CJ EXAM 3 REVIEW By Name Miranda v Ariz 1966 Case shows concern with psychological coercion as an inherent part of custodial interrogation and assumes that people are not informed about their rights Waivers of 5th amendment rights must be knowing and voluntary Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations where the psych coercion is a problem Officers developed techniques to get confessions About the same number now as Less of a concern in a non custody situation Impact before miranda Can use deception and lying Need to read miranda rights for custodial interrogation right to remain silent etc Betts v Brady 1942 States had a duty to provide counsel for special needs defendants ex mental problems illiteracy etc Gideon v Wainwright 1963 Right to counsel serious charges Reference to Powell Reject the Betts Rule Retroactive application should new rule apply to cases now and in the future or cases in the past Retroactive application applying it to the past At that time less than 10 states failed to provide lawyers Gideon was not considered special needs so he was not appointed a lawyer even though he wanted one He had to represent himself and ended up being convicted and sent to prison in Florida From inside the prison he wrote a letter to the Supreme Court stating that he thought he should ve been entitled a lawyer Law firm ended up taking his side and reopening the case against the prosecuting attorney Ended up rejecting Betts Rule and substituting it with when a defendant is facing a felony charge and is poor entitled to a lawyer Vigilante example Terry v Ohio 1968 Rationale and scope of search looking for weapons Need reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts Officer suspected they were going to rob something so he figured they would have weapons Profiling problem Court took side of police safety to guard against the risk of the public police can do suitable pat down not a full search in mind of searching for weapons Argument that the stop was too brief The longer the stop more evidence is needed Stop and frisk is now often called a Terry stop Chimel v Calif 1969 Search incident to a lawful arrest Chimel was arrested inside of his house If there is no probable cause it is not lawful Once Chimel was arrested they did a search on his person pat down looked in pockets etc Police were not only concerned with weapons they were afraid of him destroying evidence so they searched him more thoroughly and his immediate surroundings Then police searched rest of house and found evidence of a crimes Court said when they have a valid arrest police can do a full search In purpose of looking for both weapons and evidence Chimel case deals with search of surroundings Pat down is to look only for weapons But here they were permitted for both weapons and evidence Valid arrest needs probable cause US v Arvizu 2002 then obtained consent to search it Hurtado v California 1884 Car searches near International Borders With reasonable suspicion can stop a single car near the border officer stopped vehicle and Lawyers began to argue that the right to due process in the 14th Amendment actually contained specific rights listed in the Bill of Rights Hurtado s lawyer argued that the 5th amendment right to a grand jury should be considerd as part of the right to due process provided by the 14th amendment Hurtado had been charged with murder based on information filed by a prosecutor rather than through indictment by a grand jury Advanced the argument that the 14th amendment s due process clause had the effect of applying the entire Bill of Rights against state and local governments Thus he argued that people should have the same rights against actions by state and local officials that they had against actions by federal officials Palko v Conn 1937 Famous for establishing a test through which to determine which rights from the Bill of Rights are included in the 14th Amendment s due process clase and applied against state and local governments only those rights that are fundamental and essential to liberty are applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment Palko faced the death penalty for the murders of two police officers The jury found him guilty of second degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison The state s Supreme Court of Errors granted the prosecutions request for a new trial based on errors in the trial judge s ruling on the admissibility of evidence and on instructions to the jury After the second trial Palko was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death Palko unsuccessfully pursued an appeal through the state s Supreme Court of Errors before bringing to the US Supreme Court his argument that double jeopardy rights ought to apply against the state through the process of incorporating components of the Bill of Rights into the 14th amendment Cupp v Murphy 1973 deals with exigent circumstances Ok to search with probable cause wife was murdered husband came to police station for questioning and they thought they saw dark stuff under his finger nails that could be blood he noticed and stuck his hands in his pockets to scrape it off and then the police grabbed him and scraped it out of his finger nails aka search Johnson v Zerbst 1938 Federal Court 6th amendment imposes a duty on the government to provide attorneys to indigent defendants in cases with serious criminal charges indigent means poor Malloy v Hogan 1964 In Malloy Connecticut officials had threatened the defendant with a contempt of court citation if he did not testify about gambling activities the supreme court decided that he could decline to testify by asserting his right not to incriminate himself Compelled self incrimination deals with privilege against self incrimination Incorporated the privilege into the 14th amendment Prior to Malloy the cases turned on a question of due process under the 14th amendment and voluntariness under the totality of circumstances Under Malloy the court still looked at voluntariness but it was now under the 5th amendment through the 14th amendment The court still looks at voluntariness but Miranda often avoids this issue in the case of custodial interrogation Dickerson v United States 2000 challenge to miranda FBI agents screwed up and failed to give miranda warnings court could have used this case to overturn miranda but didn t Weeks v US Created the exclusionary rule Mapp v Ohio 1961 After the Mapp decision the exclusionary rule seemed very clear It was a bright line rule