Preview

Crim Pro Notes

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
364 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Crim Pro Notes
Custody- One’s liberty is significantly restrained and one feels like he is not free to leave.
Plainview doctrine- Officer is where he has a right to be and it must, immediately apparent evidence of crime or contraband, Right of Access to it, no need to be inadvertently discovered.
Probable cause- Totality of circumstances and reliability factors from Aguillar/Spinelli/Gates
5th Amendment right to counsel- Right to counsel all questioning must cease unless they initiate further contact with the police.
5th Amendment right to Counsel- The testimony need only furnish a link in the chain of evidence against them, if a witness. Since they are not D’s they cannot refuse to take the stand, they would have to take the stand and invoke the privilege with each question asked.
Immunity- Use Immunity and Transactional Immunity.
Stop- Only needs reasonable suspicion. Stop is a seizure within the meaning of the constitution and reasonable suspicion is required for reasonableness. Reasonable suspicion exists when there are “specific articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot. A stop is a minimal intrusion. Officer may ask questions to confirm or dispel of suspicion.
Two requirements for Miranda to be implicated- Custody and Interrogation
Interrogation- any words or actions of the police that they should know are likely to illicit an incriminating response.
Inventory-
Fruit of the Poisonous tree doctrine- applies if the initial stop of the car was unconstitutional.
Actual Stop- Federal when the suspect submits to the show of authority or physical force. LA- actual stop is imminent
Curtilage- is that area to where the intimate activities of the home extends. Factors to consider in determining curtilage is the proximity to the residence, whether there are enclosures, activity to which it is used.
Search- is an invasion into one’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
Warrant- Probable cause requirement and 2. Particularity requirement ( requires the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before."…

    • 401 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The case of Escobedo V. Illinois set the precedent for the sixth amendment, which is the right to a counsel. It guaranteed that if a person is arrested then they must be informed of their legal rights, which gives them the right to remain silent. When Danny Escobedo was arrested in connection for the shooting of one of his relatives he received an 18-hour interrogation and was later released for not making any self-incriminating statements. Another suspect was later arrested and told police that Escobedo had committed the murder. He was then once again arrested and this time interrogated through the entire night. His attorney had been repeatedly denied permission to talk to his client. Escobedo as well had repeatedly asked to see his lawyer…

    • 306 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    cja324r3 ethical worksheet

    • 1495 Words
    • 6 Pages

    He wants the honest truth about the situation. He does not want any false information. He wants to make an arrest…

    • 1495 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As further reiterated, “Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.” Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not bar voluntary statements by definition. The Fifth Amendment explicitly states “No person shall…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The issue here was whether or not the conversation was in fact an interrogation based on the subdivision called the “functional equivalent” of questioning, described as ‘any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect’. The court found that the conversation did not fall within the Miranda meaning of “interrogation” because it was concluded as being nothing more than a dialogue between the two officers, which invited no response from the respondent, and was clearly not a questioning initiated by officers. Furthermore, the conversation also was found not to fall under the description of “functional equivalent” because the few ‘offhand’ remarks that the officers made to one another in no way subjected the respondent to elicit a statement of admission, nor were the officers’ actions subjecting the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was found to have given a confession in a voluntary manner and that his Fifth Amendment rights were not deprived because he was not compelled or forced in any way to…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The initial stop of Rounds was entirely valid because Rounds was indeed driving with a broken headlight, a state criminal traffic violation. This is not uncommon, nor is it debatable.…

    • 1222 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    necessary means to effect the arrest, the officer was cleared to use deadly force. Using deadly…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In order for an admission to be admissible in court, prior to interrogation, the individual must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. In addition, the warning to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything can be used against the individual in court, and that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and if they can not afford one, then one will be appointed to them. Also, if the individual waives his right to remain silent and for counsel to be present, the police must show that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel. This means the subject has the right to counsel before, during, and after questioning. Should the subject request the presence of an attorney, questioning should cease until counsel arrives.…

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Terry Stop Case

    • 363 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In contrast the distinguish between stop from as arrest is difficult to determine. However, it is imperative because of the different procedure that must goes into effect before a Terry stop occurs. For instance, a stop procedure must be determine by a reasonable suspicion and probable cause. According to the case of Flordia b. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) give an distinguish of a Terry stop and arrest. In this case it share some information about a man that is know as a drug dealer stop by and officer at an airport. This individual was detained by a officer who was asking him some question in a public viewing in the airport. Later he was escorted to a small police officer 40 feets away, in which he was willing to comply with the officer requests…

    • 363 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    There are three tiers within the category of seizures, arrest, investigatory stop and a consensual encounter. Both arrest and investigatory stops occur under the Fourth Amendment; however, arrest require justification by probable cause, while investigatory stops only require the mere validation of reasonable suspicion. On the other hand, consensual encounters have impose no restraints of liberty being that it is not ruled by the Amendment, meaning that it requires nothing to have a conversation with an individual. Seizures are more complex than a government official asking an individual a few questions. Before a conversation can be defined as a seizure, the person must no longer agree to…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Robinette case, the US Supreme Court overruled the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio court wanted to require police officers using traffic stops (motorists pulled over for alleged traffic violations) as an excuse for conducting drug searches, to tell the offenders explicitly that they are free to leave the scene if they so choose, before asking for permission for the search. The state court wished to impose a limitation on the disturbing and by that time common police practice; the US Supreme Court would have none of it. Such court rulings emboldened the police to push the limits of what they could do, without much fear of adverse legal consequences.…

    • 1857 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The 5th Amendment

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages

    are expected to tell the truth, even if that truth was to put you in…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fifth Amendment

    • 494 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In 1966, there was a supreme case called Miranda v. Arizona which the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment privilege againest self incrimination requires law enforcement to advise a suspect that before a custodial interrigation, a suspect must be informed of both his or her privileges against incriminating oneself and to obtain an attorney. Miranda warnings must be given before any questioning by law enforcement officials.…

    • 494 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Legal Rights

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The right to confront witnesses is legal right. The sixth amendment gives the defendant the right to be confronted by the witnesses against them (Larry J. Siegel, 2012, 2010). This basically gives the right for the defendant to have the witness me to court and give them the ability to look the witness right in the eye. This also gives the defendant’s lawyer the right to question the witness. If this right wasn’t upheld then there would probably be a lot of false statements or accusations in the trial. It would also be hard to confirm whether or not the witness it telling the truth, because anyone can pick up a piece of paper and write down what they want to, but when it comes to looking that person right in the eye it makes a whole lot of difference, because it gives the defense a chance to look at the body language of the witness and also, when it comes to the matching up of the statements, the witness could write down something, but then when it comes to testifying if they are lying then what they wrote down and what they are actually saying could be totally different and if this right was no longer upheld there could be innocent people going to jail or a lot of criminals getting away with the crime that they have committed. Also if the legal right wasn’t upheld how could the jury or the judge go off of a written statement that could have be written by anyone, if this…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Trespass

    • 1210 Words
    • 5 Pages

    “An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person.” Robert Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172, at 1177…

    • 1210 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays