Criminal Procedure Outline - Criminal Justice/Procedure
Criminal Procedure Outline
An Introduction to the Criminal Justice Procedure 6
The Fourth Amendment: Interests at Stake 6
Policing in Law and in Practice 8
Wolf v. Colorado (Reversed by Mapp) 8
The Fourth Amendment: Governmental Action, “Standing,” and Reasonable Expectations of Privacy I 11
Olmstead v. US (Reversed by Katz) 12
Harlan test for Protected Privacy 13
The Fourth Amendment: Governmental Action, “Standing,” and Reasonable Expectations of Privacy II 14
Protected vs. Unprotected Places 20
The Fourth Amendment: Governmental Action, “Standing,” and Reasonable Expectations of Privacy III 21
US v. White – The Invited Eaar 21
Justification: Probable Cause 24
Justification: Reasonable Suspicion for Stop & Frisk 1 29
Justification: Reasonable Suspicion for Stop & Frisk II 34
NYC’s Stop and Frisk Policy 34
Reasonableness Limits on Execution of Search/Seizure 36
Warrant Requirement: Warrantless Arrests and Searches of Persons 38
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista 42
Cases at inception of special needs doctrine 44
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) 45
Board of Ed of Pottwatomie County v. Earls 46
Warrantless Seizure and Searches of Premises/Persons 49
Payton v. New York – No warrantless arrests in the home 49
Searches Incident to Arrest 49
Chimel v. California – Scope of Search Pursuant to Lawful Arrest 50
Minnesota v. Olson – NO Exigency 52
Kentucky v. King – Exigency even though Police CREATED 53
Warrantless Seizure and Searches of Vehicles and Effects; Pretextual Searches 55
Exclusionary Rule Revisited: Applying the Rule (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Impeachment) 69
The Fruit that Grows from the Illegal Tree 69
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine 71
Due Process “Voluntariness” Test for Admitting Confessions 73
Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination: Tangible Objects 81
The Due Process “Voluntariness” Test for Admitting Confessions: Massiah and Escobedo 83
Equal Protection gets cozy with Due Process 84
Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) 85
Remedy for Miranda Violations 92
What constitutes “interrogation” within the meaning of Miranda? 94
Applying and Explaining Miranda II 96
What counts as invocation of the right to counsel? 97
What does it mean that you cannot resume interrogation until counsel has been “made available”? 97
What does “re-initiating” for purposes of right to counsel mean? 97
Can police ever re-initiate for purposes of right to counsel? 98
II. What counts as invoking the right to remain silent? 99
Can your silence be used against you? 100
How long does the invocation of the right to remain silent last? 101
Applying and Explaining Miranda III 101
“Public Safety” Exception to Miranda Requirements 102
Is Miranda a constitutional rule? 105
After Chavez, Miranda is ... 107
After Chavez, what may police do? 108
The 6th Amendment Revisited 109
In class exercise: Miranda 111
Timeline of Incorporation
-
Powell, Gideon, incorporated 6th amendment right to counsel (1932, 1963)
Argersinger incorporated right to counsel for imprison able misdemeanors
Duncan incorporated the 6th amendment right to jury trial (1968)
Hogan incorporated the 5th amendment (1964)
-
Wolf and Mapp incorporated the 4th amendment (1949 and 1961)
Ker incorporated the unreasonableness standard (1963)
Aguilar incorporated the warrant requirement (1964)
| Facts | Gary Duncan (defendant) was convicted of simple battery by a judge in a Louisiana state court. Under Louisiana law, simple battery is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment and a $300 fine. Duncan sought trial by jury, but the Louisiana constitution granted jury trials only in cases in which capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor could be imposed. Duncan's request was denied, and he was convicted and sentenced to sixty days in prison and a fine of $150. Duncan appealed and brought suit against the State of Louisiana, alleging an infringement of his constitutional right to a jury trial. |
|---|---|
| Issue | Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to state court proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment. |
| Ruling/ROL | The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to state court proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment. |
| Reasoning | Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in all state criminal cases that would be eligible for trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment if tried in federal court. The right to trial by jury is necessary for criminal defendants to prevent oppression by the government and to provide safeguards against corrupt or overzealous prosecutors or "compliant, biased, or eccentric" judges. The nation, as a whole, has demonstrated a deep deference for the right to a jury trial. Thus, this right meets the standard of a “fundamental principle of liberty and justice" and should be protected by the Due Process Clause and respected by the states. |
| Facts | Petitioners challenged a law enacted by the City of Chicago (respondent) that prohibited Chicago residents from possessing handguns, claiming that the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. |
|---|---|
| Issue | Does the Second Amendment apply to the states, thereby invalidating a local law prohibiting residents from possessing handguns? |
| Ruling/ROL | Yes. A Bill of Rights guarantee applies to the states if it is fundamental to the nation’s scheme of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. |
| Reasoning | Yes. The Second Amendment applies to the states, thereby invalidating Chicago’s law prohibiting residents from possessing handguns. Under the process of selective incorporation, a particular Bill of Rights guarantee will apply to the states if it is fundamental to the nation’s scheme of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. InDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S 570 (2008), this Court found that individual self-defense is a basic right, which forms the central component of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, and which is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. Following the Civil War, in response to the efforts of some states to disarm returning black soldiers and other black people, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which protected the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. When this was met with southern resistance and presidential vetoes, Congress responded by adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby providing a constitutional basis for the rights included in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. |
| Alito | The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth... |
purchase it now!
More Criminal Justice/Procedure Samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.