Unformatted text preview:

Chapter 4• Collateral use exceptions• Harris v. New York (1971) - impeachment of defendant• United States v. Calandra (1974) grand jury• The prosecutor can use illegal ceased evidence, grand jury considers illegally ceased evidence. • Exclusionary rule allows him to do this. Able to get defendant indicted, but hard to prove guilty.• Pa.Bd. of Pardons & Parole v. Scott (1998) - revocation hearing• Parol is a conditional release from a correctional facility.• Can use illegally ceased evidence for parole purposes. Evidence of violation of parole.• Ins v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) - deportation hearing• hearing with no jury, in hearing the government needs to prove that the person is here illegally, the defendant can give evidence of their own.• In deportation hearing, government can use illegally ceased evidence• exclusionary ruleIf one of these apply, prosecutor can use in case and chief.• United States v. Leon (1984) - Good faith and reasonable• referred to as good faith exception, but bad name because you need good faith and reasonable.• What happened in this case? Police had evidence that Leon had drugs going on in Leon’s place. Police showed judge and judge said it was good enough evidence. But when police showed evidence, the evidence was “stale,” so search warrant was invalid which ended up making the evidence illegal• Police and judge did not know it was stale, and had no reason to know.• Said if the police are acting in good faith and their acting reasonably, then we’re going to permit the evidence to come in.• Reliance on incorrect court records from another county • Example case: Herring v. U.S.• Basic idea behind these cases is reliance on court records• If there was a screw up in the system and an officer sees a warrant for your arrest when he pulls you over, therefore searches your car, and finds drugs. Although the warrant and searching was illegal and not allowed, the drugs are still illegal and will be used against you.Chapter 3• 4th Amendment protects privacy and freedom of movement• Before we can ask if 4th amendment was violated, we need to make sure that the 4th amendment was applied. This has to be looked at first.• search of people and places, the threshold issues are:• 1) Whether the person had an expectation of privacy• 2) Whether society is willing to protect it (reasonable)• seizures of person and things, the threshold issue:• the degree of interference with freedom of movement• Seizures• Is there a seizure? Ascertain this by looking at the degree of interference with freedom of movement.• Less <----------------------------------------------> more• No seizure Brief (stop) Full (arrest)• Justification needed with stop and arrest• Nothing Reasonable suspicion Probable cause• With a stop, police need reasonable suspicion• Who determines? Police do, subject to judicial review• Reasonable suspicion - based on very specific facts, facts must be able to be articulated by the officer (officer has to be able to say he saw the person did this, and this, etc.)• Ascertaining reasonable suspicion - People v. Oliver (Michigan 2001)• decided by Michigan supreme court, officer knew that bank robbers often have a getaway car, he thought an apartment complex parking lot would be a good place for a hidden car. As he drove in, a car exited and he noticed it was the same number of robbers that were riding in the car and the passengers did not look at him. So he stopped the car. The question is: was the stop legal? reasonable suspicion? Not one of these facts would stand alone, but since he could name numerous specific facts it was lawful.• With an arrest (full seizure) need probable cause• Who determines? This depends on whether or not a warrant is needed.• with warrant - judge• without warrant - police, subject to judicial review (48 hour rule)• If police make determination of probable cause and arrests someone, the judge needs to decide on the probable cause within 48 hours. Person can sit in jail for 2 days until decision.• Ascertaining probable cause• Probable cause (for an arrest) - requires sufficient evidence exists and is reviewed by the judge to support the reasonable conclusion that someone has committed a crime• Probable cause (for a warrant) - a level of evidence sufficient to provide a reasonable conclusion that the proposed objects of a search will be found in the location that law enforcement officers request to search.• traditional test is Aguilar and Spinelli from Aguilar v. Texas (1964) and Spinelli v. US (1969)• Basis of officer’s knowledge• Reliability of info• Problem with informant• Current - Illinois v. Gates (1983)• Arrest Warrant Issues:• Always need probable cause for an arrest.• Whether warrant is required or not is a key issue. That depends on whether the arrest is a public arrest or a private arrest.• Traditional rules permitted police to arrest in public without a warrant in:• cases of a felony where there is probable cause (U.S. v. Watson - 1976)• cases of a misdemeanor when the officer witnessed the crime• Payton v. New York (1980) held:• that a warrantless entry into a home for a routine felony arrest was a violation of the 4th amendment. This is due to the higher level of privacy protection in a home. (Exigent circumstances exceptions)• problems with applying this rule, e.g. practice of police coercing people inside a home to exit in order to carry out a warrantless public arrests.• What about minor offenses that carry no jail time?• Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)• Held: Arrest reasonable for minor non-jailable offense.• Use of force:• Traditional rule permits the use of reasonable amount of force to carry out an arrest.• Deadly force?• Common law rule was deadly force ok to stop a suspect in a felony case.• Tenn v. Garner (1985) changed the rule by requiring that:• the arrest is for a felony• probable cause to believe there is a threat of serious physical harm to police or public.Chapter 5 - Warrantless searches: Persons• General rule: in order for search to be reasonable, police must first obtain a search warrant.• Warrantless searches as exceptions to general rule to find reasonableness balance privacy against state interests• With exceptions, police does not need warrant• Stop and Frisk• A stop is a seizure• A frisk is a

View Full Document

MSU CJ 275 - Chapter 4

Documents in this Course
Load more
Download Chapter 4
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...

Join to view Chapter 4 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Chapter 4 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.


By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?