judge in a Louisiana state court. Under Louisiana law, simple battery is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment and a $300 fine. Duncan sought trial by jury, but the Louisiana constitution granted jury trials only in cases in which capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor could be imposed. Duncan's request was denied, and he was convicted and sentenced to sixty days in prison and a fine of $150.
Duncan appealed and brought suit against the State of Louisiana, alleging an infringement of his constitutional right to a jury trial.
Issue
Ruling/ROL
Reasoning

6 Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to state court proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to state court proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in all state criminal cases that would be eligible for trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment if tried in federal court. The right to trial by jury is necessary for criminal defendants to prevent oppression by the government and to provide safeguards against corrupt or overzealous prosecutors or "compliant, biased, or eccentric" judges. The nation, as a whole, has demonstrated a deep deference for the right to a jury trial. Thus, this right meets the standard of a "fundamental principle of liberty and justice" and should be protected by the Due Process Clause and respected by the states. McDonald v. Chicago
Facts
Petitioners challenged a law enacted by the City of Chicago (respondent) that prohibited Chicago residents from possessing handguns, claiming that the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
Issue
Does the Second Amendment apply to the states, thereby invalidating a local law prohibiting residents from possessing handguns?
Ruling/ROL Yes. A Bill of Rights guarantee applies to the states if it is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition.
Reasoning
Yes. The Second Amendment applies to the states, thereby invalidating Chicago's law prohibiting residents from possessing handguns. Under the process of selective incorporation, a particular Bill of Rights guarantee will apply to the states if it is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S 570 (2008), this Court found that individual self-defense is a basic right, which forms the central component of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, and which is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. Following the Civil War, in response to the efforts of some states to disarm returning black soldiers and other black people, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which protected the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. When this was met with southern resistance and presidential vetoes,
Congress responded by adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby providing a constitutional basis for the rights included in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Alito
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The City argues that gun ownership is not a fundamental right because other countries have limited gun ownership. However, the standard to be applied in incorporation cases is not whether there is any civilized legal system that does not recognize a particular right, but whether a particular right is fundamental to this nation's justice system. In addition,
the Second Amendment does not differ from other rights simply because a right to a deadly instrument raises issues of public safety, as rights that restrict law enforcement activities and criminal prosecutions also implicate public safety. Finally, it is important to note that Heller does not invalidate laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or within government buildings and schools, or which place conditions on the sale of firearms.
Policing in Law and in Practice
The Exclusionary Rule
What is the Exclusionary Rule
Evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment is ordinarily inadmissible in a criminal trial.
For constitutional searches, must have: affidavit showing probable cause + particular description of

7 What it does/History
Mandated in the federal criminal justice system for 75 years, but much more recently so in the states. Supreme
Court has indicated

Arguments For


The 4th amendment is an empty promise without the exclusionary rule
The constitution has active language, to secure liberty, this implies active action is necessary to fulling the command.
Court is partaking in the wrong when it admits wrongfully seized evidence

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Justice/Procedure Outlines.

More Criminal Justice/Procedure Samples