procedural criminal law what are the constitutional rights of the accused?

Procedural Criminal Law

What are the What are the constitutional rights constitutional rights

of the accused?of the accused?

Historical Perspective:Historical Perspective:

Key Bill of Right Provisions for Key Bill of Right Provisions for Criminal ProcedureCriminal Procedure

44thth: Prohibition of unreasonable search and : Prohibition of unreasonable search and seizuresseizures

55thth: Prohibition against self – incrimination: Prohibition against self – incrimination 55thth : Prohibition against double jeopardy : Prohibition against double jeopardy 66thth: Right to counsel: Right to counsel 66thth: Right to a speedy and public trial: Right to a speedy and public trial 66thth: Right to jury trial: Right to jury trial 66thth: Right to confront witnesses: Right to confront witnesses 88thth: Protection against cruel and unusual : Protection against cruel and unusual

punishmentpunishment


The 14The 14thth Amendment: (1868) Amendment: (1868)

Section 1:Section 1:

“… “… No state shall make or enforce No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States; nor citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” due process of the law.”


The Warren CourtThe Warren Court 1414thth Amendment “Due Process” clause Amendment “Due Process” clause

virtually silent until the 1960’s virtually silent until the 1960’s Warren Court infers 4Warren Court infers 4thth,5,5thth, & 6, & 6thth

amendment rights as being amendment rights as being applicable to applicable to statestate actor’s as well actor’s as well federal via the “due process” clausefederal via the “due process” clause

Causes a radical shift in police & Causes a radical shift in police & court practices court practices

55th: th: Amendment ProtectionsAmendment Protections

Protection against self-Protection against self-incrimination v. police incrimination v. police interrogation interrogation

Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona

Double Jeopardy: Being tried for Double Jeopardy: Being tried for the same crime twice the same crime twice

66thth: Right to counsel: Right to counsel

Gideon v. WainrightGideon v. Wainright

A question of quality and fairnessA question of quality and fairness

Pro Bono v. Public DefendersPro Bono v. Public Defenders

66thth: Rights of Trial: Rights of Trial

The Right to a jury trial v. the The Right to a jury trial v. the pragmatism of plea bargaining pragmatism of plea bargaining

““Speedy Trial” in a clogged Speedy Trial” in a clogged systemsystem

The science of jury selectionThe science of jury selection

88thth : Cruel and Unusual : Cruel and Unusual PunishmentPunishment

Is the death penalty cruel and Is the death penalty cruel and unusual? unusual?

A socio-economic bias?A socio-economic bias?

44thth: Prohibition of : Prohibition of unreasonable search and unreasonable search and

seizuresseizuresSeizureSeizure: exercise of governmental : exercise of governmental

control over a control over a person or thing person or thing

ArrestArrest: “a seizure of a person:” where a : “a seizure of a person:” where a reasonable person reasonable person

would believe would believe he/she is he/she is not free to leave because of not free to leave because of either (1) an application of force either (1) an application of force by the by the police or (2) a police or (2) a submission by a show of submission by a show of force force


seizuresseizures Q: What is an “unreasonable” Q: What is an “unreasonable”

therefore unconstitutional arrest ? therefore unconstitutional arrest ? (AKA seizure of the person)(AKA seizure of the person)

A: Did the situation require the police A: Did the situation require the police to obtain an arrest warrant?to obtain an arrest warrant?

Was the accused in the act of committing the Was the accused in the act of committing the crime?crime?

Did the police have a reasonable belief a Did the police have a reasonable belief a crime was about to be committed?crime was about to be committed?

Did the police have a reasonable suspicion of Did the police have a reasonable suspicion of imminent harm?imminent harm?

Was the accused in his/her home or a 3Was the accused in his/her home or a 3rdrd parties home?parties home?

Stop-and-Frisk RuleStop-and-Frisk Rule

Does not apply in all casesDoes not apply in all cases ““reasonable articulable suspicion”reasonable articulable suspicion” Established by the totality of Established by the totality of

circumstances, e.g., suspectcircumstances, e.g., suspect Traveled from a source city of drugsTraveled from a source city of drugs Carried little or no baggageCarried little or no baggage Purchased airline ticket with cashPurchased airline ticket with cash Made one or more telephone calls at the Made one or more telephone calls at the

airportairport


seizuresseizuresEvidentiary search and seizureEvidentiary search and seizure::

The police’s taking of property from a The police’s taking of property from a person or place to establish a crime has person or place to establish a crime has been committed.been committed.

Q: What is an “unreasonable” Q: What is an “unreasonable” therefore unconstitutional evidentiary s/s?therefore unconstitutional evidentiary s/s?

1.1. Who was conducting the search?Who was conducting the search?

2.2. Did the accused have a reasonable expectation of Did the accused have a reasonable expectation of privacy?privacy?

3.3. Given 1&2, did the police need a valid search warrant?Given 1&2, did the police need a valid search warrant?

4.4. If police didn’t have a warrant, did the exigency of the If police didn’t have a warrant, did the exigency of the circumstances justify a search without a warrant? circumstances justify a search without a warrant?

Hypothetical #1 Hypothetical #1

The police suspect that Louis The police suspect that Louis Lightfingers has stolen Billy Lightfingers has stolen Billy Bigbucks watch. Without Bigbucks watch. Without obtaining a properly executed obtaining a properly executed search warrant, a police officer search warrant, a police officer breaks into Louis’ home and breaks into Louis’ home and finds Billy’s watch. The police finds Billy’s watch. The police arrest Louis.arrest Louis.

Key Constitutional Key Constitutional DoctrineDoctrine

The Exclusionary RuleThe Exclusionary Rule

In criminal law, if a judge rules In criminal law, if a judge rules the state (the state (the policethe police) violated a ) violated a defendant’s 4defendant’s 4thth, 5, 5thth or 6 or 6thth amendment amendment constitutional protected right, the constitutional protected right, the judge may exclude evidence against judge may exclude evidence against the defendant which was obtained as the defendant which was obtained as a result of that violation. a result of that violation. Mapp v. Mapp v. Ohio Ohio

Hypothetical #2 Hypothetical #2

At the police station, Louis At the police station, Louis Lightfingers confesses to the Lightfingers confesses to the crime. He also admits to having crime. He also admits to having committed a string of several committed a string of several other burglaries. He tells the other burglaries. He tells the police that he sold all the stolen police that he sold all the stolen property to Paul’s Pawn shop to property to Paul’s Pawn shop to buy drugs. buy drugs.


““The fruit of a poisonous The fruit of a poisonous tree”tree”

Further, all evidence obtained Further, all evidence obtained or derived subsequently from the or derived subsequently from the exploitation of evidence illegally exploitation of evidence illegally obtained will also be excluded.obtained will also be excluded.


Exceptions to “the fruit of a Exceptions to “the fruit of a poisonous tree” doctrinepoisonous tree” doctrine(or ways in which the causal link is broken)(or ways in which the causal link is broken)

1.1. Intervening act of defendant’s Intervening act of defendant’s free will free will

2.2. An alternative independent An alternative independent sourcesource

3.3. Inevitable discoveryInevitable discovery

Hypothetical #3Hypothetical #3Mrs. Nosy notices a suspicious man Mrs. Nosy notices a suspicious man

creeping around David Dopey house and creeping around David Dopey house and calls the police. Officer Hedley is calls the police. Officer Hedley is dispatched, believing that a burglary may be dispatched, believing that a burglary may be in process. In searching for the burglar, he in process. In searching for the burglar, he goes to the shed in Dopey’s backyard. In the goes to the shed in Dopey’s backyard. In the shed he finds a large number of marijuana shed he finds a large number of marijuana plants growing under ultra violet lights. plants growing under ultra violet lights. Officer Hedley never finds a burglary but Officer Hedley never finds a burglary but does arrest Dopey for possession of an does arrest Dopey for possession of an illegal substance with the intent to sell. Did illegal substance with the intent to sell. Did Hedley’s legally seize the marijuana plants? Hedley’s legally seize the marijuana plants?

““One Arm’s Length” RuleOne Arm’s Length” Rule

Chimel v. CaliforniaChimel v. California, 1969, 1969 ““(R)easonable for arresting officer to (R)easonable for arresting officer to

search the person arrested in order search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to latter might seek to use in order to resist or affect his escape” to protect resist or affect his escape” to protect the safety of the officerthe safety of the officer

Plain View DoctrinePlain View Doctrine

Established in 1968, Established in 1968, Harris v. United Harris v. United StatesStates

Police may seize evidencePolice may seize evidence Inadvertently discoveredInadvertently discovered In a place where police have a legal In a place where police have a legal

right to beright to be

Motor Vehicle SearchesMotor Vehicle Searches

Police may conduct warrantless searches Police may conduct warrantless searches of vehicles (automobiles, mobile homes, of vehicles (automobiles, mobile homes, water vessels) with probable cause water vessels) with probable cause (involved in illegal activity)(involved in illegal activity)

Cannot randomly stop motorists to search Cannot randomly stop motorists to search for evidence of illegal activityfor evidence of illegal activity

Automobile parked on private property Automobile parked on private property cannot be searched without a warrantcannot be searched without a warrant

Consent SearchesConsent Searches

Police may conduct a warrantless Police may conduct a warrantless search when consent is given search when consent is given voluntarilyvoluntarily Bumper v. North CarolinaBumper v. North Carolina

Florida v. BostickFlorida v. Bostick (1991) (1991)

Police may board buses, trains, and Police may board buses, trains, and planes and ask passengers to planes and ask passengers to consent to being searched, without a consent to being searched, without a warrant or probable causewarrant or probable cause

Georgia v. RandolphGeorgia v. Randolph (2005) (2005)

Police may not enter a home to Police may not enter a home to conduct a search if one resident conduct a search if one resident gives permission but the other does gives permission but the other does notnot

Border SearchesBorder Searches

United States does not need warrant United States does not need warrant to search those entering countryto search those entering country

Searches designed to seize illegal Searches designed to seize illegal drugs and control illegal immigrationdrugs and control illegal immigration

United States v. Martinez-FuerteUnited States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)(1976)

Electronic SurveillanceElectronic Surveillance

Olmstead v. United StatesOlmstead v. United States (1928) (1928) Electronic eavesdropping does not Electronic eavesdropping does not

violate individual's constitutional rightsviolate individual's constitutional rights Federal Communications Act of 1934 Federal Communications Act of 1934

declared that no person who is not declared that no person who is not authorized by the sender shall authorized by the sender shall intercept any communicationsintercept any communications

Katz v. United StatesKatz v. United States (1967) (1967)

Wiretapping (listening devices) on Wiretapping (listening devices) on outside public phone boothsoutside public phone booths

Fourth Amendment issueFourth Amendment issue

Kyllo v. United StatesKyllo v. United States (2001) (2001)

Surveillance by the government, Surveillance by the government, even without a physical intrusion, even without a physical intrusion, qualifies as an unreasonable search qualifies as an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and under the Fourth Amendment and requires a warrantrequires a warrant


seizuresseizures

Since the 1960’s, one of the most debated Since the 1960’s, one of the most debated arenas of criminal law; law school arenas of criminal law; law school courses devoted solely to the subjectcourses devoted solely to the subject

Crime Control v. Due ProcessCrime Control v. Due Process Burger / Rehnquist Courts shrink scope Burger / Rehnquist Courts shrink scope

of the exclusionary rule doctrine of the exclusionary rule doctrine The Patriot Act: Today’s hot topic The Patriot Act: Today’s hot topic Roberts court??? Roberts court???

The Patriot Act Spying on the Homefront

procedural criminal law what are the constitutional rights of the accused?

Documents