To Fight For Your Rights
Criminal Procedure Outline - Professor Fields - Campbell Law - Part 5
By Justin B. Lockett
Professor Fields - Fall 2020
Download the PDF version of this outline
Alderman v. United States: “The established principle is that suppression of the product of a 4th Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved by the introduction of damaging evidence. Coconspirators and codefendants have been accorded no special standing.”
- Jones v. United States; No Vicarious Liability: “In order to qualify as a ‘person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure’ one must have been a victim of a search or seizure, one against whom the search was direct, as distinguished from one who claims prejudice only through the use of evidence gathered as a consequence of a search or seizure directed at someone else.”
- The Test for Protection; Rakas v. Illinois: Use the Katz REP test.
- Reasoning from Rakas: “Under the rule, petitioners’ claims must fail. They asserted neither a property nor a possessory interest in the automobile, nor an interest in the property seized. The fact that they were legitimately on the premises in the sense that they were in the car with the permission of the owner is not determinative of whether they had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the particular area of the automobile searched.”
- Minnesota v. Olsen; Overnight Guests: The individual has standing as an overnight guest because the owner effectively “shared” his expectation of privacy with his guest.
- Reasoning: “To hold that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host’s home merely recognizes the everyday expectations of privacy that we all share. Staying overnight in another’s home is a longstanding social custom that serves functions recognized as valuable by society. From either perspective, we think that society recognizes that a houseguest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his hosts’ home.”
- But See Minnesota v. Carter: No 4th Amendment violation occurred here (case where officer looked through window at Carter and others bagging crack in an apartment)
- Reasoning: “Respondents here were obviously not overnight guests, but were essentially present for a business transaction and were only in the home a matter of hours. There is no suggestion that they had a previous relationship with Thompson, or that there was any other purpose to their visit. While the apartment was a dwelling place for Thompson, it was for those respondents simply a place to do business. The purely commercial nature of the transaction engaged in here, the relatively short period of time on the premises, and the lack of any previous connection between respondents and the household, all lead us to conclude that respondents situation is closer to that of simply permitted on the premises (Jones v. United States).
- See the First Exclusionary Rule section for how the rule works.
U.S. v. Calandra; Judicially Created Remedy: “The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard 4th Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.”
- Exceptions: Does not apply in grand jury proceedings, civil matters, punishment phase of trial, impeachment trials, etc.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S.: The government cannot use evidence obtained as a result of the unconstitutional conduct.
- Cannot introduce drugs found during search of person/home/car in violation of the 4th Amendment.
- Also extends to other evidence found as an indirect result of that conduct.
- Example: Unlawful search of A’s person and finds a notebook with drug transaction information on it implicating B. Cannot now use that newly-gathered information as possible probable cause to arrest B.
- What is the “tree” (the violation)?
- What is the “fruit” (evidence)?
- Does the fruit actually come from the tree? (Does independent source or inevitable discovery doctrine apply?
- If so, are there facts to suggest the fruit is no longer poisonous? (Dissipation of the taint).
Independent Source Doctrine: The evidence was found through a lawful source completely independent of the unlawful activity.
- Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the evidence.
- Example; Murray v. United States: The officers, completely aside from the unlawful entry into the warehouse, had enough info for probable cause for a warrant. They obtained the warrant without using any of the information they gathered from the unlawful search. Therefore, they had an independent source from which they obtained probable cause to obtain lawful entry into the warehouse to seize the marijuana.
- Policy Issue: Does this encourage 4th Amendment violations? Can officers create “fake informants” after illegally searching a place to conjure up probable cause? What if the unlawful conduct negates probable cause? (they find nothing there. Still apply for a warrant?)
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine: If the prosecution can establish that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, then the deterrence rationale has so little basis that the evidence should be received.
- Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the evidence that evidence would be inevitably found.
- Example: Nix v. Williams: The Government argued that if the search had not been suspended and Williams had not led the police to the victim, her body would inevitably have been discovered in essentially the same condition within a short time. Therefore, the contested evidence should be admissible.
Dissipation of the Taint Doctrine; The Test: Whether the unlawfully obtained evidence become sufficiently attenuated from the initial unlawful conduct to be deemed admissible regardless.
- Factors from Brown v. Illinois (Totality of the Circumstances; Don’t need all four): (1) The length of time that has elapsed between the initial illegality and the seizure of the fruit in question; (2) the flagrancy of the initial misconduct (bad faith violations take longer to dissipate than good faith violations); the existence or absence of intervening causes of the seizure of the fruit; and (4) the presence or absence of an act of free will by the defendant resulting in the seizure of the fruit.
- But See U.S. v. Ceccolini: Witness testimony is less likely to be suppressed so taint will disappear faster in these situations.
- See Utah v. Strieff: The Court held that “the officer’s discovery of the valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to the arrest.”
United States v. Leon: The exclusionary rule does not apply when an officer obtains evidence in objective reasonable reliance on a search warrant that later turns out to be invalid.
- Sources of Invalidity: (1) No probable cause (determined on appeal, or if there is false info in affidavits), or (2) not sufficiently particular.
- Limits to Exclusionary Rule: Reliance must be objectively reasonable; knowing or reckless falsity of affidavit; magistrate abandons neutrality (Lo-ji Sales); facially deficient warrants (officer can tell there is not enough for probable cause, or prosecutor tells officer no probable cause but officer intentionally seeks a sympathetic judge).
- The Test for Whether the Exception Applies: “It must be resolved by weighing the costs and benefits of preventing the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of inherently trustworthy tangible evidence obtained in reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate that ultimately is found to be defective.”
- Reasoning Behind Rule: While the neutral and detached magistrate does not have unfettered discretion in finding probable cause, when the call is a close one, great deference is given to his decision. The 4th Amendment is meant to deter officers, not magistrates. Judges and magistrates are not adjuncts to the law enforcement team; as neutral judicial officers, they have no stake in the outcome of particular criminal prosecutions. The threat of exclusion thus cannot be expected significantly to deter them. Imposition of the exclusionary sanction is not necessary meaningfully to inform judicial officers of their errors. It is the magistrate’s job to determine whether probable cause exists for a warrant, and we should not sanction the officer for the magistrate’s error.
Massachusetts v. Sheppard; Reliance on the Magistrate: “The officers in this case took every step that could reasonably expected of them. Detective O’Malley prepared an affidavit which was reviewed and approved by the District Attorney. He presented the affidavit to a neutral judge. The judge concluded that the affidavit established probable cause. He was told by the judge that the necessary changes would be made. He then observed the judge make some changes and received the warrant and affidavit. At this point, a reasonable officer would have concluded, as O’Malley did, that the warrant authorized search for the materials outlined in the affidavit.”
Hudson v. Michigan: The exclusionary rule does not apply to knock and announce violations.
- Reasoning: “Indeed, the exclusionary rule only applies ‘where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served’—that is, ‘where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs.’ Allowing the exclusionary rule to apply for violations of the knock-and-announce rule would ‘generate a constant flood of alleged failures to observe the rule, and claims that any asserted justification for a no-knock entry had inadequate support.”
Herring v. U.S.: A negligent error on behalf of police activity is not enough by itself to require the extreme sanction of exclusion.
- Reasoning: The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to discourage intentional police misconduct. Here, only an accident was committed that led to a violation. Absent a history of repetitive misconduct of the same kind, this is not enough to trigger the exclusionary rule.
Davis v. United States: “Evidence obtained during a search conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to the exclusionary rule.”Fifth Amendment Confessions; The Voluntariness Requirement
5th Amendment: No person shall . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
- Text: The plain words clearly protect an individual from, at a minimum, being forced to testify against himself in his own criminal trial.
Span v. New York; The Test: The totality of the circumstances here seems incredibly relevant to the court in finding a lack of mental freedom.
- Holding: “We conclude that petitioner’s will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue and sympathy falsely aroused, after considering all the facts in their post-indictment setting.”
- Involuntariness Factors: (1) youth, (2) mental incapacity, and (3) police methods.
- Reasoning: The use of involuntary confessions not only turns on concerns of inherent untrustworthiness, but on deep-rooted feeling that the police must obey the law while enforcing the law. Spano was 25, and only had a 9th grade education. Records show that he had a history of emotional instability. He didn’t make a narrative confession, but was subject to the leading questions of a skillful prosecutor in a question and answer confession. Several men played a role in this procedure. The interrogation lasted 8 hours, overnight. The police persisted in the face of his repeated refusals to answer on the advice of his attorney, and they ignored his reasonable requests to contact the local attorney whom he had already retained. Finally, the officers forced the only individual whom Spano could trust to falsely mislead him into confessing.
Hector (A Slave) v. State: Whether a confession is sufficiently free and voluntary to be competent testimony is a matter of law to be decided by the court and not by the jury.
Colorado v. Connelly; God’s Coercion: Focusing on the lack of state action, the Court held that the confession was, for purposes of the due process clause, voluntary.
But See Kastigar v. U.S.: “Witnesses called to testify before grand juries can be compelled to testify if they are given what is known as ‘use-and-derivative-use immunity. This doctrine forbids use of the compelled testimony, and everything derived from it, in a criminal case against the person providing the testimony.Distinguishing Self-Incrimination vs. Coerced Confessions
5th Am.: No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
Due Process Clause: Under the Due Process Clause, individuals have the constitutional right to be free from giving any involuntary statements, either through threat, fear, or physical or psychological stress.
THESE ARE TWO SEPEARTE THINGS. ONE REQUIRES COERCION, THE OTHER ONE DOESN’T