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 3

Download the PDF version of this outline

<< Part 2 | Part 4 >>

I. Plain View

  1. Definition: object of incriminating nature may be seized w/o warrant if it is in “plain view” of a police officer lawfully present at the scene (not an exception b/c it isn’t a “search”)
  2. General Rule:
    1. Officer observes from lawful vantage point;
      1. (a) Executing valid search warrant
      2. (b) Executing valid arrest warrant
      3. (c) Executing valid warrantless search/arrest pursuant to an exception
      4. (d) Viewing evidence from a lawful public place (sidewalk, etc.)
    2. Has a right of physical access to it; and
      1. (a) Observes weed via window but cannot enter house without a warrant = no right of access
    3. It is immediately apparent to her that it is contraband or a fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime
      1. (a) Arizona v. Hicks: must know, w/o further movement/investigation, that item is evidence (PC required)
    4. Horton v. California → doesn’t have to be inadvertent
    5. Minnesota v. Dickerson → PLAIN TOUCH → officer lawfully pats down suspect and feels object that is contraband (same rationale as plain view)

J. Consent

  1. Generally, if someone consents then there is no need for warrant or PC b/c there is no intrusion by the Gov.
  2. CONSENT MUST BE VOLUNTARY (not coerced)
  3. Scope/Boundaries:
    1. Matlock: co-occupant possesses equal rights to property to consent to search → reminder that this only goes as far as their authority to consent (shared space, their room)
    2. GA v. Randolph: co-occupant consent does not allow police to search IF the non-consenting party is actually PRESENT → VERY LIMITED HOLDING
    3. Fernandez v. CA: guy that was arrest and taken away after denying police consent to a search was considered not able to continue to object once taken away. (Matlock not Randolph applied)
    4. Illinois v. Rodriguez → Officer does not need to be correct in determining that a person is a co-occupant → only needs ‘reasonable belief’ → where in this case the gal mentioned her clothing and ‘some furniture’ was at the apartment after showing signs of abuse
    5. Florida v. Jimeno: Consent search is invalid IF the officer exceeds scope of consent → here, however, an envelope of cocaine in the car was ‘objectively reasonable’ to be considered in the scope

K. Terry Stops

  1. Whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger → as determined by the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience → reasonable suspicion
    1. Terry Stop specifics
      1. (1) Brief investigative stop and frisk is only for weapons
      2. (2) Must be related to criminal activity
      3. (3) SPECIFIC and ARTICULABLE facts → w/ all rational inferences
      4. (4) No PC b/c it’s R.S.
    2. Scope:
      1. (1) Alabama v. White → analogue to the anon tip case for PC → anon tips that predict facts, particularly behavior, are going to be considered reliable (also, less than PC***) where the lady was seen leaving an apartment. She consented to search but enough for stop
      2. (2) Florida v. JL → anon caller gives description of guy at bus stop → not enough for RS → no predictive info and this info was available to anyone publicly
      3. (3) Adams v. Williams → officer gets tip from guy not always reliable but walks up to guy and rips gun out of waistband = ok b/c the ID of informant was known and so he could be arrested if wrong
      4. (4) Navarette v. CA → anon. Caller says guy “ran her off the road” in Ford pickup w/ llicese plate #. Police follow for 5 min and observe nothing reckless → deemed ok by Thomas b/c anon 911 calls can be traced and implies 911 calls are presumptively reliable (despite no evidence of criminal activity, no predictive behavior, etc.)
      5. (5) Heien v. NC → officer was mistaken about the law = ok
      6. (6) US v. Johnson → “parking while black” → SWAT team attacked 3 guys in a car to check if it was parked illegally = ok
      7. (7) Illinois v. Wardlow ****→ unprovoked flight = factor in R.S. as well as being in “high crime area”
      8. (8) US v. Sokolow: “Drug Courier Profile”
        1. (a) Arrive early or late; first, last or middle; used one-way ticket or round-trip ticket; traveled alone or w/ companion; acted too nervous/calm
  2. 2 Prong Test:
    1. R.S. to “stop” based on specific, articulable facts
    2. R.S. to “frisk” for weapons (only) w/ specific articulable facts
      1. (1) Must be proceeded by justifiable stop
        1. (a) 4th = armed = presently dangerous
  3. Scope:
    1. Camara → reasonableness determined by balancing need for search/seizure w/ invasion of privacy interests
    2. US v. Henley → works for past crimes (completed felony) → misdeamenors are left open to interp. By SCOTUS
  4. Terry Stop v. Seizure
    1. Limits on Terry Stops?
      1. (1) Dunaway → don’t need formal arrest for seizure if it functions as one
        1. (a) Relevant factors:
          1. Not questioned where found
          2. Never told “free to go” (agents kept the ID + ticket)
          3. Miranda Warning
      2. (2) Royer → going from the airport (public) to an interrogation room (private) = not allowed (here, evidence was suppressed b/c the consent only happened after the unlawful seizure i.e. he was in the room)
      3. (3) Sharpe → Time limit is not set but is a TOC
        1. (a) Factors
          1. Brevity
          2. Law enforcement purposes served
          3. Time reasonably needed for those purposes
          4. Officer acting diligently
          5. Actions of suspect in prolonging the stop
    2. Consent v. Terry Stop/Seizure
      1. (1) Mendenhall → a person is seized only when by means of physical force or show of authority their freedom of movement is restrained
        1. (a) Objective reasonable person who, in view of TOC, would believe that they were not free to leave
        2. (b) Show of authority OR physical force OR both
      2. (2) Basic analysis steps:
        1. (a) Consent or seizure?
        2. (b) If seizure, RS or PC needed (Terry stop v. arrest)
      3. (3) California v. Hodari → NO SEIZURE WHEN SHOW OF AUTHORITY IF IT IS IGNORED → where an officer chased a kid and that kid threw a crack rock and court found no seizure until kid was tackled BC he was ignoring the show of authority
      4. (4) Torres v. Madrid → split circuits on whether or not an incomplete show of force follows same rule as above

L. Standing

  1. General Requirements
    1. Injury in Fact
    2. Causation
    3. Redressability
  2. No vicarious application
    1. Alderman → must be the victim of 4th not just a victim
    2. Anderson → man could not sue on behalf of wife for the things done to her in violation of 4th
      1. (1) Focus on police conduct to a victim and not on whether someone has also been wronged tangentially
  3. REP
    1. Rakas → Katz for standing → i.e. is there a REP in the place searched?
      1. (1) Here, b/c the bullets, rifle, and car were not owned these men had no REP and there was no violation = no standing
      2. (2) Car was relevant
    2. Minnesota v. Olson → standing for an overnight guest staying at a home
    3. Minnesota v. Carter → people “merely legitimately on property” = no REP;
      1. (1) Factors for majority:
        1. (a) Purely commercial nature of activity
        2. (b) Short period of time for event/on property
        3. (c) No long relation between the people
    4. Rawlings v. Kentucky → emphatic rejection of property based Standing = just a factor in REP analysis → no case since revival of property in REP for Katz
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.