Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Miscellaneous Outline

Law Outlines > Criminal Procedure: Investigations Outlines

This is an extract of our Miscellaneous document, which we sell as part of our Criminal Procedure: Investigations Outlines collection written by the top tier of UC Berkeley School Of Law students.

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

Odds and Ends I. Bodily Extractions a. DPC is violated when it shocks the conscious i. Ridiculous to think that coerced confessions must be excluded but extractions by force not

1. Rochin: police took him to hospital and forced him to vomit in order to recover pills that he swallowed b. 5th amen only applies to testimonial or communicative evidence i. Extraction of physical evidence is not testimonial

1. Schmerber: Police ordered doctor to take his blood against his will, 5th amen does not apply c. Search within 4th amen i. Schmerber: taking blood was a search but it was reasonable because of exigent circumstances ii. Reasonableness of surgical intrusions beneath the skin require a case by case weighing iii. Balance individual's interest in privacy and security vs society's interest in conducting procedure

1. Winston v Lee: Unreasonable to require surgery to get out bullet in shoulder

2. Maryland v King: taking a buccal swab is reasonable under the 4th amen because it is legitimate routine booking procedure and is important for identification purposes; no more intrusive than a fingerprint iv. Factors to look at

1. Health and safety risk

2. Degree of intrusion

3. VS community's interest in determining guilt

4. Need for evidence II. Lineups a. 5th amen i. Compelling an accused merely to exhibit his person for observation involves no compulsion of accused having to give testimonial evidence b. 6th amen i. After indictment, entitled to have lawyer present during a lineup; this is a critical stage of the proceeding

1. Wade: He was entitled to have his counsel present absent an intelligent waiver c. Wade only applies after indictment (Kirby) i. Evidence of out of court ID is not excluded ii. Witness can still pick out D at trail so long as prosecutor can show they are basing ID on something other than lineup

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