Justia Lawyer Rating
Best Lawyer
Super Lawyer - Top 100
Super Lawyer - Top 100
Best Lawyers
Avvo Rating 10.0
AV Preeminent
The National Trial Lawyers
The Best Lawyers in America
Best Lawyers
CLEA
Advocates for Justice
Business North Carolina Legal Elite - 2021
DUI Defense
NBTA
*For additional information regarding the criterion for inclusion or membership for lawyer associations, awards, & certifications click image for link.

Criminal Procedure Outline I - Part 2

Download the PDF version of this outline

<< Part 1 | Part 3 >>

F. Arrests & Arrest Warrants

  1. Arrest = taken into custody by lawful authorities for purposes of being charged w/ crime (“custodial arrest”)
    1. All arrests = seizure; all seizures not arrest (traffic stop)
    2. Atwater v. Lago Vista: (2001) 9-0 decision that police can arrest you for anything they can also enforce the law for (this only looked at traffic stop)
  2. Basic Constitutional Rules for Arrests:
    1. Arrests must have PC
    2. May arrest person in public w/o warrant (US v. Watson)
      1. (1) Must be accompanied by Gerstein hearing to determine PC of arrest
    3. Person in home = must have warrant (Payton v. New York) UNLESS exigent circumstances
      1. (1) Exigent Circumstances:
        1. (a) Hot Pursuit: begin in public → into private place
        2. (b) Reasonable cause to believe if no immediate entry:
          1. Evidence will be destroyed;
          2. Suspect will escape; or
          3. Harm will result to police or others in/out building
        3. (c) NOTE: Gravity of Harm AND Likelihood suspect is armed MUST be considered
    4. Person in another person’s home = need at least a search warrant for 3rd party home (and if only purpose is to arrest that person then you need an arrest warrant) unless exigent circumstances (see above)
      1. (1) Steagald Principle: arrest warrant protects D. but not the 3rd person whose home is about to be entered and searched
  3. NOTE: warrantless arrest DOES NOT void Conviction or release suspect → only SUPPRESSES EVIDENCE
  4. Excessive Force & No Knock Warrants: Graham v. Connor = objective reasonableness test → taken at the time that the police used force (that exact moment)

G. Qualified Immunity

  1. Was there a violation of a statutory or constitutional right; and
  2. Was that right CLEARLY ESTABLISHED @ time of alleged misconduct
    1. I.e. was there a previous case that established that right
      1. (1) Naturally, no new law will be created then

H. Search Warrants

  1. Elements (same for arrest warrant)
    1. PC
    2. Oath/Affirmation
    3. Particularly describing the place to be searched & persons or things to be seized
      1. (1) Lo-Ji Sales: left warrant blank to be filled out later
      2. (2) Read in fair context - i.e. if it lists 7 things for a robbery then it’s ok to seize other non-specific things related to a robbery (Anderson v. Maryland)
      3. (3) Incorporation of other documents if: 1) warrant uses appropriate incorp language and 2) supporting doc accompanies the warrant
    4. Reviewed and approved by neutral and detached magistrate
      1. (1) Lo-Ji Sales → magistrate took part in the investigation = not neutral and detached
  2. Execution
    1. Knock & Announce rule = norm
      1. (1) Wilson v. Arkansas → Implicit from CL
      2. (2) Richards v. Wisconsin → no per se exemption from knock-and-announce rule
        1. (a) Only need REASONABLE SUSPICION (specific and particularized facts) for exigencies
          1. Dangerous to officers
          2. Futile (fugitive)
          3. Destruction of evidence
        2. (b) No remedy in criminal court for violating - we learn this b/c it’s still tested and provides for civil remedies
      3. (3) 15-20 seconds = enough time to wait after K&A to enter (US v. Banks)
    2. After Entry:
      1. (1) May search containers that could contain searched item (i.e. ring can fit anywhere v. piano)
      2. (2) May seize object not w/in warrant w/ PC it contains contraband
      3. (3) Officers may need to adjust their search given new info discovered immediately before or during search
        1. (a) Maryland v. Garrison → cops able to use evidence obtained prior to realizing search was in wrong house
      4. (4) Ybarra v. Illinois → police may not search anyone in premises not listed in warrant w/o independent PC to search that person
        1. (a) Michigan v. Summers → implicit authority to detain occupants of a home that is being searched pursuant to valid search warrant so long as search is conducted
        2. (b) Bailey → automatic, implicit right to detain and doesn’t require anything besides valid search warrant and a search
    3. EXCEPTIONS:
      1. (1) Exigent Circumstances
        1. (a) Circumstances/Factors:
          1. Hot Pursuit
            1. Stanton v. Sims can warrantlessly enter home even for minor offense
          2. Evidence will be destroyed (MOST COMMON)
            1. Schmerber: car accident + trip to hospital = no warrant for BAC
            2. Missouri v. McNeely: no categorical allowance of blood draw
            3. BUT Mitchell: unconscious driver = no chance for breath test = blood draw is chill
          3. Suspect will escape
          4. Harm will result to police/others
            1. Gravity of Harm & Likelihood suspect is armed
            2. Warden v. Hayden: armed robbery + fled into home (and didn’t matter if they searched for more weapons anywhere in home)
            3. “Community Caretaking” Brigham City Utah v. Stuart: police may enter home to respond to emergency and not crim. investigation
        2. (b) NOTE: does not apply if police create the exigency BUT it’s ok if they don’t violate the 4th amendment/threaten to engage in conduct that violates (Kentucky v. King)
      2. (2) Search Incident to Lawful Arrest (SILA)
        1. (a) Chimel v. California → can search w/ a lawful arrest the (1) person for weapons or evidence and (2) area under D. immediate control (w/in 12 feet?)
        2. (b) US v. Robinson → automatic justification to SILA & doesn’t matter what the thing is
        3. (c) Riley v. California → EXCEPTION = CELL PHONES (need search warrant) absent exigency
        4. (d) Maryland v. Buie → may also search closets/places immediately adjacent to the arrested D. to search for other people that would hurt police (NOTE scope is limited to looking for people and officer safety - not containers)
        5. (e) NY v. Belton → SILA in car = police may search entire passenger compartment to the car (and all containers inside)
        6. (f) Thornton → extends Belton to recent occupants of vehicles
        7. (g) Arizona v. Gant → BELTON IS LIMITED → only search vehicle when D. is unsecured and w/in reaching distance at time of search AND added “reasonable belief” that more evidence will be found in car
        8. (h) Whren → subjective motivations for pretextual traffic stops doesn’t matter
        9. (i) Ladson → same
      3. (3) Automobile Exception
        1. (a) Carroll → PC only needed (mobility rationale) to search car
        2. (b) Chambers → added reduced privacy concern
        3. (c) Coolidge → car in driveway and searched a year after = court said 4th violation b/c cars doesn’t mean abuse whatever
        4. (d) Carney → mobile homes count as cars, don’t need warrant
      4. (4) Inventories
        1. (a) Basically, 4th applies to criminal investigations → towing a car and performing an inventory = A-OK
        2. (b) Ditto for people
        3. (c) AS LONG AS it follows a procedure → inventory cannot be used to circumvent the 4th
      5. (5) Containers (in cars)
        1. (a) Definition: any object capable of holding another object
          1. Only thing where there is no privacy is something like a plastic bag
          2. All other containers treated exactly alike (brown paper bag → locked trunk)
        2. (b) California v. Acevedo: err on the side that police can search a container in a car w/o warrant if their search is supported by PC
          1. Two Circumstances:
            1. As part of valid auto exception search police come across container = may search as long as large enough to hold evidence
            2. Police may have PC that container has evidence; may search car for container and open it
Client Reviews
★★★★★
I am so fortunate to have had Bill Powers on my case. Upon our first meeting, Bill insisted that through the emotions of anger, sadness, confusion, and betrayal that I remain resilient. He was available to answer questions with researched, logical, truthful answers throughout our two year stretch together. I went to any lengths for my case because he won my trust almost immediately... J.R.
★★★★★
My daughter had a second DUI and when it all seemed hopeless, Bill was able to get the charges dropped. This is a man who is extremely knowledgeable, yet still keeps his integrity which was impressive to me. He handles himself with dignity. If you hire him, you will have the best of the best, along with his expansive intellect and wisdom about the law. Lisa
★★★★★
Bill Powers’ staff has handled several traffic citations for me over the years, and they exceeded my expectations each and every time. Would highly recommend anyone faced with a traffic citation or court case contact his office and they will handle it from there. M.C.
★★★★★
Bill and his staff are flat out great. I (unfortunately) was a repeat customer after a string of tickets. These guys not only took care of the initial ticket for me, but went the extra mile and reduced my problems from 3 to just 1 (very minor one) on the same day I called back! I would recommend them to anyone. A.R.