Criminal Procedure (Cops and Robbers; 4th, 5th, 6th); Gertner, Fall 20 2 !

ar"ard #a$ %chool &e'tboo() *amisar, Criminal Procedure and the Constitution

+ote to $hoe"er uses this outline) &his ri,ht here is m- blood, s$eat and tears. /ou mi,ht 0ind the polic- issues in the be,innin, help0ul 0or e'am prep, the real class stu00 starts a0ter$ard. Get me an !, bros.

Syllabus w/ Rules
Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:20 PM

1. INTRODUCTION (1): Incorporation Doctrine, Application of Bill of Rights to the tates, o!rces of Cri"inal #roce$!re la% a. CB 26 - 0, 11-2 . !. "#cor$orat!o# %octr!#e !!. Select!&e !#cor$orat!o# !. %u#ca# &. 'ou!s!a#a ()S 1*68+ !!!. %ue Process R!,-t to .ec-#olo,y !. %!str!ct /ttor#ey0s O11!ce &. Osbor#e ()S 200*+ %e1e#da#t !s #ot e#t!tled to %2/ test!#, s!3$ly because !t -as t-e c-a#ce o1 e4o#erat!#, -!3. !&. Ste$s !# t-e /rrest Process (se3!#al stu11 - reread a 1ew t!3es, !t w!ll be -el$1ul !# 1or3!#, a c-ec5l!st+ b. .-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts a#d t-e States: !. Mc%o#ald &. C!ty o1 C-!ca,o6 "#cor$orat!#, t-e !#d!&!dual r!,-t to bear ar3s !#to t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t. ($ro&!s!o#s o1 t-e %eclarat!o# o1 R!,-ts o1 t-e Co33o#wealt- o1 Massac-usetts (S)PP.+ c. .-e )#!ted States Co#st!tut!o# !. ).S. Co#st. /3e#ds. "8, 8, 8" a#d 9"8. 2. &o!rth A"en$"ent: earches an$ ei'!res a. cope: :-at co#st!tutes a searc- or se!;ure< :-at !#terests d!d t-e /3e#d3e#t -!stor!cally $rotect< Perso#al auto#o3y< Pr!&acy< :-at !#terest s-ould !t $rotect today< !. "#troduct!o#: =4$ectat!o#s o1 Pr!&acy6 Protected /reas a#d "#terests: CB 8>-11> !. ?at; &. )#!ted States ()S 1*6>+ .-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotects $eo$le0s reaso#able e4$ectat!o#s o1 $r!&acy, rat-er t-a# $eo$le0s $ro$erty as suc-. !!. Cal!1or#!a &. @ree#wood ()S 1*88+ 'oo5!#, at t-e two $art e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy a#alys!s, a $erso# 3ay -a&e ta5e# ste$s to secure -!s $r!&acy !# -!s ,arba,e, but t-at !s #ot a $r!&acy !#terest t-at soc!ety !s w!ll!#, to reco,#!;e, so t-e e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble. !!!. 7lor!da &. R!ley ()S 1*8*+ "# a# area w-ere 1ly!#, o&er $ro$erty !s #ot !lle,al, t-ere !s #o reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy 1ro3 aer!al sur&e!lla#ce. !&. ?yllo &. )#!ted States ()S 2001+ Because t-ere !s a $resu3$t!o# o1 a r!,-t to $r!&acy (!.e. a 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t &!olat!o#+ !# a -o3e, $ol!ce 3ay #ot use tec-#olo,!cal 3et-ods to ,lea# !#1or3at!o# about t-e ,o!#,s o# !# t-e -ouse. &. )#!ted States &. Ao#es ()S 2012+ Because $la#t!#, a @PS o# so3eo#e reBu!res t-at t-e $erso#0s $ro$erty be !#truded o#, $la#t!#, a @PS o# a car !s a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t.

)#!ted States &. :-!te ()S 1*>1+(2ote Carla# d!sse#t+ Rule: Peo$le w-o tal5 to ot-ers a#d !#&!te t-e3 !#to t-e!r $rotected areas are u#derta5!#, t-e r!s5 o1 t-ose $eo$le tur#!#, a,a!#st t-e3, so $ol!ce could l!ste# !# o# a co#&ersat!o# t-rou,- a w!re t-at was $la#ted o# a coo$erat!#, w!t#ess w-o was !# de1e#da#t0s -o3e. &!!. Durc-er &. Sta#1ord %a!ly ()S 1*>8+ !!. Sta#dard: subEect!&e or obEect!&e< (o$e# 1!elds, curt!la,e, aba#do#ed $ro$erty<+ !. S3!t- &. Maryla#d (S)PP.+ (2+ .-e $e# re,!ster case: Pol!ce 3ay !#Bu!re about !#1or3at!o# t-at was ,!&e# to a Frd $arty, es$ec!ally !1 !t0s Eust t-e rec!$!e#t a#d #ot co#te#ts t-at ou,-t to be $rotected. !!!. 2ew .ec-#olo,y- (@PS, w!reless de&!ces, data 3!#!#,+6 $la!# &!ew &s. e#-a#ced &!ew !. See ).S. &. Ao#es, ?yllo &. ).S. supra(F+ !!. /lter#at!&e 8!s!o#s o1 =lectro#!c Pr!&acy - =uro$ea# 3ater!als (S)PP.+ 'oo5s at t-e #ature o1 t-e !#1or3at!o# !tsel1 rat-er t-a# t-e $ol!ce !#curs!o# to 1!#d !t out. !&. #o# trad!t!o#al sett!#,s (-o3eless s-elter6 #ews or,a#!;at!o#s6 dor3!tory roo3s+ - See es$ec!ally, !. Durc-er &. Sta#1ord %a!ly supra (CB+ Pol!ce 3ay searc- t-e $re3!ses o1 a Frd $arty !1 t-ere !s $robable cause to bel!e&e t-at t-ere0s !#1or3at!o# t-ere relat!#, to a cr!3e. .-!s !s true e&e# !1 !t !s #ot !lle,al !# !tsel1, but !s Eust e&!de#ce. .-ere !s also #o 7!rst /3e#d3e#t !ssue !# searc-!#, a #ews$a$er o11!ce. !!. Co33o#wealt- &. Porter (S)PP.+ (G+ Massac-usetts case6 Rule: / -o3eless s-elter t-at so3eo#e treats as t-e!r -o3e !s a11orded t-e sa3e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy as a -o3e. )#less t-e $erso# ,!&!#, $er3!ss!o# !s a co-te#a#t, or t-e la#dlord ca# $roduce a co#tract t-at $ro&!des -!3 t-e r!,-t to allow $ol!ce !#, t-ey are e4cluded. .-e /$$are#t aut-or!ty doctr!#e !s l!3!ted to 3!sta5es o1 1act a#d does #ot a$$ly to 3!sta5es o1 law. &. (G+ Ca# t-ere be o#e set o1 e4$ectat!o# &!s a &!s t-e ,o&er#3e#t a#d a#ot-er &!s a &!s a $r!&ate $arty6 !s t-ere a searc- !1 t-e $ol!ce obta!# !#1or3at!o# t-at !s $ubl!cly a&a!lable< :-at about records !# t-e -a#ds o1 a t-!rd $arty< !. ).S. &. :-!te supra (CB+, Pol!ce l!ste#!#, !# to a -o3e t-rou,- a t-!rd $arty wear!#, a w!re !s #ot a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. :-e# you trust a 1r!e#d, you are u#derstood to bear t-e r!s5 o1 betrayal. !!. ).S. &. M!ller (S)PP.+ (G+ Pol!ce 3ay as5 a ba#5 1or !#1or3at!o# about you a#d !t !s #ot a 7ourt/3e#d3e#t &!olat!o#, s!#ce you &olu#tar!ly ,a&e t-e !#1or3at!o# to a Frd $arty. (Co3$are w!t- !#ter#et co3$a#!es l!5e 7aceboo5 a#d .w!tter< M!ller -ad a bus!#ess relat!o#s-!$ w!t- t-e ba#56 t-e .wee$le use .w!tter as a co#du!t.+ &!. ( + ?at; &. ).S. Reco#s!dered (/%%"."O2/' M/.=R"/'S .O B= S)PP'"=%+ (%!d t-!s actually -a$$e#< -cs+ b. (arrant: .-e ,old sta#dard a#d !ts e4ce$t!o#s !. :-e# !s a warra#t reBu!red a#d w-e# !s !ssua#ce, u3, warra#ted< ( +(a+ CB 11>-1F> !. Probable Cause !!. S$!#ell! &. )#!ted States ()S 1*6*+

&!.

!!.

!!!. !&. &.

Old Rule: .-ere are two le&els o1 !#Bu!ry !# deter3!#!#, w-et-er a warra#t s-ould !ssue: (1+ :-et-er law e#1orce3e#t -as a ,ood reaso# to bel!e&e t-e !#1or3a#t, a#d (2+ :-et-er t-e !#1or3a#t -as a reaso#able bas!s 1or -!s 5#owled,e. (St!ll use1ul as a# a#alyt!cal 1ra3ewor5.+ !!!. "ll!#o!s &. @ates ()S 1*8F+ .otal!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces a$$roac-, !# w-!c- t-e two $ro#,s coll!de a#d corroborat!#, 1actors also $lay a role. !&. Maryla#d &. Pr!#,le ()S 200F+(2ot a case o1 warra#t, s!3$ly o#e o1 $robable cause+ :-e# t-ere !s so3e $ro4!3!ty a#d a# !3$l!cat!o# o1 co3$l!c!ty (#ot !# t-e tec-#!cal se#se+ to a cr!3e, t-at ca# add u$ to $robable cause. .-!s 3ust be d!st!#,u!s-ed 1ro3 3ere Hsus$!c!o# by assoc!at!o#H (Ibarra+ a#d also 1ro3 cases w-ere o#e o1 t-e ,rou$ acce$ted ,u!lt a#d &!#d!cated t-e ot-ers. (%e R!+. "# t-ose cases, $robable cause !s e4t!#,u!s-ed. &. Co33o#wealt- &. )$to# (Mass. 1*8 + (2ote t-at t-!s case was u#der t-e #e4t sect!o# - w-at doors does a warra#t o$e#. Cowe&er, t-at0s #ot w-at t-e case !s about, so " 3o&ed !t -ere.+ "# Massac-usetts, t-e State %eclarat!o# o1 R!,-ts ,ra#ts ,reater $rotect!o# t-a# t-e )S Co#st!tut!o#. .-ere1ore, t-e S$!#ell! test !s st!ll act!&e. /lso, t-ere !s #o e4clus!o#ary rule u#der t-e Mass %ec. o1 R!,-ts, but t-ere !s o#e based o# a# !#terest!#, read!#, o1 a statute. &!. 7ra#5s &. %elaware ()S 1*>>+ (Rele&a#t to 1raudule#t a$$l!cat!o# a#d later attac5 by de1e#da#t+ "# order to attac5 a warra#t e4 $ost 1acto, a de1e#da#t 1!rst 3ust 3a5e a s-ow!#,, su$$orted by 1acts a#d a11!da&!ts, t-at t-ere was a 1alse-ood !# t-e warra#t a$$l!cat!o#. "1 -e 3a5es suc- a s-ow!#,, t-e Court a#aly;es w-et-er t-e warra#t would sta#d w!t-out t-e !#1or3at!o# !# Buest!o#. "1 !t would #ot sta#d w!t-out t-at !#1or3at!o#, t-e# t-e de1e#da#t !s e#t!tled to a -ear!#, !# w-!c- -e 3ust $ro&e by $re$o#dera#ce o1 t-e e&!de#ce t-at t-e o11!cer acted w!t- sc!e#ter o1 at least rec5less d!sre,ard 1or t-e trut- a#d t-at t-e warra#t would #ot -a&e bee# !ssued w!t-out !t, !# order to !#&al!date t-e warra#t. :-at doors does a warra#t o$e#6 w-at -a$$e#s !1 o11!cers 3a5e a 1ortu#ate 3!sta5e6 w-at d!scret!o# to $ol!ce -a&e< !. Maryla#d &. @arr!so# ()S 1*8>+(7ortu#ate 3!sta5e+ :-e# a warra#t !#ad&erte#tly 1a!ls to descr!be $re3!ses !# deta!l, a#d 3!sta5e#ly !#cludes a# area t-at !s #ot rele&a#t, t-e e#su!#, 3!sta5e# searc- results are st!ll ad3!ss!ble. !!. R!c-ards &. :!sco#s!# ()S 1**>+ (Pol!ce d!scret!o#+ Court re1uses to ado$t a $er se rule t-at !#&est!,at!o#s o1 &!ole#t cr!3es a#d dru,s are always e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces t-at do#0t reBu!re 5#oc5 a#d a##ou#ce. Rat-er, t-e a#alys!s !s case by case. !!!. Mass. &. S-e$$ard ()S 1*8F+ (@ood 1a!t- e4ce$t!o# to e4clus!o#ary rule+ / warra#t t-at 3!sta5e#ly does #ot !#clude t-e #ecessary !#1or3at!o# a#d does #ot state w!t- $art!cular!ty t-e area to be searc-ed 3ay #ot result !# d!sBual!1!cat!o# !1 !t !s t-e result o1 a ,ood 1a!t- 3!sta5e. !&. 7ederal Rule o1 Cr!3!#al Procedure Rule G1 /ttac5!#, a warra#t !. 7ra#5s &. %elaware su$ra ()S 1*>>+ !!. Durc-er &. Sta#1ord %a!ly supra S$ec!al $roble3s o1 co3$uter searc-es (Su$$.+ :-e# !s a warra#t e4cused< !. :arra#tless arrest a#d searc- o1 $erso#s !!. )#!ted States &. :atso# ()S 1*>6+

!!!.

!&.

&. &!. &!!. &!. !. !!. !!!.

!&.

&.

&!. &!!. !.

!!.

/ $erso# 3ay be arrested o# $robable cause w!t-out a warra#t. (But #ot !# a -o3e, see Payto# &. 2ew Ior5+ )#!ted States &. Rob!#so# ()S 1*>F+ / $erso# w-o -as bee# arrested 3ay be searc-ed, a#d $ac5a,es o# -!3 3ay be searc-ed as well, e&e# !1 t-ere !s #o t-reat o1 &!ole#ce a#d t-e $ac5a,e !s clearly #ot related to t-e cr!3e o1 arrest. (But see )S &. @a#t, relat!#, to searco1 a car !#c!de#t to arrest.+ :-re# &. )#!ted States ()S 1**6+ :-e# $ol!ce -a&e $robable cause 1or a sto$, t-ey 3ay sto$ t-at $erso# re,ardless o1 w-at t-e!r true 3ot!&at!o# !s. Or at least, t-e $erso# ca#0t c-alle#,e t-e e&!de#ce t-at ar!ses 1ro3 t-e sto$ o# ,rou#ds o1 $ol!ce 3ot!&e. /twater &. 'a,o 8!sta ()S 2001+ Pol!ce 3ay arrest $eo$le at t-e!r d!scret!o#, so lo#, as t-e law allows !t 1or t-e cr!3e !# Buest!o#, e&e# !1 t-e arrest ca##ot $oss!bly result !# Ea!l or custody. .e##essee &. @ar#er ()S 1*8 + Pol!ce 3ust be reaso#able !# t-e 3easures o1 se!;ure t-at t-ey ta5e, so 5!ll!#, a bur,lary sus$ect !s #ot allowed. :as-oe &. Rose#bau3 (*t- C!r. 2011+(Syllabus 3!s!de#t!1!es as )S &. Rose#bau3+ Pol!ce 3ust -a&e $robable cause o1 so3e cr!3e at t-e t!3e o1 arrest. :arra#tless se!;ure a#d searc- o1 $re3!ses a#d cars, e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces Payto# &. 2ew Ior5 ()S 1*80+ Pol!ce 3ay #ot arrest so3eo#e !# -!s -o3e w!t-out a warra#t. C-!3el &. Cal!1or#!a ()S 1*6*+ O# arrest o1 a $erso# !# -!s -o3e, $ol!ce 3ay o#ly searc- t-e area w!t-!# -!s w!#,s$a#. ?e#tuc5y &. ?!#, ()S 2011+ Pol!ce 3ay e#ter a -o3e w!t-out a warra#t w-e# t-ere !s $robable cause o1 a cr!3e a#d t-ey reaso#ably bel!e&e t-at e&!de#ce !s be!#, destroyed, a#d t-e destruct!o# does #ot result 1ro3 t-e!r ow# 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t &!olat!o#. Maryla#d &. Bu!e ()S 1**0+ (Searc- 1or da#,erous $erso#s -!d!#,, !#c!de#t to arrest+ :-e# $ol!ce -a&e a reaso#able, art!culable sus$!c!o# t-at t-ey #eed to searc- a -o3e 1or a# acco3$l!ce or to $rotect t-e!r ow# sa1ety, t-ey 3ay, a#d ot-er e&!de#ce u#co&ered w!ll #ot be e4cluded. :arde# &. Cayde# ()S 1*6>+ (Se!;ure o1 3ere e&!de#ce !#c!de#t to $ursu!t u#der e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces+ Pol!ce searc-!#, 1or a# esca$!#, sus$ect !# a -o3e 3ay also se!;e e&!de#ce t-at t-ey -a$$e# u$o# dur!#, t-e ot-erw!se reaso#able searc- 1or t-e $er$etrator a#d t-e !#stru3e#tal!t!es o1 t-e cr!3e. 7ed. R. Cr!3. P. G1(d+(F+(a+ Car Searc-es J / s$ec!al case Cal!1or#!a &. Car#ey ()S 1*8 + Searc- o1 a 3otor -o3e, at least when it is being used for transportation or is "close" to being used !s s!3!lar to searc- o1 a car, 1or w-!c- t-ere are two rat!o#ales to allow. (1+ .-ere !s !#-ere#t e4!,e#cy !# t-e 3ob!l!ty o1 t-e &e-!cle, a#d (2+ 8e-!cles are subEect to broad re,ulat!o#, so t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !s #aturally lower. /r!;o#a &. @a#t ()S 200*+ Pol!ce 3ay searc- a car !#c!de#t to arrest o#ly w-e# t-ey bel!e&e t-ere !s so3e t-reat to t-e!r sa1ety or so3e l!5el!-ood t-at t-ey w!ll 1!#d e&!de#ce relat!#, to t-e

!!!.

!&.

&.

cr!3e !# t-e searc-. (See t-e case !tsel1 1or t-!#,s t-at $ro1 sa!d are le1t u#a#swered.+ Cal!1or#!a &. /ce&edo ()S 1**1+ O#ce $ol!ce -a&e $robable cause to searc- a car, w-!c- because o1 t-e auto3ob!le e4ce$t!o# #eeds #o warra#t, t-ey also #eed #ot ,et a warra#t to o$e# $ac5a,es w!t-!# t-e car. :yo3!#, &. Cou,-to# =&e# t-ou,- t-e $ac5a,e clearly belo#,s to so3eo#e !# t-e car w-o !s #ot s$ec!1!cally sus$ected !# t-e cr!3e, s!#ce $ol!ce are searc-!#, t-e car, t-ey ca# also searc- t-e $ac5a,es o1 t-e $asse#,ers !# t-e $asse#,er co3$art3e#t. (:-at about t-e tru#5<+ Colorado &. Bert!#e Pol!ce w-o !3$ou#d a car 3ay ta5e a# !#&e#tory searc- o1 !ts co#te#ts to $rotect a,a!#st t-e1t a#d alle,at!o#s o1 t-e1t.

). !.

*esser Intr!sions Sto$ a#d 7r!s5 i. Terr+ ,. Ohio (U 1-./) Pol!ce 3ay deta!# $eo$le o# so3e le&el s-ort o1 arrest (.erry sto$+ based o# so3et-!#, less t-at $robable cause (Reaso#able Sus$!c!o#+. (:-at !s t-e le&el o1 sus$!c!o# co#s!dered reaso#able< "t 3ust be art!culable a#d obEect!&e. /#yt-!#, else< :-at0s t-e source<+ !!. 7lor!da &. A.'. ()S 2000+ /# a#o#y3ous $-o#e call alo#e !s #ot su11!c!e#t to create reaso#able sus$!c!o#. !!!. "ll!#o!s &. :ardlow ()S 2000+ :-!le be!#, !# a bad #e!,-bor-ood by !tsel1, a#d ru##!#, 1ro3 $ol!ce by !tsel1, a#d -old!#, a ba, by !tsel1, are #ot su11!c!e#t to create reaso#able sus$!c!o#, to,et-er suc- 1acts ca# create reaso#able sus$!c!o#. !&. 7lor!da &. Royer ()S 1*8F+ :-e# a sto$ based o# reaso#able sus$!c!o# e4ceeds t-e sco$e o1 w-at reaso#able sus$!c!o# warra#ts, t-e sto$ beco3es a 1ull se!;ure a#d t-e results o1 t-at 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t &!olat!o# 3ust be e4cluded. &. )#!ted States &. %rayto# (2002+ .-e sta#dard 1or deter3!#!#, w-et-er so3eo#e -as bee# subEect to a .erry sto$ !s w-et-er a reaso#able !##oce#t $erso# would t-!#5 t-at -e was 1ree to lea&e or to #ot a#swer Buest!o#s. So3e 1actors !#clude $ol!ce co#trol, roo3 to 3o&e, etc. .-e bel!e1 o1 t-e subEect o1 t-e Buest!o#!#, does#0t 3atter - !t0s t-e reaso#able !##oce#t $erso#, #or !s t-ere a $er se rule t-at $ol!ce 3ust !#1or3 subEect t-at -e 3ay re1use. &!. Bre#dl!# &. Cal!1or#!a ()S 200>+ Passe#,ers !# a car are co#s!dered deta!#ed alo#, w!t- t-e car, so lo#, as t-ey do#0t reaso#ably bel!e&e t-at t-ey are 1ree to lea&e. .-ere1ore, e&!de#ce a,a!#st $asse#,ers t-at result 1ro3 sto$s w!t-out $robable cause 3ust be su$$ressed. &!!. )#!ted States &. Place ()S 1*8F+ O#ce t-e a3ou#t o1 t!3e t-at would be reaso#able to deta!# based o# reaso#able sus$!c!o# -as ela$sed, $ol!ce 3ust let t-e deta!#ee ,o or !t beco3es a# !lle,al arrest w!t-out $robable cause, a#d 3ust be su$$ressed. Cold!#, so3eo#e0s lu,,a,e !# a way t-at esse#t!ally -eld t-e $erso# !s suc- a se!;ure. Mot!&e a#d Race (@uest S$ea5er+ :-re# &. ).S. ()S 1**6+(Pa,e 160+

!!. !.

C-alle#,es to 2IKs Sto$ a#d 7r!s5 'aw .racey Macl!#, Race a#d t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t Ceat-er Mac%o#ald, .-e Myt- o1 Rac!al Pro1!l!#, R. R!c-ard Ba#5s, Beyo#d Pro1!l!#,: Race,Pol!c!#, a#d t-e %ru, :ar !!!. "#s$ect!o#s, Re,ulatory Searc-es, %ru, .est!#,, Roadbloc5s - a#d $ost */11 sta#dards - @uest S$ea5er 261- 26* !. Sa3so# &. Cal!1or#!a ()S 2006+ (Parolee was l!able to searc- at a#y t!3e+ Parolee !s l!able to searc- at a#y t!3e. !!. Couse &. 2a$ol!ta#o (Su$$.+ .-e ,o&er#3e#t -as a# !#terest !# $ol!c!#, !ts borders, a#d t-at !#terest results !# a lowered e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy 1or $eo$le tra&el!#, t-rou,-. .-at allows t-e ,o&er#3e#t to searc- su!tcases, co3$uters, etc. Cowe&er, t-e searc-es 3ust st!ll stay w!t-!# reaso#. !!!. 7er,uso# &. C!ty o1 C-arlesto# (Su$$+(.-e $re,#a#t wo3e# ur!#e test case+ 1. 2. F.
Rule: (1) Government employees are restricted by the Fourth Amendment. (2) While there is a "special needs exception" that weighs into the reasonableness requirement of Fourth Amendment analysis, enforcement of drug laws even to deter pregnant women from taking drugs does not ustify an invasion of privacy li!e unconsented urine tests. "#$ "arguable, but % thin! it&s there$ %n order to qualify for the "special interest exception" to the Fourth Amendment, the motivation for the search must be substantially divorced from the interest in law enforcement.

!!.

!&.

&. &!.

%elaware &. Prouse (Su$$.+: Pull!#, a car o&er !s a (.erry le&el+ se!;ure a#d 3ay #ot be do#e w!t-out reaso#able sus$!c!o#. .-e ,o&er#3e#t !#terest !# e#sur!#, sa1ety o1 t-e roads !s outwe!,-ed by t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !#terest, es$ec!ally s!#ce t-!s lea&es too 3uc- o$e# to $ol!ce d!scret!o#. C!ty o1 "#d!a#a$ol!s &. =d3o#d (Su$$.+(.-e ,e#eral roadbloc5 case+ =&e# !1 t-e sto$ !s #ot o$e# to $ol!ce d!scret!o#, t-e $ol!cy -as to $ass a reaso#able#ess !#Bu!ry. @e#eral cr!3e-$re&e#t!o# roadbloc5s 1a!l t-e !#Bu!ry. "ll!#o!s &. '!dster (Su$$.+(.-e Hca# you !de#t!1y t-e dru#5 dr!&erH roadbloc5 case+ Pol!ce 3ay set u$ a roadbloc5 1or #o#-!#&est!,atory $ur$oses, !# t-!s case to see5 w!t#esses to a cras- t-at -ad -a$$e#ed $re&!ously o# t-at s$ot. )#!ted States &. 7lores-Mo#ta#o (Su$$.+ "t was reaso#able 1or border !#s$ectors to re3o&e a ,as ta#5 1or e4a3!#at!o# at t-e border.

&!!.

G.

Co#se#t Searc-es, Pla!# &!ew, Pla!# s3ell 26*-28G !. S-#ec5lot- &. Busta3o#te ()S 1*>F+ .-e state #eed #ot $ro&e &olu#tar!#ess !# co#se#t searc-es. /s lo#, as t-ere !s #o coerc!o#, t-e de1e#da#t 3ust $ro&e t-at !t was#0t &olu#tary. !!. @eor,!a &. Ra#dol$- ()S 2006+(Cusba#d a#d w!1e d!sa,reed o&er co#se#t+ :-ere o#e te#a#t allows e#try a#d t-e ot-er does#0t, $ol!ce 3ay #ot e#ter. !!!. /r!;o#a &. C!c5s (Su$$+ :-e# $ol!ce -a&e a reaso# to be !# a -o3e, 3o&!#, so3et-!#, e&e# a b!t !s a searc-, !1 !t0s #ot Eust!1!ed by t-e reaso# t-at t-ey0re t-ere. (=4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces allowed $ol!ce !#to a# a$art3e#t w-ere t-ere was stereo eBu!$3e#t, w-!c- -ad to be 3o&ed to see !1 !t was stole#.+ !&. Corto# &. Cal!1or#!a (Su$$+

.-e d!sco&ery o1 $la!# &!ew e&!de#ce #eed #ot be H!#ad&erte#tH. =&e# !1 t-e o11!cer 5#ew !t was t-ere a#d was #ot able to ,et !t o# t-e warra#t, -e 3ay se!;e !t u#der t-e $la!# &!ew doctr!#e. .-e =4clus!o#ary Rule, e4ce$t!o#s, rat!o#ale, a#d debate surrou#d!#, !t. CB 1-8> !. :ol1 &. Colorado ()S 1*G*+(%ecl!#!#, to a$$ly t-e 7ederal e4clus!o#ary rule to t-e states+ !!. Ma$$ &. O-!o ()S 1*61+ (Re&ers!#, :ol1 &. O-!o a#d a$$ly!#, t-e Co#st!tut!o#al e4clus!o#ary rule to t-e states+ !!!. )#!ted States &. 'eo# ()S 1*8G+(@ood-1a!t- e4ce$t!o# to e4clus!o#ary rule+ Cudso# &. M!c-!,a# ()S 2006+ (8!olat!o# o1 H?#oc5 a#d /##ou#ceH does #ot reBu!re a$$l!cat!o# o1 t-e e4clus!o#ary rule+ &. Cerr!#, &. )#!ted States ()S 200*+ (Searc- !#c!de#t to arrest based o# e4$!red warra#t was #ot e4cluded+ Sta#d!#, !. M!##esota &. Carter (S)PP.+ (1+:-e# t-e &!olat!o# o1 o#e $erso#0s $r!&acy leads to d!sco&ery o1 a#ot-er $erso#0s cr!3!#al e&!de#ce, t-e a#alys!s s-ould #ot 1ocus o# sta#d!#,, rat-er !t s-ould 1ocus o# t-e Hreaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acyH o1 t-e $erso# w-o was $rosecuted. (2+ :-e# so3eo#e !s !# a -o3e br!e1ly for purposes of illegal activity, a#d is not an overnight guest, -e does #ot -a&e a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !# t-at $lace. "# order to create a le,!t!3ate e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, t-ere #eeds to be a last!#, a#d substa#t!al co##ect!o# to t-e $re3!ses. (7or re1ere#ce $ur$oses, a# o&er#!,-t ,uest -as t-e e4$ectat!o#+. 7ru!t o1 t-e $o!so#ous tree (2ot sure w-y Cerr!#, co3es !#, but " do #eed to deter3!#e w-at t-e d!11ere#ces are betwee# t-e 7ourt-, 7!1t-, a#d S!4t- /3e#d3e#ts !# ter3s o1 e4clus!o#. .-e 7ourt- e4cludes all 1ru!t e4ce$t atte#uated 1ru!t6 t-e 7!1te4cludes t-e co#1ess!o# alo#e. "t see3s t-e S!4t- !s l!5e t-e 7ourt-, but " s-ould co#1!r3. "t also 3!,-t be d!11ere#t !# t-at !t 3!,-t be l!3!ted to e&!de#ce relat!#, to this trial. !. Cerr!#, &. ).S. (CB+(Su$ra+ "#de$e#de#t source !. Murray &. ).S. (S)PP.+ Pol!ce 3ay o&erco3e a 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t &!olat!o# !1 t-ey ca# $ro&e t-at t-ey ,ot t-e sa3e e&!de#ce 1ro3 a# !#de$e#de#t source, a#d t-e or!,!#al &!olat!o# $layed #o role !# t-e!r $rocure3e#t o1 t-e !#1or3at!o# 1ro3 t-e !#de$e#de#t source. "#e&!table %!sco&ery !. 2!4 &. :!ll!a3s (S)PP.+ /1ter $ol!ce &!olated t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t !# tell!#, t-e 3urderer t-at t-ey d!d#0t 5#ow !1 t-ey0d e&er 1!#d t-e body w!t-out -!s -el$, t-ey de1e#ded !#clus!o# o1 t-e body by say!#, t-at t-ey would -a&e 1ou#d !t a#yway. .-e Court a,reed, say!#, t-at !t would be ad3!ss!ble !1 !t would inevitably -a&e bee# 1ou#d, but #ot !1 t-ey s!3$ly cla!3ed !t would l!5ely -a&e bee# 1ou#d. .-e state 3ust s-ow e&!de#ce t-at !t was !#e&!table. 2o#-3ater!al errors !. Mass. 8. S-e$ard (S)PP.+ 7uture o1 t-e =4clus!o#ary Rule !. %ebra '!&!#,sto#, Pol!ce %!scret!o# a#d t-e Lual!ty o1 '!1e !# Publ!c Places (S)PP.+ 0ntrap"ent: (hat it is, %hat it is not. (1!est pea2er) !&.

!.

!!.

!!!.

!&.

&. &!. ).

a. CB 28G-F02 SubEect!&e/ObEect!&e a$$roac-es - )#der t-e subEect!&e a$$roac- t-e !ssue !s w-et-er t-e $erso# would -a&e co33!tted t-e cr!3e ($red!s$os!t!o#+ w!t-out t-e $ol!ce !#&ol&e3e#t. )#der t-e obEect!&e a$$roac-, t-e !#Bu!ry !s based o# t-e $ol!ce !#duce3e#ts a#d e4a3!#es w-et-er t-ey would -a&e caused a# ord!#ary $erso# to co33!t a cr!3e. !!. )#!ted States &. Russell ()S 1*>F+ %e1e#da#ts w-o ra# a 3et- lab were #ot absol&ed by t-e e#tra$3e#t doctr!#e w-e# $ol!ce -el$ed t-e3 $rocure o#e c-e3!cal t-at t-ey -ad -ad be1ore a#d could -a&e ,otte# o# t-e!r ow#. !!!. Aacobso# &. )#!ted States ()S 1**2+ %e1e#da#t ar,uably -ad a $red!s$os!t!o# to t-e act but #ot to t-e cr!3e, s!#ce -e -ad o#ly do#e !t w-e# !t was le,al. Pol!ce !#duce3e#ts were lo#,-ru##!#, a#d substa#t!al, de1e#da#t was #ot $red!s$osed. b. Se#te#c!#, e#tra$3e#t6 Re;wa# 7erdaus case (S)PP.+ G. &ifth A"en$"ent 3 #olice interrogations an$ confessions (.-e Case o1 2,a .rou#,+ (1 +(16+ -CB FFG-F>1 !. %ue Process &olu#tar!#ess test (2ote t-at e&e# a1ter t-e ad&e#t o1 all t-e #ewer $ro$-ylact!c reBu!re3e#ts, &olu#tar!#ess !s st!ll d!s$os!t!&e.+ !. /s-cra1t &. .e##essee / M!ra#da $recursor - because co#d!t!o#s o1 F0 -our !#terro,at!o# were coerc!&e, Court does#0t e4a3!#e w-et-er actual co#1ess!o# was 3ade w!t&olu#tary $rese#ce o1 3!#d6 co#1ess!o# !s !#ad3!ss!ble. !!. Mass!a- a#d =scobedo: R!,-t to Cou#sel !. Mass!a- &. )#!ted States O#ce Sixth Amendment 5!c5s !#, $ol!ce 3ay #ot try to c!rcu3&e#t !t by HBuest!o#!#,H sus$ect t-rou,- a coo$erat!#, w!t#ess. !!. =scobedo &. "ll!#o!s Sixth Amendment r!,-ts $ro-!b!t $ol!ce 1ro3 de#y!#, cou#sel w-!le Buest!o#!#, a sus$ect a#d 1ro3 do!#, t-!#,s to el!c!t co#1ess!o#s. iii. Mass. %eclarat!o# o1 R!,-ts (S)PP.+ (2ote: " do#0t t-!#5 !t0s actually !# t-e Su$$le3e#tary 3ater!als $osted o#l!#e, but -ere0s a l!#5 t-at see3s to be t-e r!,-t docu3e#t: -tt$://www.3ass.,o&/courts/sEc/,u!de-to-e&!de#ce/ 11.-t3 !!!. M!ra#da a#d t-e Pr!&!le,e /,a!#st Sel1 "#cr!3!#at!o# !. M!ra#da &. /r!;o#a .-e Fifth Amendment r!,-t a,a!#st sel1 !#cr!3!#at!o# de3a#ds t-at $ol!ce #ot coerce sus$ects by !#terro,at!#, t-e3 w!t-out lawyers. .-ere1ore, w-e# a sus$ect !s !# custody, -e 3ay #ot be !#terro,ated w!t-out be!#, !#1or3ed o1 -!s r!,-t to a# attor#ey a#d t-e r!,-t to re3a!# s!le#t. !!. .-e Case o1 2,a .rou#, (Su$$le3e#t+(does#0t a$$ear to be $osted yet, but "0&e see# t-e #ews stor!es at least.+ !&. M!ra#da0s l!3!tat!o#s !. Custody a#d "#terro,at!o# 1. /$$ly!#, a#d e4$la!#!#, M!ra#da 2. A.%.B. &. 2ort- Carol!#a .-e deter3!#at!o# o1 w-et-er so3eo#e !s !# custody de$e#ds o# t-e $erce$t!o# o1 t-e reaso#able $erso#, a#d 1or c-!ldre#/tee#s, !t de$e#ds o# t-e $erce$t!o# o1 t-e reaso#able c-!ld/tee#. !!!. R-ode "sla#d &. "##!s !.

!.

!!.

!!!.

Luest!o#!#, !s co#s!dered !#terro,at!o#, as !s state3e#ts t-at a reaso#able $ol!ce o11!cer would e4$ect 3!,-t el!c!t a co#1ess!o#. "# t-!s case, t-e co33e#t to a#ot-er $ol!ce o11!cer !# t-e $rese#ce o1 t-e sus$ect was #ot !#terro,at!o# u#der M!ra#da. G. "ll!#o!s &. Per5!#s M!ra#da o#ly a$$l!es !# a coerc!&e at3os$-ere, so a# o11!cer d!s,u!sed as a cell3ate was #ot !# &!olat!o# o1 M!ra#da w-e# -e el!c!ted a co#1ess!o# 1ro3 -!s cell3ate. However suc- el!c!tat!o#s are a &!olat!o# o1 t-e Sixth Amendment u#der Mass!a- B). o#ly !1 t-e $r!so#er -as S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts o# t-e $art!cular cr!3e t-at t-e o11!cer el!c!ts a co#1ess!o# o#. "# t-!s case, t-e o11!cer would -a&e bee# !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t e4ce$t t-at t-e cr!3e Per5!#s co#1essed to was #ot t-e o#e -e was !# Ea!l 1or. . Cowes &. 7!eld (Su$$le3e#t+ Aust because so3eo#e !s !# Ea!l does#0t 3ea# t-at t-ey0re !# M!ra#da custody. "# t-!s case, t-e $erso# was !# Ea!l 1or a# u#related cr!3e, a#d $ol!ce too5 -!3 to a#ot-er roo3 to Buest!o# -!3 about so3et-!#, -e -ad#0t bee# c-ar,ed w!t-. "t was #ot M!ra#da Custody s!#ce -e -ad bee# !# Ea!l a#yway 1or ot-er reaso#s a#d -e was 1ree to ,o bac5 to -!s cell. :a!&er, Re!#!t!at!o#, Re$rese#ted %e1e#da#t 1. Ber,-u!s &. .-o3$5!#s (:a!&er o1 r!,-t to s!le#ce a#d cou#sel. 2ote t-at t-ere are two se$arate wa!&ers at $lay.+(Poss!bly " 3!su#derstood t-!s case+. S!le#ce alo#e !s #ot su11!c!e#t to !#&o5e t-e r!,-t to re3a!# s!le#t, a#d s$ea5!#, a1ter a lo#, $er!od o1 s!le#ce !s e#ou,- to wa!&e t-e r!,-t to re3a!# s!le#t. (" ,uess t-!s relates to t-e 1act !1 -e -ad !#&o5ed -!s r!,-t to s!le#ce, t-e co#1ess!o# would -a&e bee# e4cluded because $ol!ce d!d#0t res$ect -!s !#&ocat!o#. "1 -e -ad#0t wa!&ed -!s r!,-t to s!le#ce, t-e co#1ess!o# would -a&e bee# e4cluded because -e -ad#0t wa!&ed -!s r!,-t. So t-ose are t-e two sta,es !# t-!s case.+ 7a!lure to allow lawyer to see cl!e#t 1. Maryla#d &. S-at;er (S-ould actually be u#der re!#!t!at!o#+ )#der t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t a#d M!ra#da, a sus$ect w-o -as !#&o5ed -!s r!,-ts 3ay be re-a$$roac-ed two wee5s later. !!. Mo#teEo &. 'ou!s!a#a (Ba11l!#, case+ R!le: .-ere !s #o Jac son rule a#y3ore, !.e. a rule t-at o#ce cou#sel !s wor5!#, 1or cl!e#t, a#y co33u#!cat!o# 3ust e!t-er ,o t-rou,- t-e lawyer or be act!&ely wa!&ed !# order to result !# ad3!ss!b!l!ty. "t seems t-ou,-, t-at !dwards would be a$$l!ed !# al3ost all cases w-ere Jac son would -a&e bee# rele&a#t. F. Mora# &. Burb!#e R!le 1. =&e#ts -a$$e#!#, outs!de o1 a $r!so#er0s 5#owled,e ca##ot a11ect t-e &olu#tar!#ess o1 -!s dec!s!o#s. S!#ce -e d!d#0t 5#ow t-at a lawyer -ad bee# a$$o!#ted 1or -!3, t-ere !s #o reaso# w-y -!s wa!&er ou,-t to be 1lawed, co3!#, as !t d!d a1ter -!s r!,-ts were read to -!3. M!ra#da w!ll #ot be e4te#ded to !#sta#ces w-ere $ol!ce are #ot 1ort-r!,-t w!t- de1e#da#ts a#d do #ot res$ect r!,-ts o1 a# attorney because t-at !s #ot w-o t-e r!,-t !s 3ea#t to $rotect. R!le 4. .-e co#duct o1 t-e $ol!ce d!d #ot &!olate res$o#de#t0s S!4t/3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel. .-at r!,-t !#!t!ally attac-es o#ly a1ter t-e 1!rst

1or3al c-ar,!#, $rocedure, w-ereas t-e c-alle#,ed $ol!ce co#duct -ere occurred $r!or to res$o#de#t0s arra!,#3e#t. Publ!c Sa1ety e4ce$t!o# 1. 2ew Ior5 &. Luarles Co#1ess!o# e&!de#ce obta!#ed w!t-out M!ra#da war#!#,s !s ad3!ss!ble !1 !t was 3ade !# reaso#able $rotect!o# o1 t-e $ubl!c sa1ety. &. 7ru!t o1 t-e Po!so#ous .ree 1. )#!ted States &. Pata#e P-ys!cal e&!de#ce t-at sur1aces as a result o1 a #o#-M!ra#d!;ed co#1ess!o# !s ad3!ss!ble. P-ys!cal e&!de#ce t-at sur1aces as a result o1 actual due $rocess &!olat!o#s !# ,ett!#, t-e co#1ess!o# !s st!ll !#ad3!ss!ble. !!. M!ssour! &. Se!bert Pol!ce 3ay #ot act!&ely atte3$t to c!rcu3&e#t M!ra#da by !#terro,at!#, $re-M!ra#da a#d t-e# M!ra#d!;!#, a#d re-!#terro,at!#,. .-ree $ote#t!al rules: Plural!ty: "1 t-e later read!#, o1 r!,-ts does#0t su11!ce to educate t-e sus$ect as to -!s r!,-ts !# l!,-t o1 t-e earl!er co#1ess!o#, !t0s !#ad3!ss!ble. Co#curre#ce 1: "1 t-e !#!t!al &!olat!o# was !# ,ood 1a!t-, t-e e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble, !1 #ot t-e e&!de#ce 3ust be e4cluded. Co#curre#ce 2: "1 t-e &!olat!o# was a ra#do3 -a$$e#sta#ce, t-e e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble. "1 t-e e&!de#ce was t-e result o1 a two-$art sc-e3e, t-e# !t0s #ot ad3!ss!ble. &!. Ca# Co#,ress O&errule M!ra#da< (".e. !s M!ra#da Co#st!tut!o# or Pro$-ylact!c<+ 1. %!scuss!o# (Pa,e GFG+ 2. %!c5erso# &. )#!ted States Co#,ress 3ay #ot o&errule M!ra#da, as !t0s a Co#st!tut!o#al reBu!re3e#t. /lter#at!&ely, Co#,ress 3ay o#ly o&errule M!ra#da !1 !t $ro&!des adeBuate $rotect!o# u#der t-e Co#st!tut!o#, w-!c- t-e law !# Buest!o# (F 01+ 1a!led to do. !!!. /lter#at!&e re3ed!es (Su$$le3e#t M#ot sure t-at !t0s actually t-ereN+ &!!. Mass!a- a#d M!ra#da: .-e Relat!o#s-!$ betwee# t-e 7!1t- a#d S!4t/3e#d3e#ts 1. %!scuss!o# (Pa,e G 2+ 2. Brewer &. :!ll!a3s (:!ll!a3s "+ )#der t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t, $ol!ce 3ay #ot el!c!t state3e#ts 1ro3 de1e#da#ts w-o -a&e bee# arra!,#ed, s!#ce t-ey -a&e a S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to a lawyer. "1 suc- state3e#ts are el!c!ted, t-ey a#d t-e 1ru!ts o1 t-e3 are e4cluded. (See also Mo#teEo6 Mass!a-, =scobedo+ !!!. ?-ul3a# &. :!lso# :-!le u#der t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t, $ol!ce 3ay #ot use el!c!t!#, 3ec-a#!s3s to e4tract co#1ess!o#s 1ro3 sus$ects (Mass!a-+, s!3$ly ass!,#!#, a# !#1or3a#t as a cell3ate does #ot r!se to t-e le&el o1 el!c!t!#, a#d t-ere1ore t-e e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble. 0+e%itness I$entifications an$ the Re6!ire"ent for Co!nsel (1!est pea2ers) !. %!scuss!o# (Pa,e G66+ !!. )#!ted States &. :ade (/#d @!lbert &. Cal!1or#!a, !ts co3$a#!o# case+ Because o1 t-e da#,er o1 su,,est!&e a#d ot-erw!se de1!c!e#t "% $rocedures, de1e#da#ts are e#t!tled to a# attor#ey at t-e $rocedures. !!!. ?!rby &. "ll!#o!s (Bac5!#, dow# 1ro3 :ade a#d @!lbert+ !&.

5.

6.

Cowe&er, t-ey are #ot e#t!tled to a# attor#ey at a $rocedure t-at ta5es $lace be1ore Eud!c!al $roceed!#,s, de1!#ed as H1or3al c-ar,e, $rel!3!#ary -ear!#,, !#d!ct3e#t, !#1or3at!o#, or arra!,#3e#t.H !. %ue Process '!3!tat!o#: Sto&all &. %e##o: %e1e#da#ts 3ay c-alle#,e e&e# $re!#d!ct3e#t !de#t!1!cat!o# $roceed!#,s, o# ,rou#ds t-at t-ey were so w-olly su,,est!&e or co#duc!&e to !rre$arable 3!sta5e# !de#t!1!cat!o# t-at !t was a de#!al o1 due $rocess o1 law. But $ol!ce ca# still $rese#t t-e e&!de#ce !1 t-ey -ad a Eust!1!cat!o# 1or t-e $rocedure t-ey c-ose. 1. Ma#so# &. Brat-wa!te: .-e court ,a&e t-ree !#terests to we!,- 1or t-e u##ecessary a#d su,,est!&e restr!ct!o#. (1+rel!ab!l!ty o1 e&!de#ce (2+ deterre#ce o1 $ol!ce (F+.-e e11ect o# ad3!#!strat!o# o1 Eust!ce. "# t-at l!,-t, Relia7ilit+ !s t-e l!#c-$!# !# deter3!#!#, t-e ad3!ss!b!l!ty o1 !de#t!1!cat!o# test!3o#y. .-e factors !#clude (1+ t-e o$$ortu#!ty o1 t-e w!t#ess to &!ew t-e cr!3!#al at t-e t!3e o1 t-e cr!3e, (2+ .-e w!t#ess0s de,ree o1 atte#t!o#, (F+ t-e accuracy o1 -!s $r!or descr!$t!o# o1 cr!3!#al(G+ t-e le&el o1 certa!#ty de3o#strated at t-e co#1ro#tat!o# ( + t-e t!3e betwee# t-e cr!3e a#d t-e co#1ro#tat!o#. 2. Perry &. 2ew Ca3$s-!re .-e rule o1 u##ecessar!ly su,,est!&e or co#duc!&e to 3!s!de#t!1!cat!o# o#ly a$$l!es to $ol!ce 3!sco#duct. !!!. State &. Ce#derso# (Su$$le3e#t: a#d !t0s t-ereO+ Because o1 t-e sc!e#t!1!c !#1or3at!o# #ow a&a!lable o# eyew!t#ess !de#t!1!cat!o#0s s-ortco3!#,s, t-ere are two #ew rules !# 2ew Aersey. (1+ :-e# a de1e#da#t s-ows e&!de#ce o1 su,,est!&e#ess, t-ere w!ll be a $re-tr!al -ear!#, o# ad3!ss!b!l!ty o1 eyew!t#ess e&!de#ce, a#d (2+ .-e courts s-ould de&elo$ Eury !#struct!o#s t-at re1lect t-e $reEud!ces a#d rele&a#t 1actors based o# sc!e#t!1!c e&!de#ce. !&. )#!ted States &. Ao#es (Su$$le3e#t: a#d !t0s t-ereO+ (1st C!r. Case+. )ses t-e Brat-wa!te 1ra3ewor5, add!#, t-e #ot!o# t-at o#ce #ecess!ty !s c-alle#,ed, t-e state t-e# -as t-e burde# o1 $roo1 o# rel!ab!l!ty. /lso addresses e4$ert test!3o#y o# eyew!t#ess rel!ab!l!ty, a#d says t-at Eud,es #eed #ot ad3!t t-e3 as w!t#esses, but 3ay alter#at!&ely !#cor$orate t-e !deas !#to Eury !#struct!o#s. &. Co33o#wealt- &. :al5er (Su$$le3e#t, does#0t see3 to be t-ere+ &!. Mater!als 1ro3 t-e Massac-usetts Su$re3e Aud!c!al Court ProEect o# =yew!t#ess "de#t!1!cat!o# (Su$$le3e#t, does#0t see3 to be t-ere.+ 0ffecti,e Assistance of Co!nsel !. .-e R!,-t to /$$o!#ted Cou#sel (Pa,e F0F+ 1. Betts &. Brady Old a#d d!scred!ted rule: "#d!,e#t de1e#da#ts #eed #ot be $ro&!ded cou#sel 1or t-e!r de1e#se, u#less t-ere are s$ec!al c!rcu3sta#ces t-at $o!#t at !#ab!l!ty to re$rese#t t-e3sel&es. !!. @!deo# &. :a!#wr!,-t Re&erses Betts, a#d says t-at t-e r!,-t to Cou#sel !s a 1u#da3e#tal r!,-t t-at s-ould be ,ra#ted to all !#d!,e#t de1e#da#ts. !!!. /laba3a &. S-elto# Pre&!ous cases -ad sa!d t-at $r!so# o1 a#y le#,t- o1 t!3e reBu!res cou#sel (/,ers!#,er+ a#d 1!#es do#0t #ecessar!ly (Scott &. ll!#o!s+. /laba3a &. S-elto# -eld t-at sus$e#ded se#te#ces 1or w-!c- $robat!o# &!olat!o#s would result !# !3$r!so#3e#t reBu!re ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel o# t-e !#!t!al cr!3!#al c-ar,es. !&. Rot-,ery &. @!lles$!e Cou#ty (2008: :-e# !# t-e $rocess does t-e r!,-t to cou#sel be,!#<+

!!.

!!!.

.-e @r!11!# %ou,las H=Bual!tyH Pr!#c!$le (@r!11!#: /$$eal 3ay #ot be de#!ed because de1e#da#t ca#0t a11ord tra#scr!$t. @o&er#3e#t 3ust 1u#d tra#scr!$t.+ 1. %ou,las &. Cal!1or#!a %e1e#da#ts are e#t!tled to ,o&er#3e#t 1u#ded lawyers 1or a$$eals as o1 r!,-t. .-!s !s reBu!red by t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t eBual $rotect!o# clause. !!. Ross &. Mo11!t Cowe&er, %e1e#da#ts are #ot e#t!tled to d!scret!o#ary a$$eals o# t-e ,o&er#3e#ts0 d!3e. .-e R!,-t to !ffective Cou#sel 1. .-e Role o1 Cou#sel (Pa,e >F + 2. "#e11ect!&e /ss!sta#ce o1 Cou#sel ("/C+ Cla!3s 1. Str!c5la#d &. :as-!#,to#
Rule: %n order to prevail on a claim of %A', the defendant must show that his representation "($ Fell below the standards of a reasonably effective attorney at the time of the conduct, and ")$ that the result was therefore changed from what the result would have been.

Carr!#,to# &. R!c-ter "# re&!ew!#, cla!3s o1 "/C o# -abeas $roceed!#,s 1ro3 state courts, t-e a$$ro$r!ate sta#dard o1 d!scret!o# !s 7ederal Court reaso#able-co#clus!o# d!scret!o# o# t-e state court0s dec!s!o#, a#d t-e State court !s e&aluat!#, t-e reaso#able attor#ey0s dec!s!o#s. So !t0s double !#sulat!o#. F. 'a1ler &. Coo$er :-e# a $la!#t!11 3a5es a s-ow!#, t-at -e would -a&e ta5e# a $lea deal but 1or -!s cou#sel0s u#reaso#able-le&el ad&!ce, a#d t-e result was a lo#,er se#te#ce, t-e# t-e correct re3edy !s 1or t-e state to o11er t-e $lea deal a,a!#, a#d t-e de1e#da#t 3ay ta5e !t, at w-!c- t!3e t-e Eud,e 3ust a$$ro&e !t. !!!. S$ec!al C-alle#,es to Cou#sel0s Re$rese#tat!o#, e.,. Co#1l!cts o1 "#terest 1. M!c5e#s &. .aylor / co#1l!ct o1 !#terest does #ot ar!se u#less t-ere !s a# act!&e co#1l!ct, !.e. so3e reaso# w-y re$rese#t!#, t-!s $erso# would be act!&ely -a3$ered. / 3ere $erso#al co##ect!o# !s #ot e#ou,-, so a lawyer 1or a 3urderer w-o -ad also re$rese#ted t-e &!ct!3 was #ot $resu3ed to be $reEud!c!al. 'O'. !!. :-eat &. )#!ted States / court 3ay re1use to allow a lawyer to ser&e as cou#sel 1or a $art!cular de1e#da#t w-e# t-e court sus$ects t-at t-ere0s a $ote#t!al co#1l!ct, e&e# !1 t-e de1e#da#t atte3$ts to wa!&e -!s cla!3s o1 co#1l!ct. !&. Cou#sel Co#trol &s. Cl!e#t Co#trol 1. 7lor!da &. 2!4o# 2. H.-e Slee$!#, 'awyerH (Su$$le3e#t+ F. )#!ted States &. Cebs-!e (Su$$le3e#t+ G. Carr!#,to# &. R!c-ter (Su$$le3e#t+ . Culle# &. P!#-olster (Su$$le3e#t+ 6. 'a1ler &. Coo$er (%o#0t 5#ow w-y !t0s -ereP "t was !# t-e boo5 abo&e.+ >. M!ssour! &. 7rye (Su$$le3e#t+ 8. &!t!re Iss!es: !. .-e Per&as!&e#ess o1 %!scret!o# !!. "s t-e Cr!3!#al Process about .rut-<

!!.

'!5ely !ssues to ar!se - searc-es

Su#day, October 21, 2012 10:02 /M

1.

:as !t a searc-< "t see3s t-ere are t-ree ways t-at so3et-!#, ca# be co#s!dered a searc-. "0ll -a&e to u$date !1 t-ere are 3ore. a. P-ys!cal !#curs!o# !#to $ro$erty. (.-e $re-?at; cases6 t-e Ao#es @PS case.+ b. ?at; &!olat!&e searc-es, (3ost Buest!o#s see3 to ar!se u#der ?at;+. Most cases $ut searc- to,et-er w!t- Hreaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acyH6 !.e. t-e ?at; test. "1 !t &!olates t-e reaso#able e4$ectat!o#, !t was by de1!#!t!o# a searc- a#d u#reaso#able. !. .-e ?at; test d!st!lls !#to two $arts. (1+ :as t-e $erso# !#terested !# 3a!#ta!#!#, t-e $r!&acy o1 t-!s !#1or3at!o#, a#d (2+ was t-e !#terest reaso#ably $rotected !# t-e eyes o1 soc!ety. c. "#1or3at!o# t-at co3es &!a t-e !#s!de o1 a -ouse, !.e. t-e ?yllo case, w-!c- sa!d t-at !t0s a searc- because !t was t-e use o1 tec-#olo,y to HseeH !# a -ouse. Searc-es o1 -o3es are $resu3$t!&ely u#reaso#able. !. .-!s leads to t-e do, s#!11!#, case !# 1ro#t o1 t-e Su$re3e Court today. !!. :ould $robably a$$ly to %e7ca" hac2ing, e&e# !1 t-e $erso# w-o ow#ed t-e la$to$ 5#ew t-at t-ere are lots o1 webca3 -ac5s out t-ere. !!!. :-at !s a -o3e< Co33o#wealt- &. Porter: a Co3eless s-elter !s. 2. :as !t a se!;ure< a. HSo3e 3ea#!#,1ul !#ter1ere#ce w!t- a# !#d!&!dual0s $ossessory !#terests !# t-at $ro$ertyH(Soldal &. Coo5 Cou#ty, #ot !# syllabus. Stay tu#ed 1or ot-er cases.+ F. :as t-ere a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< a. Met-od used to obta!# !#1or3at!o# (?yllo: #e&er ,et !#1o 1ro3 -ouses6 R!ley: 8!ew!#, Curt!la,e 1ro3 t-e a!r !s allowed, s!#ce !t was le,al to 1ly t-ere.+ b. "#1or3at!o# !s #ot suc- t-at de1e#da#t wa#ts to $rotect !t. (S3!t- &. Maryla#d: 2obody $rotects t-e $-o#e #u3bers t-ey d!aled, so !t 1a!ls t-e 1!rst $art o1 t-e ?at; !#Bu!ry. c. "#1or3at!o# !s #ot s!tuated !# a way t-at soc!ety acce$ts !ts $rotect!o# as reaso#able. (@ree#wood0s tras-, S3!t- &. Maryla#d0s $-o#e #u3bers, R!ley0s yard 1ro3 aer!al sur&e!lla#ce.+ G. Cow $rotected was t-e area< a. 2ote t-at !# so3e cases, t-e court addresses t-e le&el o1 $rotect!o# to w-!c- t-e area !s e#t!tled (Co3es, l!5e !# ?yllo+ as a se$arate !ssue 1ro3 t-e ty$e o1 !#curs!o# ()s!#, rare tec-#olo,y, l!5e !# ?yllo+, a#d !# ot-er cases, t-e court Eust says t-at !1 t-ere was a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, t-e# 1!#d!#, out t-e !#1or3at!o# !s a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. (?at;, R!ley+. Per-a$s t-e d!st!#ct!o# !s w-et-er t-e area !s a -o3e. But !s curt!la,e #ot a -o3e< b. Co3es are sacrosa#ct - t-ere !s al3ost #o c!rcu3sta#ce !# w-!c- a#y searc- w!ll be allowed !# a -o3e w!t-out a warra#t, a#d !t see3s t-at t-e !3$le3e#tat!o# o1 t-e searc- !s subEect to ,reater scrut!#y as well. (See ?yllo, !# w-!c- t-ere was #o !#curs!o# but t-e Court sa!d so3et-!#, about t-e 1ro#t door o1 a -o3e be!#, a br!,-t l!#e. c. 9o% protecte$ is C!rtilage, an$ %hat is c!rtilage< .-!s !s 1ro3 a case t-at we d!d#0t read, but !t s-ould be use1ul. HCurt!la,e Buest!o#s s-ould be resol&ed w!t$art!cular re1ere#ce to 1our 1actors: t-e $ro4!3!ty o1 t-e area cla!3ed to be curt!la,e to t-e -o3e, w-et-er t-e area !s !#cluded w!t-!# a# e#closure surrou#d!#, t-e -o3e, t-e

#ature o1 t-e uses to w-!c- t-e area !s $ut, a#d t-e ste$s ta5e# by t-e res!de#t to $rotect t-e area 1ro3 obser&at!o# by $eo$le $ass!#, by.H )#!ted States &. %u##. !. "t see3s t-at t-e Court addresses bot- Buest!o#s6 w-et-er t-e area or co#ce$t !# Buest!o# ou,-t to be $rotected, a#d 1ro3 w-at !t ou,-t to be $rotected, as o#e Buest!o#. Co#ce$tually, t-ou,-, t-ere 3!,-t be so3e cases !# w-!c- !t would be use1ul to se$arate t-e3. =.,. !1 1lyo&ers are co33o#, but t-ey 1lew o&er a#d w!t- l!ste#!#, de&!ces. "# ?yllo, t-e court tal5ed about -ow t-e -eat see5!#, stu11 !s #ot co33o#, but #ot !# R!ley w!t- t-e $la#es. d. Cases t-at we d!d read !#clude t-e 7lyo&er case, 7lor!da &. R!ley, w-!c- was 3ore about t-e !3$le3e#tat!o#. . .ec- !ssues: Co3$uter/e3a!l/soc!al #etwor5!#, ty$e $r!&acy co#cer#s w-!c- are -!,-ly l!5ely to co3e u$ o# t-e e4a3: a. ?eylo,,ers: Ao#es ($-ys!cal !#curs!o#+ ?yllo ("#1or3at!o# t-at !s !#s!de a -ouse+ S3!t- &. Maryla#d ("t0s $r!&ate !#1or3at!o# s!#ce !t0s t-e co#te#t o1 co33u#!cat!o#s a#d !t0s ta5e# 1ro3 t-e se#der rat-er t-a# t-e t-!rd $arty.+ "# s-ort, e&e# !1 t-e ,uy 5#ows -!s co3$uter -as a &!rus, a#d would#0t be $rotected u#der ?at;, -e0s be $rotected u#der Ao#es a#d ?yllo. b. 2etwor5 S#!11ers: Reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy: s-ould !t de$e#d !1 t-e #etwor5 !s o$e# or closed< "1 !t0s e#cry$ted, t-e# t-ere0s 3ore l!5ely a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. "t0s sta#d!#, outs!de t-e -ouse wa!t!#, 1or data to co3e out, l!5e ?yllo, but !t0s less $rotected because !t !s -eaded so3ew-ere - !t0s #ot l!5e you are ,ett!#, t-e !#1or3at!o# 1ro3 -!s -ouse, you0re ,ett!#, !t !# tra#s!t. Buuuuuut t-e !#1or3at!o# t-at you0re s#!11!#, !s -ead!#, toward -!s router, #ot out to t-e worldP So 3aybe a #etwor5 s#!11er !s l!5e ?yllo. c. =3a!l addresses: See3s $retty clear t-at !t0s t-e sa3e as S3!t- &. Maryla#d, but 3aybe #ot because t-ere ca# ar,uably be 3ore !#1or3at!o# !# t-e address t-a# t-ere !s !# a $-o#e #u3ber so !t0s see# as 3ore $rotect!ble. d. Co#te#t o1 e3a!ls: "t0s #o secret t-at t-e e3a!l $ro&!ders, es$ec!ally t-e 1ree o#es, ca# read your e3a!l. .-e Buest!o# !s w-et-er t-!s !s a#alo,ous to .ras- (@ree#wood+, to P!# Re,!sters (S3!t- &. Maryla#d+, or !1 t-ere0s so3e reaso# w-y !t0s 3ore a#alo,ous to ?at;. e. Soc!al #etwor5!#, act!&!ty: %e$e#ds o# t-e e4act sce#ar!o. Ob&!ously to t-e e4te#t t-at e3a!l !s 1a!r ,a3e, $resu3ably all soc!al #etwor5!#, would be as well. But !1 e3a!l !s so3ew-at $rotected, t-e# soc!al #etwor5!#, would #eed to be e&aluated t-orou,-ly. !. "1 so3eo#e adds a 7aceboo5 1r!e#d w-o !s actually a# u#derco&er co$, !t see3s $retty clear t-at based o# Co11a a#d o# :-!te t-at 1r!e#d would be able to relate w-ate&er tur#s u$ o# t-e ,uy0s 1aceboo5 1eed. !!. But !1 t-ey -ad to -ac5, or t-ey -ad to ,et t-e !#1or3at!o# 1ro3 .-e d!str!ct court #oted t-at warra#tless, #o#co#se#sual e#tr!es !#to $r!&ate res!de#ces are $resu3$t!&ely Hu#reaso#ableH u#der t-e FourthAmendment, abse#t e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces.

Odd 3us!#,: :-at !1 a dro#e sees t-rou,- a -o3e0s s5yl!,-t< /re we !# ?yllo terr!tory or R!ley terr!tory< More odd 3us!#,: w-at !1 t-e ,o&er#3e#t 1!#ds s-redded docu3e#ts !# t-e tras-, a#d #eeds to use tec-#olo,y to $ut !t bac5 to,et-er< /ctually, #ot so u#reaso#able, s!#ce $eo$le 3!,-t d!s$ose o1 a w!$ed -ard dr!&e, a#d t-e ,o&er#3e#t !s a3o#, t-e rare $art!es w-o -a&e t-e resources to reco#struct !t. So !s t-at @ree#wood terr!tory or ?yllo terr!tory<

"t ca# also ,o t-e ot-er way, " ,uess. :-at !1 $ol!ce $la#t a l!ste#!#, de&!ce r!,-t outs!de so3eo#e0s -ouse, w-ere t-ey could -a&e stat!o#ed a# o11!cer< Or t-ey re#t t-e a$art3e#t #e4t door a#d $la#t a bu, w-ere t-e co#&ersat!o#s ca# be -eard< "s t-at ?yllo/Ao#es, or !s t-at @ree#wood0s u#reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< :-at !1 t-e $ol!ce -ad so3eo#e sta#d !# t-e a$art3e#t #e4t door, !#stead o1 record!#,< :-at !1 t-ey #eed to use a l!ste#!#, de&!ce w-!c- !s su$er se#s!t!&e, but t-e tec-#olo,y !s w!dely a&a!lable< o .-e ?yllo dec!s!o# ,a&e, as a# e4a3$le, H$ower1ul d!rect!o#al 3!cro$-o#esH. "t !s u#clear w-at t-e ,e#eral a&a!lab!l!ty o1 suc- 3ac-!#es !s, a#d -ow !t relates to t-e Buest!o#. o "ssues t-at would be !3$l!cated !#clude $-ys!cal !#trus!o#: t-e reBu!re3e#t was aba#do#ed !# ?at;, but see3!#,ly ,ot #ew l!1e !# Ao#es. "# t-!s case t-ere would #ot -a&e bee# a $-ys!cal !#trus!o#. o .-e l!ste#!#, de&!ce !# ?at; was outs!de t-e tele$-o#e boot-, a#d t-e Court st!ll saw !t as a &!olat!o# o1 t-e $erso#al $r!&acy e4$ectat!o#. o .-e d!scuss!o# !# @ree#wood d!sse#t about -ow #or3al $eo$le do#0t ,o t-rou,tras- would co3e u$. /lso !# @ree#wood, t-e O$!#!o# 3e#t!o#ed t-at -e $ut out -!s tras-. "# t-!s case, d!d -e $ut out -!s words< o R!ley would be rele&a#t - t-e court sa!d t-at s!#ce !t0s le,al to 1ly o&er t-e curt!la,e, t-e !#1or3at!o# !s ad3!ss!ble, e&e# t-ou,- t-e d!sse#t sa!d t-at !t s-ould be based o# w-et-er 1ly!#, o&er t-at way !s ord!#ary or #ot, w!t- two d!sse#ts d!&!ded o&er w-o bears t-e burde# o1 $roo1.

'!5ely !ssues to ar!se: !#c!de#t to arrest

:ed#esday, 2o&e3ber 21, 2012 10:F0 /M

1.

2.

F.

:as t-e searc- !# a -ouse< a. Rob!#so# case says t-at $ol!ce could searc- t-e $erso# o1 t-e sus$ect w-e# -e was arrested. 2ote: t-e or!,!#al $rete4t was sa1ety, but t-e searc- was allowed e&e# t-ou,- by t-e t!3e t-e !#cr!3!#at!#, 3ater!al was u#wra$$ed, t-ere was #o c-a#ce t-at !t was a wea$o#. :as t-e searc- be1ore or a1ter t-e arrest< a. Be1ore t-e arrest, $ol!ce ca# searc- t-e -ouse w!t-out e4ce$t!o# to 1!#d t-e ,uy, l!3!ted o#ly to $laces -e could be -!d!#,. (:arde# &. Cayde#, Maryla#d &. Bu!e+ b. %ur!#, t-e arrest, $ol!ce ca# searc- t-e Hw!#,s$a#H o1 t-e sus$ect, !.e. -!s !33ed!ate area, to 3a5e sure t-at t-ey are #ot !# a#y da#,er e&e# w!t-out reaso#able ,rou#ds 1or sus$!c!o# o1 da#,er. "t see3s t-at t-e searc- !s #ot str!ctly l!3!ted to sa1ety t-ou,-, a#d t-e $ara3eters are u#clear. Maryla#d &. Bu!e e4$resses t-!s !dea, or!,!#at!#, w!t- C-!3el, $retty broadly, a#d $ol!ce -a&e used !t to searclar,e $arts o1 t-e -ouse w-!le t-ey $er1or3 t-e arrest. c. /1ter t-e arrest, $ol!ce ca# o#ly searc- !1 t-ey -a&e a reaso#able sus$!c!o# t-at !t !s #ecessary 1or t-e!r sa1ety. (Maryla#d &. Bu!e+ :-at was t-e Eust!1!cat!o# 1or t-e searc-< a. Protect!o# o1 $ol!ce sa1ety< (C-!3el, Belto#, Bu!e+ b. =&!de#ce relat!#, to arrest< /r!;o#a &. @a#t: "t0s o#ly allowed 1or $ol!ce sa1ety or 1or e&!de#ce o1 t-!s cr!3e. %oes t-!s o&ertur# Rob!#so#, !# w-!c- t-e searc- was 1or

sa1ety, but a1ter t-e $atdow# t-ere was #o reaso# to assu3e t-at t-e so1t bo4 was a da#,er so !t s-ould#0t -a&e bee# o$e#ed or e&e# ta5e# out o1 -!s $oc5et< !. .wo ways to d!st!#,u!s- @a#t a#d Rob!#so#: 1. Searc- o1 t-e actual sus$ect !s 3ore broadly Eust!1!ed t-a# searco1 a car, $er-a$s al3ost carte bla#c-e o#ce -e !s arrested< 2. "t de$e#ds o# t-e de1!#!t!o# o1 Hsearc-H. O#ce t-e $ac5a,e was 1ou#d, !ts H1!#d!#,H was Eust!1!ed. .a5!#, !t out o1 t-e $oc5et a#d o$e#!#, !t were #ot a H#ewH searc-. "# @a#t, O.OC, t-e car !tsel1 co#st!tuted a #ew Hsearc-H.

'!5ely $ol!cy !ssues

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 2>, 2012 11:18 PM

1.

7ourt- /3e#d3e#t 1!rst $r!#c!$les: :-at does !t $rotect, belo#,!#, to w-o3, a#d 1ro3 w-at< Cow ,ood a Eob does t-e doctr!#e do !# deal!#, w!t- t-at a#d w-at ca# be do#e to !3$ro&e !t< .-!s ca# be addressed -!stor!cally, but also te4tually. a. H"1 ra$!sts, 3urderers, etc. are be-!#d bars, t-e $eo$le are 3ore secure !# t-e!r -ouses, $erso#s, a#d e11ectsH /5-!l /3ar, 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t 7!rst Pr!#c!$les. b. "t ca##ot be t-at e&!de#ce a#d !#stru3e#tal!t!es o1 cr!3e are $rotected, s!#ce t-ere !s a warra#t allowa#ce. .-e warra#t reBu!re3e#t see3s to be a ,uard a,a!#st $ol!ce ta5!#, t-!#,s t-at are #ot reaso#ably co##ected to cr!3e, as well as &!olat!#, t-e ow#ers-!$ a#d $r!&acy r!,-ts o1 $r!&ate c!t!;e#s. (Secur!ty in persons, houses"# c. But w-e# !t !s e&!de#ce or !#stru3e#tal!ty, !t0s P w-at< .-e ,o&er#3e#t !#terest outwe!,-s t-e $r!&ate !#terest< .-e cr!3!#al -as #o r!,-t o1 ow#ers-!$ a#y3ore< Ca# a d!11ere#ce betwee# t-ose rat!o#ales be 1ou#d !# ter3s o1 l!5el!-ood< ".e. !1 t-ere0s a -!,-er l!5el!-ood o1 cr!3e, t-e# t-e state !#terest outwe!,-s t-e $r!&ate !#terest, e&e# !1 t-e later re&elat!o#s s-ow t-at t-e !te3 was #ot !# 1act e&!de#ce. d. So we -a&e w-at !t $rotects - ow#ers-!$ a#d $r!&acy bot-. 2. 'e,al real!s3 ar,u3e#ts 1or t-e re,ulat!o# o1 $rosecutor!al d!scret!o#. "1 !t0s true t-at $ol!ce a#d $rosecutors are 3a5!#, all t-e rules, t-e# lets 1!#d so3e way to 3a5e sure t-at t-e rules t-ey0re 3a5!#, are Eust!1!ed. .-e Class /ct!o#s a,a!#st .erry are a #!ce start but w-at else !s t-ere t-at ca# be do#e< a. Ca# a le,al real!s3 ar,u3e#t be 3ade t-at t-e Htr!alH #owadays ta5es $lace be1ore t-e real tr!al< .-at t-e $rosecutor -as so3e duty because o1 t-at to 3a5e so3e sort o1 s-ow!#, !3$art!al!ty or 1a!r#ess< b. More o# t-e $ol!ce a#d $rosecutor!al $ol!c!es: "s !t $oss!ble to br!#, a co#st!tut!o#al cla!3 a,a!#st t-e3 1or syste3!c 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t &!olat!o#s< !. /s a# !#d!&!dual 3atter, !t #e&er see3s to wor5. So3e e4a3$les are :-re# a#d /twater &. 'a,o 8!sta. .-e rat!o#ale !# t-ose cases was t-at s!#ce t-ere was $robable cause to br!#, a# arrest, t-e arrestee could #e&er co#test o# 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t ,rou#ds. !!. But w-at !1 t-e $rotest were o&er a 1or3al!;ed $ol!ce or $rosecutor $ol!cy< :ould t-at 3a5e a d!11ere#ce< F. :-at about t-e Col3es Hbad 3a#H a#d Cr!3!#al $rocedure< %oes -!s t-eory d!ctate so3e way to deal w!t- soc!ety, !s t-ere so3e reaso# w-y !t -as#0t bee# a$$l!ed to $ol!ce o11!cers a#d $rosecutors, a#d w-at s-ould be do#e about !t< a. Part o1 Col3es0s essay !s t-at soc!ety w!ll bear t-e cost o1, e.,. .orts, !# o#e way or a#ot-er, a#d !# t-at way, t-e law 3a#!1ests soc!ety0s Eud,3e#t 1or allocat!o# o1

G.

6.

>.

8. *.

res$o#s!b!l!ty. %oes t-e cr!3!#al law as $ract!ced re1lect soc!etal bel!e1s, or lac5 o1 !#1or3at!o#< %o $eo$le t-!#5 !t0s 1!#e because t-ey are class!st or rac!st, or !s !t because t-ey s!3$ly do#0t 5#ow w-at !s ,o!#, o#< b. Col3es says t-at torts #owadays are esse#t!ally Buest!o#s about soc!ety bala#c!#, !#terests - !1 t-e co3$a#y !s -eld l!able, t-e# t-e costs are $assed o#, a#d we0re esse#t!ally try!#, to 1!,ure out w-ere t-e costs ou,-t to l!e. Co3$ar!#, .erry a#d @r!swold/Roe !sP "#terest!#,. .-e @r!swold Court assu3ed t-at you could re,ulate co#trace$t!o#, but #ot !# a way t-at as a $ract!cal 3atter !#1r!#,ed o# H3ar!tal r!,-tsH. .-at $resu3ably does#0t 3ea# t-e o#e r!,-t t-at o#e t!3e t-at t-e o11!cer wal5ed !#to t-e -ouse w-!le t-e cou$le !s !#dul,!#, !# a co#do36 !t 3ea#s a 3ore ,e#eral!;ed r!,-t to -a&e a certa!# d!,#!ty w!t-!# o#es ow# l!1e. .erry, !# co#trast, deals w!t- t-e !#d!&!dual r!,-t at t-e $art!cular t!3e t-at t-e sto$ occurs, alt-ou,- .erry u#doubtedly !#1r!#,es !# a 3ore ,e#eral!;ed way o# 1reedo3 o1 3o&e3e#t a#d $erso#al auto#o3y. Cow about co3$ar!#, He4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acyH 1ro3 ?at; to a Hr!,-t to $r!&acyH 1ro3 @r!swold/Roe< .-ere are se&eral cases t-at !3$l!cate t-at d!st!#ct!o#, w-!c- !s s!3!lar to t-e d!scuss!o# about t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o# a#d w-et-er !t tar,ets Ht-e $r!&ac!es o1 l!1eH or H$ol!ce !#trus!o# o# sus$ectsH. So3e e4a3$les are cases w-ere t-e court uses t-e e4$ectat!o# test to say t-at t-ere was #o &!olat!o#, !#clud!#, @ree#wood, R!ley, a#d Motor Co3es. 2ote t-at !# @r!swold a#d Roe, t-e $r!&acy !#terest d!rectly co#trad!cted t-e ,o&er#3e#t !#terest, so a$$ly!#, a Hr!,-t to $r!&acyH 3!,-t wor5 e&e# !# ter3s o1 t-e $ol!ce !#trus!o# o# sus$ects. (Poss!bly t-e court could e&e# d!11ere#t!ate by cr!3e - 3ore se&ereQless 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#, less se&ere Q 3ore 7ourt/3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#. + a. 2ote t-at @r!swold (Carla# co#curre#ce+, Roe, a#d Ma$$ &. O-!o all use t-e Ordered '!berty rat!o#ale. .-e d!sse#t !# 'eo# does too. .-e ?at; r!,-t to $r!&acy: "s !t a r!,-t to $r!&acy 1ro3 $ol!ce, or a r!,-t to $r!&acy 1ro3 $eo$le ,e#erally< @ree#wood, R!ley see3 to !#d!cate t-at t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy #eeds to be le,!t!3ate as relates to $ol!ce, but ?yllo, (w-!te too 3aybe<+ Matloc5 (c!ted !# @eor,!a &. Ra#dol$-+ see3 to !#d!cate t-at t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !s 1ro3 ,e#eral Frd $art!es. Ot-erw!se, w-y would s-ar!#, a roo3 ru!# your e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< Aust because you assu3e t-e r!s5 o1 so3eo#e else l!&!#, t-ere does#0t 3ea# t-at you assu3e t-e r!s5 t-at t-ey0ll !#&!te $ol!ce !#. :-y do t-e Courts loo5 at t-e !dea o1 a de1e#da#t0s Hr!,-tH soP oddly< "# :-re# a#d s!3!lar cases, t-e court sa!d t-at so lo#, as t-ere !s $robable cause to arrest 1or a le,!t!3ate $ur$ose, t-ere ca# be #o e4a3!#at!o# o1 $ol!ce !#te#t 1or t-e arrest . S!3!larly, !# Borde#5erc-er &. Cayes (1ro3 Cr!3 'aw+ t-e court sa!d t-at !1 t-e $rosecutor -ad t-e r!,-t to 1!le t-e c-ar,es, -e could t-reate# t-e de1e#da#t w!t- t-e3 o# $lea bar,a!#!#,, a#d $ursue t-e3 !1 t-e de1e#da#t d!d#0t $lead. S!3!larly, !# o#e o1 t-e cases 1or 3oot court, (Cart3a## &. Moore+ t-e Court -eld t-at !1 t-ere was $robable cause 1or a# arrest, !t could#0t be !#&al!dated as retal!atory u#der t-e 7!rst /3e#d3e#t. "t0s al3ost as t-ou,- t-e !#troduct!o# o1 cr!3!#al law to a co#1l!ct sudde#ly 3a5es $eo$le lose t-e!r r!,-ts, e&e# #o#cr!3!#al-related r!,-ts. :-o3 are we $rotect!#, !# t-e /3e#d3e#ts, a#d 1ro3 w-at< %o t-e /3e#d3e#ts do a ,ood Eob o1 !t< Cow would we e&aluate t-at< .-ere !s a s!,#!1!ca#t d!11ere#ce betwee# t-e 7ourt-, 7!1t- a#d S!4t- /3e#d3e#t address e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces. "# t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, o#ce you0re allowed to ,o !#, you0re allowed all t-e way !# to 1!#d w-ate&er tur#s u$. "# t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t as well, o#ce t-e !#terro,at!o# !s Eust!1!ed, you are allowed to br!#, !t !#to e&!de#ce. (Luarles+. But !# t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t, t-e Su$re3e Court sa!d !# a case called Ma!#e &. Moulto# (C!ted !# ?u-l3a#+ t-at alt-ou,- $ol!ce were Eust!1!ed !# l!ste#!#, !# o# a co#&ersat!o# betwee# a

$ost-!#d!ct3e#t sus$ect a#d a coo$erat!#, w!t#ess because !t was #ecessary 1or sa1ety, t-ey could #ot use t-at e&!de#ce 1or t-e tr!al o1 t-e sus$ect0s !#d!cted cr!3es. .-ey could, -owe&er, use t-at e&!de#ce 1or ot-er cr!3es t-at sus$ect -ad #ot bee# !#d!cted 1or yet. "s t-!s a co#trad!ct!o#< .-!s $lays r!,-t !#to 3y u#dersta#d!#, o1 O0Co##or0s $art!al co#curre#ce !# Luarles - t-e burde# !s o# t-e $ol!ce, so t-ey ca# $rotect $eo$le but t-ey ca#0t use !t a,a!#st you. 10. %octr!#e be!#, wr!tte# by $eo$le w-o clearly d!sa,ree w!t- !t leads to co#1us!o# a#d a# utter lac5 o1 co-es!&e#ess. 7or e4a3$le, we -a&e t-e laws !# Se!bert a#d Pata#e, w-!c- !s bas!cally co#trad!ctory. But because o#e Eust!ce (?e##edy+ t-!#5s t-at !t 3a5es se#se, we -a&e bot- rules (to t-e e4te#t t-at $lural!ty dec!s!o#s are b!#d!#,+. Cow does t-at relate to a$$l!cat!o# o1 ot-er doctr!#es, w-!c- are #arrowed a#d e4$a#ded de$e#d!#, o# t-e 3a5eu$ o1 t-e Court< Cow does !t relate to ot-er areas o1 law, w-ere t-e sa3e t-!#, !s ta5!#, $lace, ar,uably< a. Re,ard!#, co3$ar!so# to ot-er areas o1 law, ca# !t be t-at t-!s !s a11ected t-e 3ost because !t -as t-e 3ost cases< .-ere are t-ree a3e#d3e#ts d!rectly related to t-!s, a#d 3ass!&e act!&!ty e&ery day o1 t-e wee5 relat!#, to all t-ree a3e#d3e#ts ($lus t-e e!,-t-, ar,uably+. Co3$are to say, t-e 1st /3e#d3e#t, w-ere &!olat!o#s ar!se co!#c!de#tally rat-er t-a# syste3at!cally6 or c!&!l law, w-!c- !s -ea&!ly state or!e#ted. 11. Sto&all !de#t!1!cat!o# case sa!d t-at t-e wo3a# ly!#, !# -er -os$!tal bed was able to !de#t!1y t-e sus$ect, a blac5 3a# brou,-t !# alo#e by $ol!ce, s!#ce t-ere was #o ot-er way u#der t-e c!rcu3sta#ces 1or $ol!ce to ,et a# !de#t!1!cat!o#. But w-y are we loo5!#, at $ol!ce co#&e#!e#ce rat-er t-a# a 3od!cu3 o1 accuracy< "1 !t was a# !##oce#t 3a#, t-e# !t does#0t 3atter w-at t-e $ol!ce #eeds were. Co#trast %rayto#, !# w-!c- de1e#da#t cla!3ed t-at -e ob&!ously t-ou,-t -e could#0t re1use, because w-o would acBue!sce w-!le dru,s were stra$$ed to t-e3< But t-e Court sa!d t-at t-e sta#dard !s a# obEect!&e !##oce#t $erso# sta#dard, a#d !t d!d#0t 3atter w-at -e t-ou,-t. 12. .-ree c-a#,es " would l!5e to 3a5e, o# t-e ar,u3e#t t-at !t0s #ot t-e ,u!lty we0re try!#, to $rotect 1ro3 well-3ea#!#, $ol!ce e#1orce3e#t but !t0s t-e !##oce#t a#d t-e 3!s,u!ded d!scret!o# o1 $ol!ce o11!cers. a. :-re# &. )#!ted States. "t lea&es too 3uc- d!scret!o# to $ol!ce o11!cers, a#d o# t-e s!de o1 a -!,-way, t-at0s bee# $ro&e# to be u#reaso#able. b. %rayto#: "t0s ob&!ous to a#yo#e t-at t-ere !s #o Hreaso#able $erso#H w!t- re,ard to deter3!#!#, w-et-er !t0s o5ay to re1use to a#swer a# o11!cer. :-!le t-e sta#dard s-ould be a Hreaso#able !##oce#t $erso#H !# ter3s o1 &!olat!o# o1 r!,-ts, t-at does#0t ta5e !#to accou#t t-at t-e $ol!ce ca# use Hco#se#tH to e4erc!se t-e!r ow# d!scret!o#, w-!c- 3ea#s t-at !t0s $art!cular 3!#or!t!es w-o are subEect to t-e Hco#se#tH searc-es. Moreo&er, t-e Court !# %rayto# cla!3s t-at t-e sta#dard !s a reaso#able !##oce#t $erso#, but o#ce you t-!#5 !#to !t, t-e o#ly way t-at t-e $la# w!ll wor5 !s !1 people specifically don$t understand that they can refuse. "t 3a5es #o se#se to allow a $ract!ce o# t-e bas!s t-at reaso#able $eo$le ca# re1use, w-e# t-e success o1 t-e w-ole $la# de$e#ds o# $eo$le not re1us!#,, !.e. be!#, u#reaso#able. /r,uably, t-e $ol!cy s-ould be c-alle#,ed o# ,rou#ds o1 eBual $rotect!o#, as !t would #ot sur&!&e rat!o#al bas!s. c. SubEect $ol!ce de$art3e#t $ol!cy to Eud!c!al re&!ew. "t !s !# lar,e $art w-at t-e law !s, so !t s-ould be subEect to t-e sa3e scrut!#y as t-e law Hboo5sH are. So3e e4a3$les are :-re#, w-!c- could be c-alle#,ed as ,!&!#, too 3uc- d!scret!o# to o11!cers, Bert!#e, o# w-!c- a# ar,u3e#t ca# be 3ade t-at t-e !#terests !# do!#, a# H!#&e#toryH o1 t-e car are #ot rat!o#ally addressed by ta5!#, a l!st o1 e&eryt-!#, !# t-e car. Per-a$s a s!3!lar ar,u3e#t ca# be a$$l!ed to ,e#eral ad3!#!strat!&e searc-es border searc-es t-at are #ot rat!o#ally related to t-!#,s lea&!#, t-e cou#try (Couse &.

2a$ol!ta#o+6 Parolees (Sa3so# &. Cal!1or#!a+6 a#d t-e %rayto# ar,u3e#t abo&e. .-e Court does so3et-!#, s!3!lar !# %elaware &. Prouse. !. "# 1act, t-e ,e#eral reaso#able#ess reBu!re3e#t -as bee# clearly stated !# %amara v. &unicipal %ourt, a 1*68 case about -ous!#, !#s$ect!o#s. Cere !s t-e art!culat!o#: t-ere ca# be #o ready test 1or deter3!#!#, reaso#able#ess ot-er t-a# by bala#c!#, t-e #eed to searc- a,a!#st t-e !#&as!o# w-!c- t-e searc- e#ta!ls.R )#der t-!s bala#c!#, t-eory, t-e Court co#t!#ued, !t !s #ecessary to co#s!der (!+ w-et-er t-e $ract!ce at !ssue -as Sa lo#, -!story o1 Eud!c!al a#d $ubl!c acce$ta#ce,R (!!+ w-et-er t-e $ract!ce !s esse#t!al to ac-!e&e Sacce$table results,R a#d (!!!+ w-et-er t-e $ract!ce !#&ol&es Sa relat!&ely l!3!ted !#&as!o# o1 P $r!&acy. !!. .-e Court a$$l!ed t-at sta#dard !# .erry, " bel!e&e. But does !t a$$ly to ot-er cases< "t does#0t see3 to be a$$l!ed as a 1le4!ble sta#dard6 rat-er !t see3s to create o#e or two b!, rules (.erry, Prouse or e&e# Durc-er-l!5e cases, w-ere a sub$oe#a would o1te# su11!ce+ a#d t-e# ,et t-e -ell out o1 t-e way. But t-e a#alys!s !s l!3!ted to t-e class!1!cat!o# o1 t-e sto$ - so a .erry sto$ !s allowed o# reaso#able sus$!c!o# re,ardless o1 w-at t-e reaso#able sus$!c!o# !s 1or a#d re,ardless o1 t-e actual !3$l!cat!o# o1 t-e sto$. 1. Ca#/s-ould t-e #ature o1 t-e cr!3e deter3!#e w-at !s reaso#able< (@ar#er, Couse &. 2a$ol!ta#o+. /re t-ose cases co#trad!ctory< "1 your border !#terest co3es o1 $rotect!#, t-e borders, w-y ,o!#, out o1 t-e border< "1 you wa#t to $re&e#t wea$o#s o# $la#es 1or e4a3$le, w-y searc- co3$uters< Aust because you0re allowed to searc- su!tcases< !!!. Moreo&er, t-e Court $ays l!$ ser&!ce to a&o!d!#, $ol!ce d!scret!o# w-e# t-ere !s #o reaso#able sus$!c!o# but does #ot-!#, to 3a5e sure t-at t-e sa3e d!scret!o# does#0t lead to abuses o1 t-e reaso#able sus$!c!o# sta#dard a#d also does #ot-!#, to e#sure t-at t-e sta#dard !tsel1 !s #ot used d!scr!3!#ately e&e# w-e# !t0s le,!t!3ate. "s t-at reaso#able< Aust as a# e4a3$le o1 a better rule, t-e court could create a bac5ward loo5!#, sta#dard to $rotect a,a!#st abuse - loo5 at t-e cr!3e u#co&ered !# l!,-t o1 t-e sus$!c!o#. :as t-e sus$!c!o# based o# a Ht-reate#!#, loo5H< .-e# was t-e cr!3e t-at you d!sco&ered a wea$o#, or weed< :as t-e sus$!c!o# 1or a #o#-&!ole#t cr!3e, suc- as tres$ass!#,< .-e# do#0t $at t-e ,uy dow# 1or wea$o#s. :-!c- B.: !s $retty 3uc- t-e de1!#!t!o# o1 u#reaso#able r!,-t t-ere, a#d !t !#-eres !# t-e &ery !dea o1 .erry. =4a3$les o1 1or3al!s3 o&er reaso#able#ess: Durc-er Cerr!#, Couse &. 2a$ol!ta#o (ad3!#!strat!&e searc-, w-ere Ca3ara ou,-t to a$$ly a#d co3$are to .e##essee &. @ar#er, w-ere t-e se!;ure d!d#0t relate to t-e se&er!ty o1 t-e cr!3e. :ell, w-at about t-e type o1 cr!3e !# w-!c- t-e !#terest ar!ses<+ G. 7lor!da &. R!ley . @ree#wood< /r,uable, de$e#d!#, o# t-e cr!3e. 6. %rayto# - reaso#able#ess o1 as5!#, 1or co#se#t w-e# t-e o#ly $oss!ble way to ,et !t !s !1 t-e ,uy !s delus!o#al. /lt-ou,- ar,uably !t0s #ot a searc- o#ce you -a&e co#se#t. 1. 2. F. 1. 2. Pra,3at!s3: Gt- /3e#d3e#t H$eo$le #ot $lacesH (?at;+ .erry sto$s

F. G.

=4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces Sto&all &. %e##o - s!#ce $ol!ce -ad #o ot-er t!3e to ,et "% 1ro3 &!ct!3, stro#,ly su,,est!&e $rocess was #ot e4cluded.

7or3al!s3: 7lyo&ers #ot e4cluded (R!ley+ H:ea$o#sH searc-es !#c!de#t to .erry sto$s :arra#ts to ,et $ast t-e door ("#clud!#, ?yllo+ Motor Co3es &. Cars (Cere0s a ,ood Buest!o#: t-e court d!scusses w-et-er 3otor -o3es are l!5e cars or -o3es a#d $uts t-e3 !#to t-e HcarH cate,ory **T o1 t-e t!3e. But w-y ca#0t !t be l!5e Roe &. :ade, !.e. alt-ou,- t-ere !s a car-le&el !#terest, t-ere !s st!ll a -!,-er e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy s!#ce t-e dude does !# 1act l!&e t-ere.+ . 2ot ta5!#, !#to accou#t t-e cr!3e !# Buest!o# !# deter3!#!#, w-et-er a searc- !s reaso#able. .-e l!5ely reaso# !s because t-e $ol!ce are searc-!#, o#ly H!##oce#tH $eo$le. But loo5!#, at !t !# ter3s o1 t-e $ol!ce !#terest, t-ey certa!#ly -a&e 3ore !#terest !# $rosecut!#, 3urders t-a# t-ey do !# weed !#&est!,at!o#s. 6. %rayto#: alt-ou,- de1e#da#t ad3!ttedly d!d#0t 5#ow -e could re1use to a#swer or co#se#t, sta#dard was obEect!&e reaso#able $erso# rat-er t-a# s$ec!1!c de1e#da#t0s !3$ress!o#. 1. 2. F. G. .

M!#ow0s obser&at!o# !# Co# 'aw #rof sa+s that there are fo!r iss!es that arise in the pri,ac+ conte:t "#trus!o# !#to s$ace / &!ew !#s!de ot-er0s real3 Perso#al auto#o3y (@r!swold/Roe+ Protect!o# a,a!#st d!scr!3!#at!o# o# t-e bas!s o1 !#1or3at!o# about o#esel1. So -ow does t-!s relate to searc-es a#d se!;ures< :e see !t !# le,!slat!o#, but w-at about !# t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t<

Read!#, day 1 - $rocedural ste$s

Mo#day, Se$te3ber 10, 2012 10:G0 /M

.-e $rocedures descr!bed are !#te#ded to be ty$!cal $rocedures !# ty$!cal d!str!cts. .-ere are ob&!ously e4ce$t!o#s. .-e $rocedures o1te# are re,ulated !# a way t-at d!11ere#t!ates betwee# 3!sde3ea#ors a#d 1elo#!es. / 3aEor!ty o1 t-e Su$re3e Court0s o$!#!o#s -a&e co#cer#ed 1elo#!es, alt-ou,- t-e &ast 3aEor!ty o1 $rosecut!o#s are 3!sde3ea#ors. Procedures 3ay be aut-or!;ed but #ot reBu!red a#d t-us de$e#d o# t-e d!scret!o# o1 t-e actors. .-e 1!rst ste$ !s !#&est!,at!o#. .-!s ca# be react!&e - try!#, to sol&e a cr!3e t-at -as bee# do#e, or $roact!&e, try!#, to sol&e cr!3es t-at are ,o!#, to -a$$e#. .-e ,oals o1 $re-arrest !#&est!,at!o# are to %eter3!#e t-at a cr!3e was co33!tted,

%eter3!#!#, w-o co33!tted !t. Collect!#, su11!c!e#t e&!de#ce to arrest t-at $erso# ($robable cause+ 'ocat!#, t-e o11e#der. /rrest 1or a cr!3e d!sco&ered !# $ro,ress ca# be t-e total $re-arrest !#&est!,at!o#. Co33o# !#&est!,at!&e $ract!ces t-at are al3ost #e&er t-e subEect o1 Su$re3e Court o$!#!o#s !#clude o !#ter&!ew!#, &!ct!3s, o "#ter&!ew!#, w!t#esses o Ca#&ass!#, t-e #e!,-bor-ood 1or ot-er $erso#s w!t- rele&a#t !#1o. o "#ter&!ew!#, $ote#t!al sus$ects o =4a3!#at!o# o1 t-e cr!3e sce#e o =4a3!#at!o# o1 cr!3!#al -!story O#e t-!#, t-at !s t-e subEect o1 Su$re3e Court !#ter&e#t!o# !s sto$ a#d 1r!s5. Proact!&e !#&est!,at!o#s are $retty #ew to local $ol!ce de$art3e#ts a#d t-ey are trad!t!o#ally assoc!ates w!t- lar,er, 3ore tar,eted a,e#c!es l!5e t-e %ru, =#1orce3e#t /d3!#!strat!o#. Proact!&e ,oals !#clude st!#,s, !#terce$t!o#s, etc. Proact!&e tec-#!Bues !#clude $ol!ce !#1!ltrat!#, cr!3!#al or,a#!;at!o#s, !3$erso#at!#, cr!3!#als, or sto$$!#, tra11!c to !#duce Htell!#, be-a&!orH. #rosec!torial in,estigation ca# ass!st $ol!ce !#&est!,at!o# w!t- sub$oe#as. .-ey ca# 1orce $eo$le to s-ow u$ 1or a ,ra#d Eury a#d s-ow e&!de#ce t-at ca# lead to 3ore !#1or3at!o#.

@ra#d Eur!es are used w-e# w!t#esses w!ll #ot coo$erate w!t- $ol!ce, .-e cr!t!cal e&!de#ce !s a lo#, $a$er tra!l bur!ed !# &olu3!#ous records a#d $ol!ce lac5 $robable cause, Or t-e area o1 !#&est!,at!o# !s es$ec!ally se#s!t!&e a#d t-ere #eeds to be secrecy or $ubl!c trust. The secon$ step is arrest )sually 3ea#s ta5!#, so3eo#e !#to custody !# order to c-ar,e t-e3 w!t- a cr!3e. Ca# -el$ t-e !#&est!,at!o# Ca# !#&ol&e d!11ere#t le&els o1 arrest - a c!tat!o# or !3$r!so#3e#t. Ca# be 3ade w!t- or w!t-out warra#t. .-ere are o1te# laws about w-e# t-ey ca# arrest w!t-out a warra#t. :arra#ts are ,!&e# o# a s-ow!#, o1 $robable cause to a Eud,e. Pol!ce secure arrestee, us!#, 1orce !1 #ecessary. .-ey t-e# searc- -!s $erso#. /t t-e $r!so#, $r!so#er !s boo5ed. .-!s !#&ol&es 1!#,er$r!#t!#,, $-oto,ra$-!#,, a#d a re$ort !# t-e blotter or lo,.

#ost arrest in,estigation ()r$ step) Mostly 1or t-e $ur$ose o1 secur!#, a co#&!ct!o#, but #ot always. Ca# !#clude 1ore#s!c, de$os!t!o# o1 $r!so#er, etc. The $ecision to charge (;th step) )sually t-!s !s 3ade a1ter arrest !# cases o1 warra#tless arrest. %ec!s!o# #ot to c-ar,e ca# be 3ade because t-ere !s #o cr!3e, or because t-ere !s #o case. .e#de#c!es &ary a3o#, d!str!cts. .-e $rosecutor !s t-e o#e w!t- t-e ult!3ate aut-or!ty to c-ar,e or release. C!s dec!s!o# leads to d!11ere#t act!o# de$e#d!#, o# w-e# !t !s 3ade. o Pr!or to 1!l!#, co3$la!#t, 'eads to !33ed!ate release o /1ter 1!l!#, co3$la!#t, but be1ore !#d!ct3e#t, 'eads to 1!l!#, 3ot!o# w!t- 3a,!strate to #ot $ursue c-ar,es o /1ter 1!l!#, t-e !#d!ct3e#t Mot!o# 1or #olle $roseBu! w-!c- 3ust be a$$ro&ed by t-e tr!al Eud,e. Co3$la!#t 3ust be 1!led 1ast, because !t 3ust be w!t-!# 2G or G8 -ours a1ter arrest. &iling the co"plaint (step 5) 7!l!#, c-ar,es w!t- 3a,!strate uses bas!c s-ort docu3e#t, based o# !#1or3at!o# a#d bel!e1. <agistrate re,ie% (step .) "1 t-e arrestee was arrested w!t-out a warra#t, t-e 3a,!strate 3ust deter3!#e (@erste!# Re&!ew+ t-at t-ere was $robable cause to arrest -!3. The first appearance (step 8) S-ort $rocedure, arrestee !s told o1 r!,-ts, c-ar,es, a#d t-e #e4t ste$ !# t-e $rocedure, w-!c- &ar!es state to state. Must be told o1 r!,-t to cou#sel. Ba!l set. #reli"inar+ hearing (step /) Ma,!strate deter3!#es w-et-er t-ere !s su11!c!e#t e&!de#ce to se#d t-e tr!al 1orward. .-e sta#dard !s usually $robable cause, a#d !t -as usually already bee# deter3!#ed, but #ow t-e de1e#da#t !s re$rese#ted by cou#sel. 1ran$ =!r+ re,ie% (step -) So3e states st!ll reBu!re !t, but ot-ers do#0t.

&iling in$ict"ent (step 1>) Arraign"ent (step 11) %e1e#da#t !#1or3ed o1 c-ar,es a,a!#, a#d as5ed !1 -e $leads ,u!lty or #ot ,u!lty. #re3trial "otions (step 14) #re3trial $isco,er+ (step 1)) 1!ilt+ plea negotiation an$ acceptance (step 1;) Aud,e ca# re&!ew w-et-er !t0s w!t-!# t-e law, but #ot cr!3!#al $ol!cy 3atters. The trial (step 15)

'!5e c!&!l, e4ce$t also -as Presu3$t!o# o1 !##oce#ce ReBu!re3e#t o1 beyo#d reaso#able doubt R!,-t o1 de1e#da#t #ot to test!1y =4clus!o# o1 e&!de#ce obta!#ed !# !lle,al 3a##er )se o1 !#cr!3!#at!#, state3e#ts 3ade by de1e#da#t. entencing (step 1.) Appeals (step 18) Collateral re"e$ies (step 1/) .-ere are so3e ste$s t-at are allowed a1ter co#&!ct!o#, but t-ey are l!3!ted to co#st!tut!o#al ty$e stu11 l!5e -abeas cor$us.

"#cor$orat!o# %octr!#e
Saturday, 2o&e3ber 1>, 2012 10: 2 PM Or!,!#ally, t-e states were #ot subEect to t-e 7ederal B!ll o1 R!,-ts, alt-ou,- 3a#y -ad

t-e!r ow# Co#st!tut!o#s w!t- s!3!lar declarat!o#s. /1ter t-e C!&!l :ar, t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t was $assed !# order to 1orce t-e states to ,!&e r!,-ts to t-e 1reed sla&es. .-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t ,ra#ted all $eo$le (bas!cally+ t-e $r!&!le,es a#d !33u#!t!es, a#d t-e r!,-t to l!1e, l!berty, a#d $ro$erty e4ce$t as 3!,-t be ta5e# by due $rocess o1 law. o .-e Buest!o# beca3e w-at e4actly was ,uara#teed to t-e c!t!;e#s #ow. :as !t 1u#da3e#tal H#aturalH r!,-ts< :as !t t-e r!,-ts t-at t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts -ad $re&!ously ,uara#teed t-e3 o# t-e $art o1 t-e 7ederal @o&er#3e#t<

/t 1!rst, t-ere were two bas!c sc-ools o1 t-ou,-t. .-e &!n$a"ental &airness $eo$le 1elt t-at !t -ad #ot-!#, at all to do w!t- t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts, !t was Eust a ,uara#tee o1 1u#da3e#tal r!,-ts, w-ate&er t-ey 3!,-t be. So3et!3es t-ey 3!,-t co!#c!de w!t- t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts, but t-ere could be 1u#da3e#tal r!,-ts t-at are#0t !# t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts a#d t-ere could be r!,-ts !# t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts t-at are #ot 1u#da3e#tal, a#d -e#ce #ot ,uara#teed by t-e states. =accase reBu!red a# a#alys!s o1 w-et-er !# t-at $art!cular case, a $art!cular r!,-t was 1u#da3e#tal. .-e ot-er sc-ool o1 t-ou,-t early o# was Total Incorporation w-!c- 3ea#t t-at all o1 t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts was !#cor$orated because t-at was w-at t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t was !#te#ded to do. Total incorporation #e&er cau,-t o#. =&e#tually, &!n$a"ental &airness ,a&e way to a #ew !dea - t-at w-!le t-e 7ourtee#t/3e#d3e#t d!d#0t 3a5e e&eryt-!#, b!#d!#, o# t-e states, t-ere were select r!,-ts a3o#, t-ose !# t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts t-at t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t a$$l!ed to t-e states. .-!s was called electi,e Incorporation. electi,e Incorporation says t-at w-!le !t0s st!ll true t-at t-ere are 1u#da3e#tal r!,-ts t-at are #ot #ecessar!ly !# t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts, a#d t-ere 3!,-t also be r!,-ts !# t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts t-at are #ot 1u#da3e#tal, !# cases w-ere t-e r!,-t !# t-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts was 1u#da3e#tal as a w-ole, t-e# t-ere would be #o case by case a#alys!s - t-e r!,-t was !#cor$orated w-olesale !#to t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t. o /t t-!s $o!#t, t-e e#t!re B!ll o1 R!,-ts -as esse#t!ally bee# !#cor$orated, e4ce$t 1or t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t ,ra#d Eury reBu!re3e#t, w-!c- t-e Court reEected as #ot be!#, #ecessary u#der t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t, a#d t-e =!,-t- /3e#d3e#t e4cess!&e 1!#es restr!ct!o#, w-!c- t-e Court -as #ot we!,-ed.

%u#ca# &. 'ou!s!a#a (1*68+

Saturday, 2o&e3ber 1>, 2012 11:F PM Facts of the Case Gary *uncan, a blac! teenager in +ouisiana, was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. *uncan was sentenced to ,- days in prison and fined .(/-. *uncan&s request for a ury trial was denied. Question Was the 0tate of +ouisiana obligated to provide a trial by ury in criminal cases such as *uncan&s1 Rule: When a right "in the 2ill of 3ights$ is fundamental to the American system of ustice, the states are also required to abide by it on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. %n a 45to5) decision, the 'ourt held that the 0ixth Amendment guarantee of trial by ury in criminal cases was "fundamental to the American scheme of ustice," and that the states were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide such trials. 6etty crimes, defined as those punishable by no more than six months in prison and a ./-- fine, were not sub ect to the ury trial provision. Notes: 7his was a fundamental case in the development of "%ncorporation *octrine" because it said that the "fundamentalness" of the right was dependent on the general American scheme, rather than on the crime and the procedure of a particular case.

%!str!ct /ttor#ey0s O11!ce &. Osbor#e (200*+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 18, 2012 12:21 /M Facts: %n 8arch (99:, William ;sborne was convicted of !idnapping, assault, and sexual assault in an Alas!a state court. <e as!ed his lawyer at the time of his original trial to have the condom that was recovered go through *=A testing, but since there was substantial evidence against him, his lawyer thought it would only ma!e things worse.

After his conviction, 8r. ;sborne sought access to biological evidence that was used to convict him. <e intended to use *=A testing that was not available at the time of the trial to prove he was not the source. 7he *istrict Attorney&s ;ffice "*.A.;.$ in Anchorage denied access. 8r. ;sborne subsequently filed suit in a federal district court under :) >.0.'. ? (9@# against the *.A.;. alleging that his (:th Amendment due process rights had been violated when he was denied post5 conviction access to potentially exculpatory evidence. 7he district court granted the *.A.;.&s motion to dismiss and 8r. ;sborne appealed. 7he >nited 0tates 'ourt of Appeals for the 9th 'ircuit reversed and remanded the case. ;n remand, the district court granted summary udgment for 8r. ;sborne. 7he *.A.;. appealed arguing that 8r. ;sborne needed to show the disclosure of evidence would "affirmatively prove that he is probably innocent" in order to gain access. Further, it argued that an oral confession given by 8r. ;sborne after his conviction precluded him from pursuing post5 conviction relief. 7he >nited 0tates 'ourt of Appeals for the 9th 'ircuit affirmed the district court. %t held that 8r. ;sborne had a limited due process right of access to the biological evidence for purposes of *=A testing. 7he court dismissed the *.A.;.&s arguments. %t reasoned that 8r. ;sborne need merely show that favorable *=A results would afford a "reasonable probability" that he could prevail in an action for post5conviction relief. Further, it found that 8r. ;sborne&s oral confession did not foreclose his pursuit of post5conviction relief, as exculpating evidence would raise serious questions about the validity of his confession. Question ($ 8ay :) >.0.'. ? (9@# be used to obtain post5conviction access to evidence when there is no pending claim for which that evidence could be utiliAed1 )$ *oes the (:th Amendment&s due process clause afford the plaintiff the right to obtain post5 conviction access to evidence when plaintiff&s intended claim is foreclosed by evidence obtained through confession1 Rule: >nless the state violates a right that is so important as to be deemed fundamental, the 'ourt will not step in and force the state to provide a right. 7he right to post conviction *=A testing is not such a right. Holding: %n this case, defendant had been convicted, so his right to more process was not quite as fundamental as a free man. Alas!a had a right to restrict access based on the requirements that they used. Also, the 'ourt should not step in front of all the states who are trying to deal with *=A, this new development that is changing things so rapidly. Decision: / votes for *istrict Attorney&s ;ffice for the 7hird Budicial *istrict, : vote"s$ against Legal provision: *ue 6rocess 'lause 8aybe and no. 7he 0upreme 'ourt held that even assuming that 8r. ;sborne could pursue his claims using ? (9@#, he had no constitutional right to obtain post5conviction access to the state&s *=A evidence used against him at trial. With 'hief Bustice Bohn G. 3oberts writing for the ma ority and oined by Bustices Antonin G. 0calia, Anthony 8. Cennedy, and 'larence 7homas, the 'ourt deferred to the legislative branch in establishing rules by which convicts can obtain *=A evidence to pursue postconviction relief. %t recogniAed that while the Alas!a legislature had yet to establish such procedures, its court system was ma!ing progress. 8oreover, the 'ourt held that 8r. ;sborne&s due process rights were not violated, reasoning that Alas!a&s postconviction relief procedures were adequate. Bustice Alito also wrote a separate concurring opinion and was oined by Bustice Cennedy and in part by Bustice 7homas. <e agreed with the ma ority&s opinion, but also stated that 8r. ;sborne&s claim failed for two other reasons. First, he argued that ? (9@# was an inappropriate mechanism for pursuing a federal constitutional right claim when the claim had not been exhausted at the state court level. 0econd, he argued that 8r. ;sborne&s claim should be re ected because a defendant who chooses not to have *=A testing done at the trial level for tactical reasons should not have access to such testing in pursuing postconviction relief. Bustice Bohn 6aul 0tevens wrote a separate dissenting opinion and was oined by Bustices 3uth 2ader Ginsburg and 0tephen G. 2reyer, and in part by Bustice *avid <. 0outer. <e strongly disagreed with the ma ority holding that prevented 8r. ;sborne from having access to evidence that could conclusively prove his guilt or innocence, and thus could ensure ustice had been achieved. Bustice 0outer also dissented. <e argued that Alas!a had failed to provide sufficiently effective postconviction relief procedures to satisfy the *ue 6rocess 'lause of the 'onstitution and thus 8r. ;sborne should have had access to the *=A evidence he sought.

Notes: Alas!a had a rule that in order to get access in such circumstances, the conviction needed to be based largely on eyewitness testimony, there needed to be a demonstrable doubt that the convicted person was in fact the perpetrator, and there needed to be a li!elihood that the scientific evidence would be conclusive on the issue. 'ourt says that the determinative question is whether he is entitled to a "liberty interest" in proving his innocence. 7he only way the 'ourt would step in and assert a right for defendant would be if failing to do so would implicate a right that is so central it can be deemed fundamental. %n this case, he was already post5conviction so there was no substantive due process right, and Alas!a had a reasonable framewor! in place for postconviction procedural due process. 6rof saysD

Osbor#e !s #ot a clearly establ!s-ed r!,-t. .-e 3aEor!ty says t-at t-!s !s #ot substa#t!&e due $rocess. .-!s !s $rocedural due $rocess. /#d you already -a&e t-e #ecessary $rocedure.

Mc%o#ald &. C-!ca,o (

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 18, 2012 12:G1 /M Facts of the Case 0everal suits were filed against 'hicago and ;a! 6ar! in %llinois challenging their gun bans after the 0upreme 'ourt issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. %n that case, the 0upreme 'ourt held that a *istrict of 'olumbia handgun ban violated the 0econd Amendment. 7here, the 'ourt reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the 0econd Amendment was applicable. <ere, plaintiffs argued that the 0econd Amendment should also apply to the states. 7he district court dismissed the suits. ;n appeal, the >.0. 'ourt of Appeals for the 0eventh 'ircuit affirmed. Question *oes the 0econd Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment&s 6rivileges and %mmunities or *ue 6rocess clauses and thereby made applicable to the states1 Rule: 3ights that are fundamental and are deeply rooted in the 'ountry&s expectations are incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment into the states& guaranteed rights. 7he right to bear arms is such a right. Holding: Gun rights are such a fundamental right. ";dd, since <eller itself was only a few years old.$ Decision: / votes for 8c*onald, : vote"s$ against Legal provision: >.0. 'onstitution, Amendment ) 7he 0upreme 'ourt reversed the 0eventh 'ircuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment ma!es the 0econd Amendment right to !eep and bear arms for the purpose of self5defense applicable to the states. With Bustice 0amuel A. Alito writing for the ma ority, the 'ourt reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the =ation&s scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this =ation&s history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 7he 'ourt recogniAed in Heller that the right to self5defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. 7he 'ourt reasoned that because of its holding in Heller, the 0econd Amendment applied to the states. <ere, the 'ourt remanded the case to the 0eventh 'ircuit to determine whether 'hicago&s handgun ban violated an individual&s right to !eep and bear arms for self5defense. Bustice Alito, writing in the plurality, specified that the *ue 6rocess 'lause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the 0econd Amendment right recogniAed in Heller. <e re ected Bustice 'larence 7homas&s separate claim that the 6rivileges or %mmunities 'lause of the Fourteenth Amendment more appropriately incorporates the 0econd Amendment against the states. Alito stated that the 'ourt&s decision in theSlaughterhouse Cases 55 re ecting the use of the 6rivileges or %mmunities 'lause for the purpose of incorporation 55 was long since decided and the appropriate avenue for incorporating rights was through the *ue 6rocess 'lause. Bustice Antonin 0calia concurred. <e agreed with the 'ourt&s opinion, but wrote separately to disagree with Bustice Bohn 6aul 0tevens& dissent. Bustice 'larence 7homas concurred and concurred in the udgment. <e agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the 0econd Amendment against the states, but disagreed that the *ue 6rocess 'lause was the appropriate mechanism. %nstead, Bustice 7homas advocated that the 6rivileges or %mmunities 'lause was the more appropriate avenue for rights

incorporation. Bustice Bohn 6aul 0tevens dissented. <e disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the 0econd Amendment against the states. <e argued that owning a personal firearm was not a "liberty" interest protected by the *ue 6rocess 'lause. Bustice 0tephen G. 2reyer, oined by Bustices 3uth 2ader Ginsburg and 0onia 0otomayor, also dissented. <e argued that there is nothing in the 0econd Amendment&s "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characteriAes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Massac-usetts %eclarat!o# o1 R!,-ts

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 18, 2012 12:G> /M

Article X. =ac- !#d!&!dual o1 t-e soc!ety -as a r!,-t to be $rotected by !t !# t-e e#Eoy3e#t o1 -!s l!1e, l!berty a#d $ro$erty, accord!#, to sta#d!#, laws. Ce !s obl!,ed, co#seBue#tly, to co#tr!bute -!s s-are to t-e e4$e#se o1 t-!s $rotect!o#6 to ,!&e -!s $erso#al ser&!ce, or a# eBu!&ale#t, w-e# #ecessary: but #o $art o1 t-e $ro$erty o1 a#y !#d!&!dual ca#, w!t- Eust!ce, be ta5e# 1ro3 -!3, or a$$l!ed to $ubl!c uses, w!t-out -!s ow# co#se#t, or t-at o1 t-e re$rese#tat!&e body o1 t-e $eo$le. "# 1!#e, t-e $eo$le o1 t-!s co33o#wealt- are #ot co#trollable by a#y ot-er laws t-a# t-ose to w-!c- t-e!r co#st!tut!o#al re$rese#tat!&e body -a&e ,!&e# t-e!r co#se#t. /#d w-e#e&er t-e $ubl!c e4!,e#c!es reBu!re t-at t-e $ro$erty o1 a#y !#d!&!dual s-ould be a$$ro$r!ated to $ubl!c uses, -e s-all rece!&e a reaso#able co3$e#sat!o# t-ere1or. Article XII. 2o subEect s-all be -eld to a#swer 1or a#y cr!3es or o11e#ce, u#t!l t-e sa3e !s 1ully a#d $la!#ly, substa#t!ally a#d 1or3ally, descr!bed to -!36 or be co3$elled to accuse, or 1ur#!s- e&!de#ce a,a!#st -!3sel1. /#d e&ery subEect s-all -a&e a r!,-t to $roduce all $roo1s, t-at 3ay be 1a&orable to -!36 to 3eet t-e w!t#esses a,a!#st -!3 1ace to 1ace, a#d to be 1ully -eard !# -!s de1e#se by -!3sel1, or -!s cou#c!l at -!s elect!o#. /#d #o subEect s-all be arrested, !3$r!so#ed, des$o!led, or de$r!&ed o1 -!s $ro$erty, !33u#!t!es, or $r!&!le,es, $ut out o1 t-e $rotect!o# o1 t-e law, e4!led, or de$r!&ed o1 -!s l!1e, l!berty, or estate, but by t-e Eud,3e#t o1 -!s $eers, or t-e law o1 t-e la#d. /#d t-e le,!slature s-all #ot 3a5e a#y law, t-at s-all subEect a#y $erso# to a ca$!tal or !#1a3ous $u#!s-3e#t, e4ce$t!#, 1or t-e ,o&er#3e#t o1 t-e ar3y a#d #a&y, w!t-out tr!al by Eury. Article XIV. =&ery subEect -as a r!,-t to be secure 1ro3 all u#reaso#able searc-es, a#d se!;ures, o1 -!s $erso#, -!s -ouses, -!s $a$ers, a#d all -!s $ossess!o#s. /ll warra#ts, t-ere1ore, are co#trary to t-!s r!,-t, !1 t-e cause or 1ou#dat!o# o1 t-e3 be #ot $re&!ously su$$orted by oator a11!r3at!o#6 a#d !1 t-e order !# t-e warra#t to a c!&!l o11!cer, to 3a5e searc- !# sus$ected $laces, or to arrest o#e or 3ore sus$ected $erso#s, or to se!;e t-e!r $ro$erty, be #ot acco3$a#!ed w!t- a s$ec!al des!,#at!o# o1 t-e $erso#s or obEects o1 searc-, arrest, or se!;ure: a#d #o warra#t ou,-t to be !ssued but !# cases, a#d w!t- t-e 1or3al!t!es $rescr!bed by t-e laws.

7ourt- /3e#d3e#t: Searc-es a#d Se!;ures

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 18, 2012 12: 0 /M

.-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotects a,a!#st Searc-es a#d Se!;ures. Clearly, t-ose words, Searc- a#d Se!;ure, #eed to be de1!#ed. 1. ?at' ,. Unite$ tates !s t-e lead!#, case o# t-e de1!#!t!o# o1 searc-es w!t-out warra#t. "t de1!#ed searc-es as !#1r!#,e3e#t o# t-e de1e#da#t0s reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy.

a.

O1 course, t-e 3!#ute t-at was wr!tte#, t-e debate be,a# o# w-at was a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. !. California ,. 1reen%oo$: .-ere0s a two $art He4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acyH e4a3!#at!o#. (1+ %!d t-e de1e#da#t e4$ect to -a&e $r!&acy, a#d (2+ was !t reaso#able to -a&e suc- a# e4$ectat!o#< "# a case w-ere de1e#da#t $ut -!s e&!de#ce out !# t-e tras-, !!. &lori$a ,. Rile+ t-e# d!scussed w-et-er aer!al sur&e!lla#ce &!olates t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t (C!#t: #o+, !# cases w-ere !t0s le,al, t-ou,- rare, 1or $eo$le to 1ly o&er t-e $ro$erty, w-ere #o !#t!3ate deta!ls were e4$osed t-at way. !!!. <innesota ,. Carter: (2ot t-e 3a!# -old!#,+ "t was a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t to loo5 !# a w!#dow w-ere t-e &!ew was #ot eas!ly d!scer#!ble 1ro3 t-e $ubl!c way. !&. ?+llo ,. Unite$ tates: Pol!ce could #ot use a -!,- tec- -eat se#sor to deter3!#e w-at t-e te3$erature was !# certa!# areas w!t-!# t-e -ouse. Past t-e 1ro#t door, searc-es are $resu3$t!&ely u#reaso#able, a#d t-!s was #ot read!ly a&a!lable tec-#olo,y. &. Unite$ tates ,. @ones: Putt!#, a @PS o# a car w-!le !t was $ar5ed o# $ubl!c $ro$erty was a &!olat!o# o1 t-e Gt- /3e#d3e#t. .-e 3aEor!ty d!d#0t #eed to reac- t-e Hreaso#able e4$ectat!o#H Buest!o#, s!#ce t-ere was a $-ys!cal !#curs!o#.

7ederal Rule Cr!3. Pro. G1

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 18, 2012 6: 2 PM

"a$ 0cope and *efinitions. "($ Scope. 7his rule does not modify any statute regulating search or seiAure, or the issuance and execution of a search warrant in special circumstances. ")$ Definitions. 7he following definitions apply under this ruleD "A$ E6ropertyF includes documents, boo!s, papers, any other tangible ob ects, and information. "2$ E*aytimeF means the hours between ,D-- a.m. and (-D-- p.m. according to local time. "'$ EFederal law enforcement officerF means a government agent "other than an attorney for the government$ who is engaged in enforcing the criminal laws and is within any category of officers authoriAed by the Attorney General to request a search warrant. "*$ E*omestic terrorismF and Einternational terrorismF have the meanings set out in (@ >.0.'. ?)##(. "G$ E7rac!ing deviceF has the meaning set out in (@ >.0.'. ?#((4 "b$. "b$ Authority to %ssue a Warrant. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the governmentD "($ a magistrate udge with authority in the districtHor if none is reasonably available, a udge of a state court of record in the districtHhas authority to issue a warrant to search for and seiAe a person or property located within the districtI ")$ a magistrate udge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executedI "#$ a magistrate udgeHin an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorismH with authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that districtI

":$ a magistrate udge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant to install within the district a trac!ing deviceI the warrant may authoriAe use of the device to trac! the movement of a person or property located within the district, outside the district, or bothI and "/$ a magistrate udge having authority in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred, or in the *istrict of 'olumbia, may issue a warrant for property that is located outside the urisdiction of any state or district, but within any of the followingD "A$ a >nited 0tates territory, possession, or commonwealthI "2$ the premisesHno matter who owns themHof a >nited 0tates diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state, including any appurtenant building, part of a building, or land used for the mission&s purposesI or "'$ a residence and any appurtenant land owned or leased by the >nited 0tates and used by >nited 0tates personnel assigned to a >nited 0tates diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state. "c$ 6ersons or 6roperty 0ub ect to 0earch or 0eiAure. A warrant may be issued for any of the followingD "($ evidence of a crimeI ")$ contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessedI "#$ property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crimeI or ":$ a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained. "d$ ;btaining a Warrant. "($ In General. After receiving an affidavit or other information, a magistrate udgeHor if authoriAed by 3ule :("b$, a udge of a state court of recordHmust issue the warrant if there is probable cause to search for and seiAe a person or property or to install and use a trac!ing device. ")$ Requesting a arrant in the !resence of a "udge. "A$ arrant on an #ffidavit. When a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government presents an affidavit in support of a warrant, the udge may require the affiant to appear personally and may examine under oath the affiant and any witness the affiant produces. "2$ arrant on Sworn $estimon%. 7he udge may wholly or partially dispense with a written affidavit and base a warrant on sworn testimony if doing so is reasonable under the circumstances. "'$ Recording $estimon%. 7estimony ta!en in support of a warrant must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device, and the udge must file the transcript or recording with the cler!, along with any affidavit. "#$ Requesting a arrant b% $elephonic or &ther Reliable 'lectronic (eans. %n accordance with 3ule :.(, a magistrate udge may issue a warrant based on information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means. "e$ %ssuing the Warrant. "($ In General. 7he magistrate udge or a udge of a state court of record must issue the warrant to an officer authoriAed to execute it. ")$ Contents of the arrant. "A$ arrant to Search for and Sei)e a !erson or !ropert%. Gxcept for a trac!ing5device warrant, the warrant must identify the person or property to be searched, identify any person or property to be seiAed, and designate the magistrate udge to whom it must be returned. 7he warrant must command the officer toD "i$ execute the warrant within a specified time no longer than (: daysI "ii$ execute the warrant during the daytime, unless the udge for good cause expressly authoriAes execution at another timeI and "iii$ return the warrant to the magistrate udge designated in the warrant. "2$ arrant Seeking 'lectronicall% Stored Information. A warrant under 3ule :("e$")$ "A$ may authoriAe the seiAure of electronic storage media or the seiAure or copying of electronically stored information. >nless otherwise specified, the warrant authoriAes a

later review of the media or information consistent with the warrant. 7he time for executing the warrant in 3ule :("e$")$"A$ and "f$"($"A$ refers to the seiAure or on5site copying of the media or information, and not to any later off5site copying or review. "'$ arrant for a $racking Device. A trac!ing5device warrant must identify the person or property to be trac!ed, designate the magistrate udge to whom it must be returned, and specify a reasonable length of time that the device may be used. 7he time must not exceed :/ days from the date the warrant was issued. 7he court may, for good cause, grant one or more extensions for a reasonable period not to exceed :/ days each. 7he warrant must command the officer toD "i$ complete any installation authoriAed by the warrant within a specified time no longer than (- daysI "ii$ perform any installation authoriAed by the warrant during the daytime, unless the udge for good cause expressly authoriAes installation at another timeI and "iii$ return the warrant to the udge designated in the warrant. "f$ Gxecuting and 3eturning the Warrant. "($ arrant to Search for and Sei)e a !erson or !ropert%. "A$ *oting the $ime. 7he officer executing the warrant must enter on it the exact date and time it was executed. "2$ Inventor%. An officer present during the execution of the warrant must prepare and verify an inventory of any property seiAed. 7he officer must do so in the presence of another officer and the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was ta!en. %f either one is not present, the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in the presence of at least one other credible person. %n a case involving the seiAure of electronic storage media or the seiAure or copying of electronically stored information, the inventory may be limited to describing the physical storage media that were seiAed or copied. 7he officer may retain a copy of the electronically stored information that was seiAed or copied. "'$ Receipt. 7he officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property ta!en to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was ta!en or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer too! the property. "*$ Return. 7he officer executing the warrant must promptly return itHtogether with a copy of the inventoryHto the magistrate udge designated on the warrant. 7he officer may do so by reliable electronic means. 7he udge must, on request, give a copy of the inventory to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was ta!en and to the applicant for the warrant. ")$ arrant for a $racking Device. "A$ *oting the $ime. 7he officer executing a trac!ing5device warrant must enter on it the exact date and time the device was installed and the period during which it was used. "2$ Return. Within (- days after the use of the trac!ing device has ended, the officer executing the warrant must return it to the udge designated in the warrant. 7he officer may do so by reliable electronic means. "'$ Service. Within (- days after the use of the trac!ing device has ended, the officer executing a trac!ing5device warrant must serve a copy of the warrant on the person who was trac!ed or whose property was trac!ed. 0ervice may be accomplished by delivering a copy to the person who, or whose property, was trac!edI or by leaving a copy at the person&s residence or usual place of abode with an individual of suitable age and discretion who resides at that location and by mailing a copy to the person&s last !nown address. >pon request of the government, the udge may delay notice as provided in 3ule :("f$"#$. "#$ Dela%ed *otice. >pon the government&s request, a magistrate udgeHor if authoriAed by 3ule :("b$, a udge of a state court of recordHmay delay any notice required by this rule if the delay is authoriAed by statute.

"g$ 8otion to 3eturn 6roperty. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seiAure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property&s return. 7he motion must be filed in the district where the property was seiAed. 7he court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. %f it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings. "h$ 8otion to 0uppress. A defendant may move to suppress evidence in the court where the trial will occur, as 3ule () provides. "i$ Forwarding 6apers to the 'ler!. 7he magistrate udge to whom the warrant is returned must attach to the warrant a copy of the return, of the inventory, and of all other related papers and must deliver them to the cler! in the district where the property was seiAed.

?at; &. )#!ted States 1*6> ($a,e 88+

Mo#day, Se$te3ber 10, 2012 8:F> PM

?eywords: Protected !#terests Reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy =lectro#!c ea&esdro$$!#, 2o warra#t, $oss!bly t-ere was $robable cause or reaso#able sus$!c!o# :-at sort o1 Ht-!#,sH are $rotected by t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t< &acts: ?at; was co#&!cted o1 tra#s3!tt!#, wa,er!#, !#1or3at!o# by tele$-o#e. .-e ,o&er#3e#t $ro&!ded e&!de#ce !# t-e 1or3 o1 recorded co#&ersat!o#s t-at t-e 7B" -ad recorded 1ro3 t-e o!tsi$e o1 t-e tele$-o#e boot- -e used, w!t-out -!s 5#owled,e a#d w!t-out a warra#t. Court starts out by say!#, t-at t-ere0s #o ,e#eral!;ed r!,-t to $r!&acy !# t-e co#st!tut!o#. .-ere are !#trus!o#s t-at are barred !# $rotect!o# o1 $r!&acy, but 3ore t-a# t-at !s le1t to t-e states. Court #otes t-at t-e d!scuss!o# a3o#, t-e $art!es w-et-er t-e $-o#e boot- was a co#st!tut!o#ally $rotected area was 3!s,u!ded. "t d!d#0t 3atter, because t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t $rotects $eo$le, #ot $laces. @o&er#3e#t #oted t-at t-e walls were ,lass - but t-at does#0t 3atter, t-e $o!#t !s #ot to sto$ $eo$le 1ro3 see!#,, !t0s to sto$ $eo$le 1ro3 -ear!#,. O#e w-o $ays t-e toll t-at $er3!ts -!3 to 3a5e a call !s surely e#t!tled to assu3e t-at t-e words -e uttersP w!ll #ot be broadcast to t-e world. @o&er#3e#t says t-at s!#ce t-ere was #o $-ys!cal $e#etrat!o#, t-ere ca##ot be a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. Court c!tes Ol3stead a#d says t-at alt-ou,- t-at dec!s!o# !#d!cated t-at t-ere #eeded to be a tres$ass or t-e se!;ure o1 so3e 3ater!al, t-at dec!s!o# -as bee# eroded s!#ce t-e#. 7oot#ote: .-e de1e#da#t ca# c-alle#,e o# 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t ,rou#ds o#ly !1 -e -as sta#d!#,, w-!c- #ecess!tates t-at t-e $r!&acy &!olated be -!s ow#. 8!olat!o#s o1 ot-er $eo$le0s $r!&acy t-at result !# c-ar,es w!ll #ot ,et a de1e#da#t o11 t-e -oo5. 9o%e,er t-!s !s #ot de1!#ed by $ro$erty r!,-ts, but by $erso#al r!,-ts. So " -a&e 3y ow# $erso#al r!,-ts !1 " a3 searc-ed !# so3eo#e else0s -ouse, but " do#0t -a&e sta#d!#, !1 3y dru,s were u#co&ered !# so3eo#e else0s -ouse a#d used a,a!#st 3e. (See M!##esota &. Carter+. =lectro#!c ea&esdro$$!#, !s a searc- ,o&er#ed by t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. #h+sical intr!sion is not necessar+, rather infringe"ent on a =!stifie$ e:pectation of pri,ac+ is s!fficient. Court t-e# tur#s to t-e go,ern"ent arg!"ent t-at e&e# !1 !t ,e#erally !s $rotected, t-ey !se$ it =!$icio!sl+ 3 %aiting !ntil the+ ha$ e,i$ence, l!3!t!#, t-e sco$e o1 t-e

sur&e!lla#ce, etc. albe!t w!t-out a warra#t. Co!rt $iscar$s that arg!"ent, sa+ing that it nee$s a %arrant, because by$ass!#, t-at reBu!re3e#t would lea&e t-e w-ole sco$e at t-e d!scret!o# o1 $ol!ce. Aer$ict: .-e e&!de#ce !s !#ad3!ss!ble. R!le: .-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotects $eo$le, #ot $laces. / &!olat!o# o1 a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy co#st!tutes a searc-. P-ys!cal !#trus!o# !s #ot #ecessary to co#st!tute a searc-. Note: "t see3s t-at t-e Court allows two Buest!o#s to coalesce !#to o#e, !.e. was t-e area (or co#ce$t, suc- as a co#&ersat!o#+ $rotected, a#d was t-e !#trus!o# !#to t-e area a searc-. .-e Court does #ot se$arate t-e two !deas, say!#, !#stead t-at a &!olat!o# o1 $r!&acy ,e#erally !s t-e sa3e as a searc-. 9arlan conc!rrence: .-e reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $eo$le !s o1te# de$e#de#t o# w-ere t-e co#&ersat!o# ta5es $lace. "# t-!s case, t-e d!s$os!t!&e 1actor !s t-at !t too5 $lace !# a $-o#e boot- w!t- t-e door closed, so t-ere was bot- t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy , a#d a reaso#able#ess to t-at e4$ectat!o#. Blac2 $issent: /lt-ou,- t-ere were #o $-o#es bac5 !# t-e day t-e Co#st!tut!o# was wr!tte#, t-ere was ea&esdro$$!#,. .-e 1ra3ers were welco3e to !#clude ea&esdro$$!#, !1 t-ey t-ou,-t !t ou,-t to be $rotected a,a!#st. Searc-es a#d se!;ures #eed to be a!3ed at t-!#,s t-at ca# be searc-ed or se!;ed. The ?at' r!le: #eople are entitle$ to their e:pectation of pri,ac+ (esp. if the+B,e ta2en action to 2eep their infor"ation pri,ate) in sit!ations %here there is a reasona7le o7=ecti,e e:pectation of pri,ac+. %ourt did not analogi'e a phone booth to a home, although the argument could have been made. %ourt said that they$re not implementing a general right to privacy, so essentially re(ecting )randeis$s "right to privacy". *t is arguable that they are creating such a right, despite their claims that they$re not.

Cal!1or#!a &. @ree#wood 1*88

Mo#day, Se$te3ber 10, 2012 *:22 PM

2o warra#t, l!5ely $robable cause or reaso#able sus$!c!o# "s so3eo#e0s tras- so3et-!#, t-at !s e#t!tled to a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< :-at ele3e#ts ,o !# to deter3!#!#, w-et-er so3eo#e !s e#t!tled to a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< &acts: "#&est!,ator rece!&ed !#1or3at!o# !#d!cat!#, t-at @ree#wood was tra11!c5!#, #arcot!cs. S-e -ad t-e tras- collector sa&e -!s ,arba,e a#d s-e 1ou#d !# t-e ,arba,e e&!de#ce !#d!cat!&e o1 suc- act!&!ty. O# t-at bas!s s-e rece!&ed a searc- warra#t 1or t-e -ouse. Pol!ce 1ou#d coca!#e a#d -as-!s- at t-e -ouse. .-!s !#c!de#t re$eated !tsel1 a1terward. .-e Su$er!or Court o1 Cal!1or#!a d!s3!ssed t-e c-ar,es, say!#, t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t a#d t-e Cal!1or#!a Co#st!tut!o# was &!olated by a warra#tless searc- o1 tras-. .-e Cal!1or#!a Su$re3e Court re1used to -ear t-e case, a#d t-e )S Su$re3e Court ,ra#ted cert. Su$re3e Court #otes t-at t-e &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t would -a&e occurred o#ly !1 de1e#da#t 3a#!1ested a subEect!&e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy t-at soc!ety dee3s reaso#able. (2ote: .-!s see3s to be a two $art sta#dard - t-ey #eed to bot- -a&e t-e subEect!&e !#te#t o1 $r!&acy, a#d !t #eeds to be obEect!&ely reaso#able. :-at are t-e !3$l!cat!o#s o1 t-!s<+

Court says t-at alt-ou,- t-ey 3ay -a&e -ad a subEect!&e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, !t !s #ot reaso#ably acce$ted by soc!ety. .-ey e4$osed t-e!r tras- to t-e $ubl!c e#ou,- to de1eat t-e!r cla!3 to 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#. "t was o$e# to a#!3als, c-!ldre#, sca&e#,ers, s#oo$s, a#d ot-er 3e3bers o1 t-e $ubl!c. 7urt-er3ore, $ol!ce ca##ot be e4$ected to a&ert t-e!r eyes 1ro3 e&!de#ce o1 cr!3!#al act!&!ty t-at could -a&e bee# obser&ed by a#y 3e3ber o1 t-e $ubl!c. (.-!s 1!ts !# w!t- t-e !dea t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !s a !#&est!,atory rule, rat-er t-a# a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy rule. "1 !t was about e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, w-at would !t 3atter t-at t-e $ubl!c ca# see !t< .-ey also s-ould#0t be loo5!#,.+ C!tes to ?at; 1or t-e $ro$os!t!o# t-at w-at a $erso# 2no%ingl+ e:poses to thir$ parties !s #ot $rotected by t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. C!tes to S3!t- &. Maryla#d t-at s!#ce d!al!#, $-o#e #u3bers ,!&es t-at !#1or3at!o# to t-e $-o#e co3$a#y, t-e $-o#e #u3bers t-e3sel&es are #ot $rotected. Co#clus!o#: '!5e 3a#y ot-er a$$eals court dec!s!o#s, t-e Court -olds t-at t-ere !s no e:pectation of pri,ac+ in $iscar$e$ trash. R!le: The &o!rth A"en$"ent protection applies to "aterial that the Co%nerC has an e:pectation of pri,ac+ on, if that pri,ac+ is o7=ecti,el+ reasona7le to societ+. 9ol$ing: Pr!&acy o1 tras- le1t !# t-e street !s #ot obEect!&ely reaso#able to soc!ety. Dissent: (Bre##a#, Mars-all+ "1 t-ey -ad bee# carry!#, t-e!r $erso#al e11ects !# o$aBue $last!c ba,s, t-ey would -a&e bee# $rotected. .-at t-e $erso#al e11ects were to be d!scarded does#0t a11ect t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. "t !s u#de#!able t-at $eo$le ru33a,e t-rou,- ot-ers0 tras-. But soc!ety co#de3#s t-e3. "t !s true t-at $ol!ce ca##ot be as5ed to a&ert t-e!r eyes, but !# t-!s case, t-ey were t-e o#es w-o o$e#ed !t u$. - "t would -a&e bee# d!11ere#t !1 a c-!ld or sca&e#,er -ad e4$osed !t to t-e world to see, but t-ey -ad#0t. - .-e $oss!b!l!ty o1 sca&e#,ers does#0t #e,ate t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. - So3et-!#, t-at so3eo#e see5s to $reser&e as $r!&ate !s $rotected, e&e# !# $ubl!c.(?at;+ - =&e# !1 so3e $eo$le are e4$ected to be t-ere, t-at does#0t 3ea# t-at t-ere0s #o 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#. (.-ere0s a ser!es o1 cases about te#a#ts, 3otel dwellers, a#d o11!ce wor5ers w-o allowed la#dlords, 3a!ds, a#d ot-er wor5ers !# but t-ere was st!ll t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy 1ro3 $ol!ce act!&!ty.+ @ree#wood ca#0t be bla3ed 1or H,!&!#, !t to a t-!rd $artyH. .-ere was a law t-at de3a#ded !t. /#d 3ore !3$orta#tly, !t does#0t lose t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy because !t was ,!&e# to a t-!rd $arty. Ot-erw!se, 3a!l would -a&e #o e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. .-ere1ore, d!sse#t co#cludes t-at @ree#wood was e#t!tled to $r!&acy o# -!s tras-. (see3s t-at t-e 3aEor d!sa,ree3e#t !s w-et-er soc!ety t-!#5s !t0s reaso#able 1or -!3 to -a&e a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. M!,-t be a Hr!,-t to $r!&acyH &s. Hcr!3!#al e#1orce3e#tH !ssue. Notes: .-ere was a (7!rst C!rcu!t<+ case !# w-!c- t-e docu3e#ts were s-redded a#d t-e "RS $ut t-e3 bac5 to,et-er to ,et e&!de#ce a,a!#st so3eo#e. .-e case t-at $ro1 3e#t!o#ed 3!,-t -a&e bee# Scott &. )#!ted States, a 7!rst C!rcu!t (.ortualla+ dec!s!o#. %e1e#da#t wa#ted to rely o# t-e @ree#wood case w-!c- sa!d H.-e warra#tless searc- a#d se!;ure o1

t-e ,arba,e ba,s le1t at t-e curb outs!de Ma $erso#0sN -ouse would &!olate t-e 7ourt- */3e#d3e#t o#ly if Dthe personE "anifeste$ a s!7=ecti,e e:pectation of pri,ac+ in DhisE gar7age that societ+ accepts as o7=ecti,el+ reasona7le.H .-e ,o&er#3e#t wa#ted to rely o# t-e sa3e @ree#wood case w-!c- sa!d HMCNa&!#, de$os!ted t-e!r ,arba,e !# a# area $art!cularly su!ted 1or $ubl!c !#s$ect!o# a#d, !# a 3a##er o1 s$ea5!#,, $ubl!c co#su3$t!o#, 1or t-e e4$ress $ur$ose o1 -a&!#, stra#,ers ta5e !t, respon$ents co!l$ ha,e ha$ no reasona7le e:pectation of pri,ac+ in the inc!lpator+ ite"s that the+ discarded.+ .-e Court dec!ded t-at t-e ,o&er#3e#t was r!,-t. .-ere -ad bee# ot-er !#d!cat!o#s 1ro3 ot-er c!rcu!ts t-at atte3$t!#, to s-red docu3e#ts 3ay -a&e bee# e#ou,- to create a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy.

?eywords: @arba,e .rasReaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy SubEect!&e/ObEect!&e e4$ectat!o#

7lor!da &. R!ley 1*8*

.uesday, Se$te3ber 11, 2012 *:0G /M

2o warra#t, l!5ely $robable cause or reaso#able sus$!c!o# "s t-e &!ew 1ro3 t-e a!r so3et-!#, t-at !s e#t!tled to a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< :-at are so3e c-aracter!st!cs t-at lead to t-e reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< &acts: / 7lor!da cou#ty s-er!11 rece!&ed a t!$ t-at a 3a# was ,row!#, 3ar!Eua#a o# -!s acres o1 rural $ro$erty. )#able to see !#s!de a ,ree#-ouse, w-!c- was be-!#d t-e de1e#da#t0s 3ob!le -o3e, t-e s-er!11 c!rcled o&er t-e $ro$erty us!#, a -el!co$ter. .-e abse#ce o1 two roo1 $a#els allowed t-e s-er!11 to see, w!t- -!s #a5ed eye, w-at a$$eared to be 3ar!Eua#a ,row!#, !#s!de. / warra#t was obta!#ed a#d 3ar!Eua#a was 1ou#d !# t-e ,ree#-ouse. R!ley success1ully ar,ued be1ore t-e tr!al court t-at t-e aer!al searc- &!olated -!s reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. .-e Court o1 /$$eals d!sa,reed, s!d!#, !#stead w!t- t-e state, but t-e 7lor!da Su$re3e Court a,reed w!t- R!ley a#d o&ertur#ed t-e Court o1 /$$eals .-e court addresses t-e Buest!o# o1 w-et-er -el!co$ter sur&e!lla#ce 1ro3 t-e a!r reBu!res a warra#t. Disc!ssion: Court c!tes to Cal!1or#!a &. C!raolo, w-ere!# t-e $ol!ce loo5ed !#to a yard 1ro3 t-e a!r a#d deter3!#ed t-at t-ere was 3ar!Eua#a ,row!#, t-ere. .-e court reco,#!;ed t-at t-e yard was w!t-!# t-e curt!la,e o1 t-e -ouse a#d was s-!elded 1ro3 t-e street. .-ere was a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. Cowe&er, t-e court ruled t-at in the age of flight, w-ere !t !s clear t-at lots o1 $la#es 1ly o&er $eo$le0s -ouses, t-ere !s #o e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy &!s a &!s searc-es 1ro3 t-e a!r. .-ere !s #o e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy 1ro3 -el!co$ters 1ly!#, low, because t-ere was #o re,ulat!o# t-at barred -el!co$ters 1ro3 1ly!#, low. Court #otes t-at t-at0s #ot to say t-at t-ere ca# #e&er be a &!olat!o# by a!rcra1t, Eust t-at !# t-!s case t-ere was#0t. ()#clear w-at would -a&e to -a$$e# 1or t-ere to be a &!olat!o#.+

Aer$ict: 2o &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !# case w-ere a!rcra1t obser&ed curt!la,e 1ro3 le,al a!rs$ace. R!le: In an age %here aircraft ro!tinel+ an$ legall+ fl+ o,er peopleBs propert+, there is no reasona7le e:pectation of pri,ac+ ,is a ,is aerial ,ie%s of the propert+. 9ol$ing: =&e# !# t-!s case, w-ere t-e a!rcra1t was lower t-a# 3ost a!rcra1t would -a&e bee#, s!#ce !t was le,al to 1ly a $la#e t-ere, !t was le,al to do sur&e!lla#ce. (B!t o1 a #o# seBu!tur, s!#ce !t 3!,-t be reaso#able to t-!#5 t-at $eo$le would#0t 1ly a -el!co$ter t-ere, e&e# !1 !t was le,al.+ Notes: .-e Court sa!d t-at soc!ety !s #ot $re$ared to su$$ort t-!s cla!3 o1 reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, but also #oted t-at #o !#t!3ate deta!ls were e4$osed. So !1 !t was obser&at!o# t-rou,- a s5yl!,-t, !t0s l!5ely t-at !t would be e4cluded u#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. "t0s also $oss!ble to e#&!s!o# a dro#e-ty$e sce#ar!o ,ett!#, struc5 dow# o# ,rou#ds s!3!lar to ?yllo a#d/or Ao#es, !.e. !1 !t0s -!,-er tec- t-a# !s read!ly a&a!lable, or !1 !t !#1r!#,es o# $r!&acy $ast t-e 1ro#t door o1 t-e -ouse, t-e# !t !s !lle,al. OBConnor conc!rrence: 9e+F he agrees %ith "eF .-e !ssue !s #ot w-et-er !t was le,al, t-e !ssue !s w-et-er -el!co$ters 1ly at suc- alt!tudes w!t- su11!c!e#t re,ular!ty to 3a5e t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy u#reaso#able. Because t-ere was #o e&!de#ce s-ow# t-at !t was !rre,ular to 1ly t-at way, R!ley0s cla!3 !s w!t-out 3er!t. Cowe&er, !1 !t were u#co33o#, t-e 1act t-at !t0s allowed would#0t 3atter. Brennan, <arshall, te,ens $issent (Bre##a# a#d Mars-all also d!sse#ted !# @ree#wood, t-e ,arba,e case+: Starts out by ec-o!#, O0Co##or t-at !t does#0t 3atter w-at t-e 7// reco33e#ds. Co#t!#ues by say!#, t-at t-e $ol!ce were us!#, a# e4$e#s!&e $!ece o1 3ac-!#ery. "t0s #ot l!5e wal5!#, o# a road a#d obser&!#, t-rou,- a ,a$ !# t-e 1e#ce. %!sse#t says t-at t-e d!11ere#ce betwee# d!sse#t a#d O0Co##or0s co#curre#ce !s e3$!r!cal. R!ley0s de1e#se does#0t reBu!re t-at -e s-ow e4actly -ow 3a#y $la#es 1ly o&er at w-at alt!tudes. "t !s 3ost l!5ely t-at suc- 1l!,-ts are a rar!ty. 7urt-er3ore, !1 !t !s true t-at t-ere !s a burde# o1 $roo1 !ssue about 1l!,-t $atter#s, !t s-ould be t-e state t-at carr!es t-at burde#, because t-ey -a&e access to t-e 1l!,-t $la#s a#d data. Blac2"!n $issent: /,rees w!t- O0Co##or a#d w!t- Bre##a#, but says t-at t-e case s-ould be re3a#ded so t-at t-e state ca# carry t-e!r burde# o1 $roo1 !# case t-ey wa#t to cla!3 t-at !t was a re,ular occurre#ce. Ca# we see a 3aEor!ty -ere t-at says t-at we #eed to loo5 at -ow re,ularly $eo$le 1ly o&er ot-er $eo$le0s bac5yards< ?eywords: Reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy SubEect!&e/ObEect!&e e4$ectat!o# Curt!la,e /er!al sur&e!lla#ce Burde# o1 $roo1 &att says that it should matter whether they happened upon the information while flying over in a helicopter, as opposed to nowing about it and going up in a helicopter to investigate. *f it was happenstance, then it$s li e finding a crime in the street, but in this case, they new about it and there should have been something stopping the police from investigating. Another person says that the helicopter is overrated, the real +uestion is not the particular vehicle, rather it$s the general expectation of privacy, and maybe bac yards are not as private

as people would li e. ,eople can pee through gaps in the fence, or overhear what goes on, etc. ,rof says that there$s a difference between -reenwood and .iley. -reenwood assumes that since there$s the possibility of people opening the trash, it$s fine for the police to do it. .iley wants to now how regularly it happens.

?yllo &. )#!ted States 2001

.uesday, Se$te3ber 11, 2012 10:11 /M

May t-e ,o&er#3e#t use tools outs!de a -ouse to 1!#d out w-at !s ,o!#, o# !#s!de t-e -ouse, a#d $oss!bly use t-at as e&!de#ce< :-at are so3e c-aracter!st!cs t-at deter3!#e w-et-er t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !s reaso#able< &acts: ?yllo was ,row!#, 3ar!Eua#a !# -!s -o3e. .-e 1!rst e&!de#ce t-at led to a# e&e#tual co#&!ct!o# was obser&!#, t-e !#s!de te3$eratures o1 -!s -o3e us!#, a t-er3al se#sor. Based o# t-at, a warra#t was !ssued, a#d -e was 1ou#d to be ,u!lty. Disc!ssion: Court #otes t-at t-e ?at; test !s c!rcular, a#d t-ere1ore subEect!&e a#d u#$red!ctable. But t-e $roble3s 3ostly ar!se !# cases w-ere t-e area !s o#e t-at !s !# Buest!o#, l!5e cars, curt!la,e, $-o#e boot-s, etc. .-!s !s a case w-ere t-e area u#Buest!o#ably -as a stro#, le&el o1 $rotect!o# - t-e !#s!de o1 a -o3e. .-e de&!ce t-at was used was #ot o#e t-at !s !# w!des$read use. O# t-at bas!s, t-e t-er3al !3a,!#, !#1or3at!o# was t-e $roduct o1 a searc-. State ar,ues t-at all t-at t-e t-er3al !3a,er $!c5s u$ !s t-e -eat. But t-e sa3e ar,u3e#t could be 3ade 1or eac- tec-#olo,y - all t-e recorder $!c5s u$ !s sou#d, all t-e satell!te $!c5s u$ !s l!,-t, etc. State co#te#ds t-at t-e searc- d!d#0t u#co&er $r!&ate act!&!t!es !# $r!&ate areas. B!t the &o!rth A"en$"ent is not tie$ to the 6!alit+ of the infor"ation. Details fro" the ho"e are 7+ their nat!re pri,ate. Aer$ict: .-e e&!de#ce !s #ot ad3!ss!ble at tr!al. R!le: :-ere t-e ,o&er#3e#t uses ,e#erally u#a&a!lable tec-#olo,y to ,et !#1or3at!o# t-at was $re&!ously u#a&a!lable w!t-out a $-ys!cal !#trus!o# !#to t-e -ouse, t-e sur&e!lla#ce !s a Hsearc-H a#d !s $resu3$t!&ely u#reaso#able w!t-out a warra#t. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, t-e tec-#olo,y was ,e#erally u#a&a!lable, des$!te t-e d!sse#t0s de$!ct!o# o1 !t as rud!3e#tary. .-e !#1or3at!o# would -a&e bee# !3$oss!ble to obta!# $re&!ously w!t-out !#trus!o# !#to t-e -ouse. .-ere1ore !t !s a searc- a#d !# t-e case o1 a -o3e, !t0s $resu3$t!&ely u#reaso#able. %!sse#t0s $ro$osed sta#dard !s w-et-er t-e tec-#olo,y o11ers t-e 1u#ct!o#al eBu!&ale#t o1 Hactual $rese#ce !# t-e -o3eH, but t-!s does#0t wor5, because t-ere0s a lot o1 !#1or3at!o# t-at !s -o$elessly &a,ue, l!5e t-e &olu3e o1 a co#&ersat!o#, t-at ca# o#ly be detected by tec-#olo,y or by be!#, t-ere. /#d yet, !t would be s!lly 1or so3et-!#, l!5e t-at to be a searc- w-!le t-er3al !3a,!#, !s#0t. .-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t draws a 1!r3 l!#e at t-e e#tra#ce to t-e -ouse. Because t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t was &!olated by t-er3al !3a,!#,, t-e case !s re3a#ded to deter3!#e w-et-er t-e warra#t would -a&e bee# !ssued w!t-out t-e !3a,!#,.

Dissent : ( te,ens, OBConnor, ?enne$+) .-e case !#&ol&es #ot-!#, 3ore t-a# t-e o11 t-e wall obser&at!o#s o1 !#1or3at!o# t-at was a&a!lable to t-e ,e#eral $ubl!c. "t could -a&e bee# 1ou#d out by re,ular se#ses, s!#ce t-e -ouse was &e#t!lated. (/#d t-e -ouse was a tr!$le4, w-!c3ea#s t-ere were l!5ely $eo$le arou#d. C!tes to @ree#wood about a,erting their e+es fro" infor"ation a,aila7le to the p!7lic. .-ere0s #ot a -u,e #u3ber o1 $eo$le w-o wa#t to ,e#erate lots o1 -eat a#d to -!de t-at 1ro3 t-e $ubl!c. Court0s des!re to draw a br!,-t l!#e 1a!ls, because t-ey would -a&e to ad3!t t-at w-e# t-e tec-#olo,y !s w!des$read, t-ere0s #o lo#,er $rotect!o#. .-e court0s l!#e !s also s!lly because !t would allow a do,, $er a# earl!er dec!s!o#, but !t would #ot allow a 3ac-!#e t-at does t-e sa3e t-!#,. %!st!#,u!s-ed 1ro3 ?at; because t-at $!c5ed u$ t-e co#te#t o1 t-e co#&ersat!o#s, w-!le t-!s !s Eust -eat. /ddresses 3aEor!ty ar,u3e#t t-at !t does#0t 3atter -ow deta!led t-e !#t!3ate !#1or3at!o# !s, by say!#, t-at !t d!d#0t see a#yt-!#, H!#s!deH t-e -ouse, !t 3easured Ho11 t-e wallsH #ot !# t-e walls.

)#!ted States &. Ao#es 2012

.uesday, Se$te3ber 11, 2012 10: > /M 8ay the government plant a trac!ing device on someone&s property to see what he&s up to1 "7here is also the question of aggregating readily available information, but the ma ority doesn&t reach the question.$ Facts: Antoine Bones was arrested on ;ct. ):, )--/, for drug possession after police attached a trac!er to Bones&s Beep 55 without udicial approval 55 and used it to follow him for a month. A ury found Bones not guilty on all charges save for conspiracy, on which point urors hung. *istrict prosecutors, upset at the loss, re5filed a single count of conspiracy against Bones and his business partner, +awrence 8aynard. Bones owned the "+evels" nightclub in the *istrict of 'olumbia. Bones and 8aynard were then convicted, but a three5 udge panel of the >.0. 'ourt of Appeals for the *.'. 'ircuit ruled that the 0upreme 'ourt specifically stated in a (9@# case regarding the use of a beeper to trac! a suspect that the decision could not be used to ustify ):5hour surveillance without a warrant. Question *id the warrantless use of a trac!ing device on Bones&s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violate Bones& Fourth Amendment rights1 Decision: 9 votes for Bones, - vote"s$ against Rule: %nstalling a trac!ing device on someone else&s property constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, because it was a physical incursion on private property. CatA added to but didn&t replace the Fourth Amendment physical incursion violation. Holding: %n this case, where the agents put something that belonged to them onto the property of another, it is irrelevant that the car was in a public place because the surface of the car belonged to the vehicle owner. Although there was no reasonable expectation of privacy on the public travels or on the vehicle&s movement, physical incursion alone is enough. NotesD 7he 'oncurrence points out that it was also a new problem of technology being used to infringe on people&s reasonable expectation of privacy by aggregating information that previously wouldn&t have been so easily aggregated, because they would have needed a policeman to watch them the whole time. 2ut 0calia says that for this particular case it&s not necessary to find that to be a violation, because of the physical incursion. Furthermore, he doesn&t li!e the concurrence&s proposed

rule that short observation should be allowed but not longer observation, because it will be impracticable to administer such a standard. 7he decision distinguished other such cases where trac!ing devices were used without warrants, because in those cases, the devices had been installed before the defendant acquired them. 7herefore, there was no illegal incursion into his property. "=ote that today, the 'ourt might have to weigh the concurrence&s rationale about violating reasonable privacy expectations in the aggregate, even if the device was installed earlier.$ rof sa!s: Ao#es (@PS case+ su,,ests t-at t-ere !s a cate,ory t-at0s s!3!lar to ?at;, !#

t-!s case a car. %oes t-!s a11ect t-e assu3$t!o# t-at cars are #ot 1or stora,e o1 $erso#al e11ects< #rof sa+s: O# t-e Ao#es case - Pro1 says t-at a wr!ter descr!bes /l!to0s o$!#!o# as H$r!&acy a#t!c!$ated by a reaso#able !#d!&!dual, as o$$osed to t-e $erso#0s reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy.H " -a&e #o !dea w-at t-e -ell t-at 3ea#s. =l!;abet- says t-at e4$ected 3ea#s so3eo#e !s protecting a right. /#t!c!$at!#, 3ea#s t-at t-e $erso# wouldn$t predict t-e d!sclosure. o " ,uess t-at t-e Buest!o# !s t-e# w-et-er !t0s w-at a sus$!c!ous $erso# would t-!#5 t-e $ol!ce 3!,-t do, (e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy+ &s. w-at a re,ular $erso# 3!,-t t-!#5 !s be!#, obser&ed a#d lo,,ed. "1 Ao#es !s suc- a 3aEor s-!1t, t-at would a11ect t-!#,s l!5e co3$uter searc-es, etc. because a cr!3!#al s-ould de1!#!tely use .or !1 -e0s searc-!#, H-ow to 3a5e bo3bs a#d 5!ll $eo$leH but a re,ular $erso# -as #o e4$ectat!o# t-at t-e ,o&er#3e#t !s trac5!#, -!s !#ter#et searc-es. O.OC, t-e ,o&er#3e#t would be able to ,et t-e !#1or3at!o# 1ro3 @oo,le, Eust l!5e t-ey could ,et !t 1ro3 a ba#5. "s t-at reaso#able< 2ot really. But !t su,,ests t-at $rotect!o# co3e t-rou,- le,!slat!o# rat-er t-a# Courts.
Legal provision: Fourth Amendment Jes. Bustice Antonin 0calia delivered the opinion of the 'ourt. 7he 'ourt affirmed the udgment of the lower court, and held that the installation of a G60 trac!ing device on Bones& vehicle, without a warrant, constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. 7he 'ourt re ected the government&s argument that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a person&s movement on public thoroughfares and emphasiAed that the Fourth Amendment provided some protection for trespass onto personal property. Bustice 0onia 0otomayor wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing that the government had obtained information by usurping BonesK property and by invading his privacy. <owever, she further reasoned that the Fourth Amendment was not only concerned with trespasses onto property. 0he stated that a Fourth Amendment search occurs whenever the government violates a sub ective expectation of privacy that society recogniAes as reasonable, which is particularly important in an era where physical intrusion is unnecessary to many forms of surveillance. Bustice 0amuel Alito concurred in the udgment but criticiAed the framing of the question in terms of trespass to property. <e believed that such a construction of the problem strained the language of the Fourth Amendment and that it would be better to analyAe the case by determining whether the Government violated Bones& reasonable expectations of privacy.

calia, opinion of the co!rt "#stall!#, t-e @PS was a searc-. .-e @o&er#3e#t $-ys!cally occu$!ed $r!&ate $ro$erty 1or t-e $ur$ose o1 obta!#!#, !#1or3at!o#. H"# t-e!r $erso#s, -ouses, a#d e11ectsH s-ows t-at t-ere0s a# !3$orta#ce to t-e $-ys!cal occu$at!o# o1 s$ace. @o&er#3e#t co#te#ds t-at t-ere was #o reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, o# t-e u#dercarr!a,e o1 a car a#d t-e locat!o# o1 t-e Eee$ o# $ubl!c roads. Based o# ?at;, t-at s-ould be d!s$os!t!&e. But t-e court -as #e&er re$ud!ated t-e !3$orta#ce o1 $-ys!cal

occu$at!o#. C!tes /lder3a# case a#d Soldal case a#d says t-at ?at; was#0t 3ea#t to l!3!t t-e co##ect!o# to $ro$erty. ?#otts case a#d ?aro case sa!d t-at ?at; !#1r!#,e3e#t d!d#0t a$$ly to $ubl!c !#1or3at!o#, but ?#otts d!d #ot address a case o1 $ro$erty, s!#ce t-e bee$er -ad bee# !#stalled be1ore t-e dude ow#ed t-e t-!#,. /ddresses co#curre#ce d!scuss!o# o1 -ow lo#, t-e trac5!#, would be allowed, a#d at w-at $o!#t !t &!olates t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t by say!#, t-at !t !s d!11!cult to see w-y t-at 3!,-t be, a#d !t w!ll -a&e to be addressed !# a#ot-er case. oto"a+or Conc!rrence P-ys!cal !#trus!o# !s e#ou,-. "# add!t!o#, !t 3a5es se#se to ta5e t-e al3ost l!3!tless a#d c-ea$ $ote#t!al 1or abuse !# 3a5!#, t-e dec!s!o# as well. Alito, as %ell as 1ins7!rg, Bre+er, ?agan conc!rrence %oes#0t see w-y !#stall!#, a @PS !s a searc- or a se!;ure. "#stall!#, !t !s#0t a searc-, s!#ce !1 !t d!d#0t wor5, #o o#e would co#te#d t-at !t0s a searc-. /#d -a&!#, !t t-ere !s #ot a searcs!#ce ?#otts sa!d t-at !1 !t was t-ere be1ore, !t !s#0t a &!olat!o#. MaEor!ty rel!es o# s3all attac-3e#t to say !t0s a searc-. But 1ollow!#, t-e ,uy 1or 3o#t-s would#0t be. .-ere1ore, !t 3ust be t-at t-e 3o#!tor!#, !s w-at !s wro#,. 7or a s-ort t!3e, t-at does#0t co#1l!ct w!t- soc!ety0s de1!#!t!o# o1 reaso#able#ess, but a1ter a w-!le, !t be,!#s to.

)#!ted States &. :-!te 1*>1

.uesday, Se$te3ber 11, 2012 *:06 /M

May t-e ,o&er#3e#t l!ste# !# to so3eo#e0s co#&ersat!o# &!a a l!ste#!#, de&!ce carr!ed by a coo$erat!#, w!t#ess< &acts: /# !#1or3a#t e#,a,ed de1e#da#t !# co#&ersat!o# w-!le carry!#, a rad!o tra#s3!tter. .-e $ol!ce were l!ste#!#, !# o# t-e co#&ersat!o#s &!a t-e tra#s3!tter. .-e co#&ersat!o#s too5 $lace !# a restaura#t, !# t-e !#1or3a#t0s car, a#d !# t-e de1e#da#t0s -ouse. .-e !#1or3a#t d!d #ot test!1y, but t-e a,e#ts test!1!ed about t-e co#&ersat!o#s, a#d t-at led to a co#&!ct!o#.
Question: *oes the :th Amendment bar from evidence the testimony of government agents relating certain conversations that occurred between a defendant and an undercover government informant, which the agents overheard while monitoring the frequency of a radio transmitter concealed on the body of that informant1 Decision: / votes for >nited 0tates, : vote"s$ against Legal provision: Amendment :D Fourth Amendment =o. 7he testimony of government agents, relating conversations between a defendant and an undercover informant, overheard via electronic surveillance, is admissible, despite the informant&s unavailability at trial. 7his case expanded the principle announced in ,at) v. -nited States. #@9 >.0. #:4 "(9,4$. "Abstract prepared by 2laine 0chmidt.$

Disc!ssion: MaEor!ty be,!#s by c!t!#, Co11a &. )#!ted States to say t-at !1 a de1e#da#t trusts a collea,ue, but t-e collea,ue !s ass!st!#, $ol!ce, t-at !s #ot a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. .-e a3e#d3e#t o11ers #o $rotect!o# a,a!#st 3!s$laced co#1!de#ces.

"1 a# a,e#t ca# wr!te dow# or ot-erw!se record -!s co#&ersat!o#s a#d t-e# test!1y based o# t-e3 w!t-out a warra#t, t-ere0s #o reaso# w-y t-!s s-ould#0t be $er3!tted. .-e !ssue !s #ot w-at $eo$le e4$ect o1 t-e!r 1r!e#ds. .-e !ssue !s w-at $r!&acy t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t $rotects. (.-e !3$l!cat!o# !s t-at !t does#0t $rotect so3eo#e 1ro3 -!s 1r!e#ds tur#!#, a,a!#st -!3.+ "t does#0t $rotect a,a!#st -!s 1r!e#d record!#, t-e co#&ersat!o#s e!t-er. Court co#t!#ues by say!#, t-at t-ey s-ould#0t erect barr!ers to co#&!#c!#, a#d $robat!&e e&!de#ce. 7or bot- o1 t-e abo&e rat!o#ales, !t0s u#te#able to co#s!der t-e 1r!e#d -!3sel1 #ot $rotected, but record!#, -!3 !# a way t-at ,!&es 3ore accurate e&!de#ce $rotected. .-!s -olds e&e# !1 t-e 1r!e#d !s u#a&a!lable at tr!al. 'ast, t-e court -eld !# %es!st t-at t-e ?at; dec!s!o# o#ly -olds $ros$ect!&ely, a#d t-e :-!te e&e#ts too5 $lace be1ore ?at;. (:.C !s t-at< "1 !t &!olates -!s r!,-ts, -ow does t-e court -a&e a r!,-t to e#act !t $ros$ect!&ely<+ Blac2 conc!rs based o# -!s rat!o#ale 1ro3 ?at; d!sse#t (.-ere -as always bee# ea&esdro$$!#,, a#d t-!s !s #o d!11ere#t a#d !s #ot ba##ed by t-e Co#st!tut!o#.+ Brennan conc!rs because -e a,rees t-at ?at; o#ly a$$l!ed $ros$ect!&ely. Cowe&er, -e bel!e&es t-at ,e#erally, suc- l!ste#!#, would reBu!re a warra#t $ost-?at;. Do!glas $issents, say!#, t-at #ot $rotect!#, $r!&ate co#&ersat!o#s c-!lls t-e d!scourse $rotected !# t-e 7!rst a#d 7ourt- /3e#d3e#ts. 9arlan $issents say!#, t-atP wellP see3!#,ly t-at t-e $lural!ty see3s to 1ocus o#ly o# t-e e11ect o1 t-e sur&e!lla#ce o# cr!3!#al e#1orce3e#t, w!t-out re,ard to w-at e11ect !t w!ll -a&e o# re,ular $eo$le w-o -a&e #e&er co33!tted a cr!3e. "t also t-reate#s to a11ect t-e #ature o1 co#&ersat!o#s, because w-at a $erso# says #aturally !# a sett!#, w-ere t-e deta!ls w!ll be !33ed!ately 1or,otte# !s d!11ere#t 1ro3 w-at -e would say !1 -e 5#ew t-at eac- word was be!#, recorded. (.-!s 3!,-t relate to t-e $lural!ty0s ar,u3e#t t-at !1 you ca# test!1y, you ca# record. G!estion: :-at about state act!o# &s. $r!&ate act!o#< Maybe t-e ,uy ca# record !t, but t-at does#0t 3ea# t-at t-e ,o&er#3e#t ca# -a&e -!3 do !t.+ :-!le t-ese 1or3ulat!o# (o1 ?at;+ re$rese#t a# ad&a#ce o&er t-e u#so$-!st!cated tres$ass a#alys!s o1 t-e co33o# law, t-ey too -a&e t-e!r l!3!tat!o#s a#d ca#, ult!3ately, lead to t-e s!7stit!tion of %or$s for anal+sis. .-e a#alys!s 3ust, !# 3y &!ew, tra#sce#d t-e searc- 1or subEect!&e e4$ectat!o#s or le,al attr!but!o# o1 assu3$t!o# o1 r!s5. Our e4$ectat!o#s a#d t-e r!s5s we assu3e are !# lar,e $art re1lect!o#s o1 laws t-at tra#slate !#to t-e rules, t-e custo3s a#d &alues o1 t-e $ast a#d $rese#t. #rof sai$ so3et-!#, to t-e e11ect o1 Carla# wa#t!#, to 3a5e a real 3ea#!#,1ul sta#dard w-!cw!ll deter3!#e w-at !s reaso#able. Ot-erw!se, ?at; w!ll Eust be a$$l!ed w!lly-#!lly, a#d !t w!ll be a ser!es o1 ra#do3 rules rat-er t-a# 3ea#!#,1ul restr!ct!o#s.

<arshall $issents say!#, t-at t-ere s-ould be warra#ts as a sa1e,uard o# electro#!c sur&e!lla#ce. 2O.=: .-ere see3 to be 1our Eust!ces w-o t-!#5 t-at a warra#t !s #ecessary a#d 1our w-o t-!#5 !t0s #ot. So t-ere !s #o rule created by t-!s case. "1 t-ere was a rule, w-at would !t be< .-at s!#ce a $erso# ca# test!1y a,a!#st you, -e ca# also be a $arty to record!#, a#d tra#s3!tt!#, t-e co#&ersat!o# w!t-out a warra#t. ,rof analy'es what one has to do to show that he wanted privacy, and that privacy was a reasonable expectation/ ,rof wants to now what you do in a world that has no expectation of privacy/ 0hat about emails/ 0hat about inadvertent disclosure/ 0hat if someone has their social security number on the internet/ ,rof notes that if you have to figure out why you are going in in advance, the analysis is different. 1nce you re+uire a warrant, you won$t now as much going in.

Frd $art!es a#d t-e Gt- /3e#d3e#t

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 18, 2012 2: 1 PM

Ca# t-e ,o&er#3e#t obta!# !#1or3at!o# 1ro3 a t-!rd $arty< :-at sort o1 !#1or3at!o# !# t-e $ossess!o# o1 Frd $art!es !s $rotected, !1 a#y< (C!#t: 2o#e, yet. But t-e !#ter#et; w!ll -a&e to c-a#,e t-at, bas!cally.+

Durc-er &. Sta#1ord %a!ly 1*>8

.uesday, Se$te3ber 11, 2012 11:12 /M

Co#estly #ot sure w-y t-!s !s !# t-!s sect!o# o1 t-e syllabus. .-e Buest!o# !s w-et-er t-e $ol!ce ca# searc- a #o#-sus$ect, but with a warra#t. .-e outco3e !s t-at t-ey ca# searc- a #o#-sus$ect w!t- a warra#t. &acts: .-ere was a ser!es o1 de3o#strat!o#s at w-!c- $ol!ce o11!cers were -urt. .-e Sta#1ord %a!ly ra# $-otos t-at !#d!cated t-at t-e $-oto,ra$-er was t-ere at t-e t!3e. .-e $ol!ce got a warrant a#d ra!ded t-e o11!ce to see !1 t-ere was a#y !#1or3at!o# to !de#t!ty t-e assa!la#ts, but 1ou#d #o#e. .-e %a!ly sued 1or a declaratory Eud,3e#t, a#d t-e d!str!ct court ,ra#ted o#e, say!#, t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t barred $ol!ce 1ro3 searc-!#,, e&e# with a warra#t, so3eo#e w-o was #ot sus$ected o1 a cr!3e, u#less t-ere was a s-ow!#, t-at a sub$oe#a would#0t wor5. .-e d!str!ct court also ruled t-at t-e 7!rst /3e#d3e#t bars searching newspaper offices e4ce$t u$o# a clear s-ow!#, t-at !3$orta#t 3ater!als would ot-erw!se be destroyed. G!estion: %oes !t &!olate t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t to searc- t-e $re3!ses o1 a Frd $arty rat-er t-a# a $er$etrator, !1 t-e Frd $arty !s #ot sus$ected o1 a cr!3e< ("s !t a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7!rst /3e#d3e#t to searc- #ews$a$er o11!ces<+ R!le: Pol!ce ca# searc- t-e $re3!ses o1 Frd $art!es !1 t-ey -a&e a warra#t, w-!c- 3ay be !ssued u$o# $robable cause. ("t !s also #ot a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7!rst /3e#d3e#t to searc#ews$a$er o11!ces.+

(Aust!ce :-!te+ .-ere !s #o aut-or!ty 1or t-!s swee$!#, re&!s!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. 8al!d warra#ts 3ay be !ssued to searc- a#y $ro$erty, so lo#, as t-ere !s $robable cause. .-ere1ore, !t 3a5es #o se#se t-at t-e searc-ee #eeds to be sus$ected o1 a cr!3e.

"1 t-e t-!rd $arty -as co#traba#d or a# et-!cal sta#d t-at sto$s -!3 1ro3 coo$erat!#,, -e !s also cul$able. Sub$oe#as 3!,-t wor5 !# certa!# !#sta#ces, but o1te# t-e t-!rd $arty later beco3es a sus$ect, or !s #ot as !##oce#t as all t-at. S!#ce !t0s eas!er to ,et a sub$oe#a, o#e assu3es t-at !1 a $rosecutor wa#ts a searcwarra#t, !t 3ust be #ecessary. Stewart (a#d Mars-all+ d!sse#t: "t !s clear t-at t-!s w!ll burde# 1reedo3 o1 t-e $ress, e&e# as t-e 3aEor!ty says t-at t-ere0s #o e&!de#ce. "t0s co33o# se#se t-at sources a#d ot-er !#1or3at!o# could co3e to l!,-t !1 t-!s !s allowed. Ste&e#s %!sse#t: .-ere are cou#tless $eo$le w-o 3ay $ossess e&!de#ce o1 cr!3es, but you ca#0t ,o burde# all o1 t-e3 w!t- searc-es. "t 3ay e4$ose t-e!r !#1or3at!o# t-at !s #ot rele&a#t to t-e cr!3e, !t ca# 3a5e t-e3 loo5 bad, etc.

S3!t- &. Maryla#d (1*>*+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 18, 2012 F:GF PM

&acts: S3!t- robbed so3eo#e a#d s-e ,a&e a descr!$t!o# o1 t-e robber to $ol!ce. /1ter t-e robbery, -e 3ade t-reate#!#, $-o#e calls to -er a#d s-e !#1or3ed $ol!ce. Pol!ce ,ot t-e l!ce#se #u3ber o1 t-e car t-at was dr!&e# t-reate#!#,ly $ast t-e &!ct!30s -ouse, a#d traced !t to S3!t-. :!t-out a warra#t, t-ey t-e# -ad t-e $-o#e co3$a#y !#stall a H$e# re,!sterH w-!c- recorded t-e #u3bers t-at -!s $-o#e called. "t tur#ed out t-at -e was call!#, t-e &!ct!3. Ce 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce t-at -ad bee# obta!#ed t-rou,- t-e $e# re,!ster, cla!3!#, t-at !t was a &!olat!o# o1 -!s Gt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts. Disc!ssion: .-e state act!o# !# t-!s case d!d #ot !#&ol&e $r!&ate !#1or3at!o# because !t s!3$ly d!sclosed t-e recipient o1 t-e !#1or3at!o# rat-er t-a# t-e content o1 t-e !#1or3at!o#. (2ot sure !1 t-!s !s $art o1 t-e -old!#,P+ R!le: .-e ?at; rule: w-e# t-e $erso# -ad a# !#terest !# t-e $r!&acy o1 t-e !#1or3at!o#, a#d t-e !#terest !s suc- t-at soc!ety reco,#!;es !t as reaso#able, obta!#!#, t-at !#1or3at!o# &!olates t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. 9ol$ing: Pe# re,!sters #e!t-er !3$l!cate de1e#da#t0s !#terest !# t-e $r!&acy o1 t-e !#1or3at!o#, because -e read!ly ,!&es !t to t-e $-o#e co3$a#y. Moreo&er, e&e# !1 -e d!d -a&e a de1e#s!ble $r!&acy !#terest !# !t, !t0s #ot t-e ty$e o1 s!tuat!o# !# w-!c- soc!ety a,rees w!t- t-at !#terest because !t !s ,e#erally u#derstood t-at !#1or3at!o# t-at you ,!&e to a t-!rd $arty !s #ot $rotected, a#d t-!s !#1or3at!o# was w!ll!#,ly ,!&e# to t-e $-o#e co3$a#y. Notes: /#y solut!o#s 1or $roble3s !#&ol&!#, e3a!l, tw!tter, ,e#eral o#l!#e co33u#!cat!o#s, etc. are ,o!#, to -a&e to ,o t-rou,- S3!t- &. Maryla#d. #rof sa+s: ,rof notes that the focal points were that the numbers were voluntarily transmitted and other point was the it was not content, it was (ust the number he dialed.

,rof analogi'ed to 2anenbaum case, where the college that 2anenbaum was studying was as ed by the companies to turn over the *, address of the computer that was sharing the files. 7ro3 S3!t- &. Maryla#d ca3e t-e )r$ part+ r!le a#d t-e rule t-at not e,er+thing is content.

Co33o#wealt- &. Porter (Mass 200*+

Mo#day, Se$te3ber 2G, 2012 8:2 /M

&acts: / Eu&e#!le l!&!#, !# a -o3eless s-elter 3ade co33e#ts su,,est!#, t-at -e -ad a ,u#. .-e ad3!#!strator, w-o -ad certa!# r!,-ts to e#ter a#d searc- roo3s, co#tacted t-e $ol!ce, w-o searc-ed -!s roo3 w!t- t-e co#se#t o1 t-e ad3!#!strator a#d tur#ed u$ a ,u#. .-e yout- 3ade a co33e#t to t-e e11ect t-at t-e ,u# -ad #ot bee# used to 5!ll a#yo#e. 'ater, -e 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce o# t-e ,rou#ds t-at t-e searc- -ad bee# !lle,al. G!estions: :as t-!s a searc-, a#d !1 !t was, d!d !t &!olate t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !# case w-ere t-e ad3!#!strator -ad ,!&e# t-e $ol!ce $er3!ss!o#< R!le: (1) Res!de#ce, e&e# !# a -o3eless s-elter, !s e#ou,- to 3a5e searc-es o1 t-at area $resu3$t!&ely u#reaso#able. (2+ )#der t-e Massac-usetts state3e#t o1 r!,-ts, /# ad3!#!strator, -otel su$er!#te#de#t, or la#dlord does #ot -a&e t-e r!,-t to aut-or!;e a searc- by $ol!ce u#less -e or s-e !s a co-te#a#t w!t- a s-ared r!,-t to !#-ab!t t-e -o3e as a 1a3!ly 3e3ber, lo#, ter3 ,uest, etc OR t-e ad3!#!strat!&e $erso# $rese#ts t-e $ol!ce w!t- a co#tract t-at s$ec!1!cally allows t-e3 to aut-or!;e a searc-. Disc!ssion: .-e Court sa!d t-at t-ey would a#aly;e 1!rst w-et-er t-ere -ad bee# a searc-, w-!c- 3ea#s t-at t-ere was a searc- !# a $lace w-ere t-ere -ad bee# a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, a#d seco#d, w-et-er t-e $ol!ce -ad &!olated t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !# e4erc!s!#, t-at searc-. Re,ard!#, w-et-er t-ere0s a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy: H@e#erally, !# deter3!#!#, w-et-er a de1e#da#t -as a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !# t-e $lace searc-ed, we loo5 to &ar!ous 1actors, #o#e o1 w-!c- #eeds be deter3!#at!&e, incl!$ing the nat!re of the place searche$, %hether the $efen$ant o%ne$ the place, %hether he controlle$ access to it, %hether it %as freel+ accessi7le to others, an$ %hether the $efen$ant too2 Hnor"al preca!tions to protect his pri,ac+I in that place. H Court also adds a bu#c- about t-e sa#ct!ty o1 t-e -o3e, w-!c- 3ea#s t-at t-ere are #o tests - !1 !t0s t-e dude0s -ouse, -e0s -o3e 1ree as lo#, as t-ere0s #o warra#t. Court 1!#ds t-at this %as the =!,eniles ho"e, $o!#t!#, out t-at t-ere0s a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !# -otels, board!#, -ouses, a#d e&e# ,uests !# a#ot-er $erso#0s -ouse. Ce -ad a 5ey, -e 5e$t -!s belo#,!#,s t-ere. Court #otes t-at t-e searc- was w!t- t-e co#se#t o1 t-e ad3!#!strator, a#d t-us we!,-s w-et-er s-e was allowed to aut-or!;e t-e searc- u#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. o .-ere are rules about s-ared roles !# occu$y!#, $ro$erty. .-!s !s l!5e a la#dlord, w-o !s #ot allowed to aut-or!;e a searc-. o Hwe declare u#der art. 1G (o1 t-e Mass Co#st!tut!o#+ t-at a $erso# 3ay -a&e actual aut-or!ty to co#se#t to a warra#tless searc- o1 a -o3e by t-e $ol!ce o#ly !1 (1+ t-e $erso# !s a co!#-ab!ta#t w!t- a s-ared r!,-t o1 access to t-e -o3e, t-at !s, t-e $erso# l!&es !# t-e -o3e, e!t-er as a 3e3ber o1 t-e 1a3!ly, a roo33ate, or a -ouse,uest w-ose stay !s o1 substa#t!al durat!o# a#d w-o !s ,!&e# 1ull access to t-e -o3e6 or (2+ t-e $erso#, ,e#erally a la#dlord, s-ows t-e $ol!ce a wr!tte# co#tract e#t!tl!#, t-at $erso# to allow t-e $ol!ce to e#ter t-e -o3e to searc- 1or a#d se!;e co#traba#d or e&!de#ce. 2o suc- e#t!tle3e#t 3ay reaso#ably be $resu3ed by custo3 or oral a,ree3e#t.H

Court 3o&es o# to a$$are#t aut-or!ty: O#ly a$$l!es !# 3!sta5es o1 1act, #ot !# 3!sta5es o1 law. (But !1 a a t-!rd $arty erro#eously but reaso#ably bel!e&es t-at s-e ca# aut-or!;e t-e $ol!ce to e#ter, a#d t-ey do, t-e e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble.+ %!sse#t: Ma5es all t-e $o!#ts t-at a reaso#able reader wa#ts to 3a5e. .-e Co3eless s-elter !s #ot a -otel. "t o11ers acco33odat!o#s 1or $eo$le w-o #eed t-e3, a#d t-ose $eo$le s!,# away t-e!r r!,-t to certa!# $r!&acy r!,-ts. =4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy s-ould be e&aluated u#der t-e total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces.

Cere0s t-e su33ary o1 w-at t-e court ruled: uvenile had expectation of privacy in his room at shelter because it was his home. shelter director did not have actual authority to consent to the search even though she was allowed to go in herself. #. shelter director did not have apparent authority to consent to search because mista!e was one of law not of fact :. warrantless search could be ustified by consent from third party who had apparent authority to consent, as a matter of first impressionI and /. uvenile&s spontaneous statement was inadmissible.
(. ).

)#!ted States &. M!ller (1*> +

Mo#day, Se$te3ber 2G, 2012 11:F2 /M %s there a reasonable expectation of privacy on documents that have been given to a third party, namely a ban!1 Facts of the Case 8itch 8iller was charged of carrying alcohol distilling equipment and whis!ey on which liquor tax had not been paid. 7he 2ureau of Alcohol, 7obacco, and Firearms "A7F$ issued subpoenas to two of 8iller&s ban!s, 7he 'itiAens L 0outhern =ational 2an! of Warner 3obins and the 2an! of 2yron requesting records of 8iller&s accounts. 7he ban!s complied with the subpoenas, and the evidence was used during 8iller&s trial in the >nited 0tates *istrict 'ourt for the 8iddle *istrict of Georgia. 8iller was convicted and appealed his conviction alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. 7he >nited 0tates 'ourt of Appeals for the Fifth 'ircuit ruled in his favor. Question Were 8iller&s ban! records illegally seiAed in violation of the Fourth Amendment1 Decision: 4 votes for >nited 0tates, ) vote"s$ against Legal provision: Amendment :D Fourth Amendment =o. %n a ,5# opinion, the 'ourt reversed the Fifth 'ircuit and held that 8iller had no right to privacy in his ban! records. Writing for the ma ority, Bustice +ewis F. 6owell asserted that the "documents subpoenaed are not M8iller&sN &private papers&," but instead, part of the ban!&s business records. 'onsistent with Hoffa v. -nited States, 8iller&s rights were not violated when a third party 5 his ban! 5 transmitted information that he had entrusted them with to the government.

%!sse#t: (Bre##a#+ Ba#5 records -a&e a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. 7!#a#c!al !#1or3at!o# ca# re&eal a lot about a $erso# a#d -!s bel!e1s. Ba#5 wor5ers ad3!t, as a 3atter o1 1act, t-at $eo$le0s accou#ts are $r!&ate. .-e 1act t-at t-e ba#5 tur#ed o&er t-e records does#0t 3a5e !t less o1 a searc- o1 t-e accou#t -older0s $r!&ate $a$ers. (really<+

2otes: Cow would t-!s co3$are to reta!l act!&!ty #owadays< "s !t really true t-at t-e ,o&er#3e#t ca# lear# w-ate&er t-ey wa#t about you, so lo#, as t-e ,et t-e !#1or3at!o# 1ro3 a Frd $arty, e.,. /3a;o#.co3< "1 t-ere was a way to d!st!#,u!s- !t, $er-a$s t-e ar,u3e#t would be t-at a ba#5 -as status as a co-tra#sactor to tur# o&er t-e !#1or3at!o# !1 t-ey wa#t. But a store t-at a. -as #o relat!o#s-!$ to you, ot-er t-a# a ser!es o1 1leet!#, !#teract!o#s, a#d b. w-ose relat!o#s-!$ w!t- you does #ot #ecessar!ly !#&ol&e t-e !#1or3at!o# t-ey are $r!&y to - !.e. t-ey 3!,-t -a&e access to all 5!#ds o1 !#1or3at!o# !#d!rectly t-rou,- data 3!#!#, as well as t-e!r coo5!es a#d ot-er trac5!#,6 !s d!11ere#t !# 5!#d 1ro3 a ba#5 !# t-at re,ard. %oes !t 3atter t-at t-e !#1or3at!o# co3es 1ro3 so3et-!#, H$la#tedH o# your co3$uter, !# t-e case o1 trac5!#, coo5!es<

:arra#ts/$robable cause
.uesday, Se$te3ber 2 , 2012 8:G* /M

.-e Co#st!tut!o# ,uara#tees t-at searc-es or se!;ure w!ll #ot ta5e $lace %itho!t pro7a7le ca!se. .-e pro7a7le ca!se deter3!#at!o# ca# be 3ade by a police officer %itho!t see5!#, a %arrant, or !t ca# be 3ade by "agistrate, w-o deter3!#es t-at t-ere0 s $robable cause, a#d iss!es a %arrant. .-e be#e1!t o1 see5!#, a warra#t !s t-at a $ol!ce3a# act!#, o# -!s ow# w!ll -a&e -!s e&!de#ce e4cluded !1 !t !s 1ou#d $ost 1acto t-at t-ere was #o $robable cause. But !1 -e sou,-t a warra#t 1ro3 a 3a,!strate, t-e# t-e re&!ew would #ot be 1or $robable cause, !t would be 1or ,ood 1a!t- - -e ,ot a warra#t a#d d!d#0t &!olate t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t u#less t-e warra#t was created !# bad 1a!t-, a#d t-ere1ore t-e e&!de#ce would#0t be e4cluded. o Because t-e e11ect!&e Hsta#dard o1 re&!ewH !s 3ore de1ere#t!al to 3a,!strates, $ol!ce3e# are t-us e#coura,ed to see5 warra#ts w-e# $oss!ble. But !1 t-ere was de1!#!te $robable cause, t-e# t-ere !s #o be#e1!t to see5!#, a warra#t (e4ce$t $er-a$s t-e $rocedural be#e1!t o1 #ot worry!#, about t-e cou#tercla!3 at all.+ o /# e4ce$t!o# to t-e rule t-at $robable cause allows 1or searc-es e&e# w!t-out a warra#t !s searc-!#, -o3es. Searc-!#, -o3es reBu!res a warra#t e&e# w!t- $robable cause, e4ce$t u#der e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces, or !# a searc- !#c!de#t to arrest. o .-e boo5 $retty clearly says w-at " wrote abo&e, t-at $ol!ce ca# searc- as lo#, as t-ey -a&e $robable cause e&e# w!t-out a warra#t. But t-ere !s also a warra#t $re1ere#ce t-at tur#s u$ t-rou,-out t-e cases, a#d so3e ,oo,le results tal5 about warra#tless searc-es be!#, a# Hauto3ob!le e4ce$t!o#H so "K3 #ot sure !1 !t0s true t-at as lo#, as t-ere0s $robable cause, a $lace l!5e a ware-ouse ca# be searc-ed w!t-out a warra#t. Up$ate: ?at; &. )#!ted States says clearly t-at searc-es w!t-out warra#ts are $resu3$t!&ely u#reaso#able, u#less t-ey 1all !#to o#e o1 t-e e4ce$t!o#s. .-e e4ce$t!o#s were Co#se#t, "#c!de#t to arrest, /uto3ob!le e4ce$t!o#, =4!,e#t C!rcu3sta#ces, Pla!# &!ew, a#d t-e sto$ a#d 1r!s5 Ho11!cer sa1etyH rat!o#ale. :o#, Su# &. )#!ted States: !1 t-e Hsta#dard o1 re&!ewH were t-e sa3e 1or a $ol!ce3a# 3a5!#, -!s ow# deter3!#at!o# a#d a Eud,e !ssu!#, a warra#t, t-ere would be #o reaso# 1or $ol!ce3e# to see5 warra#ts. Anticipator+ %arrant .-ere !s also so3e allowa#ce 1or a# anticipator+ %arrant, w-ere t-e cri"e has not +et 7een co""itte$ or e&!de#ce $ut !# a $art!cular $lace, but !t !s a#t!c!$ated t-at !t w!ll be. "t reBu!res a ser!es o1 co#d!t!o#s - t-at !t be l!5ely t-at a $art!cular e&e#t w!ll occur, t-at !1 t-at

e&e#t occurs, !t w!ll lead to a $robab!l!ty t-at co#traba#d w!ll be 1ou#d, a#d t-e# t-e sta#dard t-ree $art test: o "t !s #ow $robable t-at o Co#traba#d, e&!de#ce o1 a cr!3e, etc. w!ll be 1ou#d o# t-e $re3!ses o :-e# t-e warra#t !s e4ecuted (see t-e $ara,ra$- abo&e - you ca#0t Eust ,et a ,e#eral warra#t a#d $la# to e4ecute !t o#ly w-e# you ,et sus$!c!ous.+ Defining pro7a7le ca!se S.-e substa#ce o1 all t-e de1!#!t!o#s o1 $robable cause !s a reasona7le gro!n$ for 7elief of g!ilt, a#d t-at t-e 7elief of g!ilt "!st 7e partic!lari'e$ w!t- res$ect to t-e $erso# to be searc-ed or se!;ed.R <ar+lan$ ,. #ringle H"# t-e case o1 a# arrest, t-e co3$la!#t !# su$$ort o1 t-e warra#t 3ust s-ow e#ou,- 1acts to $ersuade a person of reasona7le ca!tion t-at a# offense has 7een co""itte$ a#d t-at t-e de1e#da#t co33!tted !t. .-e Bua#tu3 o1 e&!de#ce 3ust be 3ore t-a# 3ere sus$!c!o#, but ca# be less t-a# w-at would be reBu!red to $ro&e ,u!lt at tr!al.H &e$eral #ractice an$ #roce$!re, citing cases not in the s+lla7!s. Probable cause !s aH1lu!d co#ce$tUtur#!#, o# t-e assess3e#t o1 $robab!l!t!es !# $art!cular 1actual co#te4tsU#ot read!ly, or e&e# use1ully, reduced to a #eat set o1 le,al rulesPH "ll!#o!s &. @ates .-e old test 1or ,ra#t!#, a warra#t was t-e Ag!ilar3 pinelli test, w-!c- reBu!red t-at t-e state s-ow so3e su$$ort 1or bel!e&!#, t-e infor"ant a#d bel!e&!#, t-e infor"ation. (Pa,e 1F> - read!#, 1or class 6+ /lt-ou,- t-ere are t!3es t-at t-e $ol!ce ca# searc- w!t-out a warra#t, a searc- warra#t !s a co33o# 3ea#s o1 obta!#!#, e&!de#ce 1or a cr!3e. ;th A"en$"ent: 2o :arra#ts s-all !ssue but u$o# $robable cause, su$$orted by oat- or a11!r3at!o#, a#d $art!cularly descr!b!#, t-e $lace to be searc-ed a#d t-e $erso#s or t-!#,s to be se!;ed.

(Luest!o#: %oes t-ere #eed to be e&!de#ce o1 !lle,al!ty !# order 1or t-e !#1or3a#t to be bel!e&ed< "1 " 5#ow so3eo#e0s tra&el $la#s !# deta!l, !s t-at ,rou#ds 1or $ol!ce to searc-< Or does t-ere #eed to be e&!de#ce t-at t-e tra&el $la#s are so3e-ow related to !lle,al!ty< %oes t-!s relate to t-e ,e#eral Buest!o#s about w-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !s des!,#ed to $rotect< "1 !t0s $ol!ce brea5!#, t-e rules o1 Catc--a-Cr!3!#al, !t !s reaso#able to !ssue a warra#t e&e# !1 t-ere0s #o e&!de#ce o1 !lle,al!ty, s!#ce t-e cr!3!#al -!3sel1 sta#ds 1or t-e !lle,al!ty o1 t-e e#ter$r!se (or, at least !t0s eas!er to Eust!1y+. But !1 t-e !ssue !s t-at we0re worr!ed about ra#do3 $eo$le be!#, &!ct!3!;ed by searc-es a#d se!;ures, e!t-er to 3a5e t-e!r l!&es 3!serable or to e&e#tually 1!#d so3e cr!3!#al act!&!ty, t-e# !t 3a5es #o se#se to allow $ol!ce to searc- so3eo#e0s -ouse Eust because so3eo#e 5#ows t-e!r tra&el $la#s. o /lso, w-at !s e&!de#ce o1 !lle,al!ty< "# @ates, t-e -usba#d we#t to a $lace t-at was 5#ow# as a dru, tra11!c5!#, -a&e#. But !t was le,al to ,o t-ere.

:-at about a test t-at !#cor$orates t-e results o1 t-e searc- as a $art o1 t-e dec!s!o# w-et-er t-e e&!de#ce s-ould be e4cluded< "s t-ere a#y suc- rule< S-ould t-ere be< "# l!,-t o1 t-e Buest!o#s abo&e, !t would see3 to 3a5e se#se.+

S$!#ell! &. )#!ted States (1*6*+

.uesday, Se$te3ber 2 , 2012 *:G1 /M

.-!s case sets 1ort-, at least !# our syllabus, t-e class!c test 1or $robable cause t-at would allow 1or a warra#t (or 1or $ol!ce to $roceed o# $robable cause.+ "t was later o&ertur#ed by "ll!#o!s &. @ates, w-!c- ado$ted a 3ore -ol!st!c a$$roac- to !ssu!#, warra#ts. &acts: %e1e#da#t was co#&!cted o1 tra&el!#, to St. 'ou!s w!t- t-e !#te#t!o# o1 ,a3bl!#,. Ce 3o&ed to su$$ress e&!de#ce based o# t-e cla!3 t-at !t was a result o1 !# !lle,al warra#t. Disc!ssion: Court be,!#s by c!t!#, /,u!lar case to say t-at t-ere0s a two $ro#, test 1or warra#t !ssua#ce - t-ere #eeds to be so3e corroborat!o# 1or t-e infor"ant a#d 1or t-e infor"ation. 1. .-e person $ro&!d!#, t-e !#1or3at!o# 3ust be rel!able 2. .-ere 3ust be so3e reaso#able e4$la#at!o# 1or t-e source to bel!e&e t-at t-e !#1or3at!o# !s true. 1. 2. F. G. .-e warra#t !# t-!s case was based o# 1our 1acts: S$!#ell! -ad bee# so3ew-ere w-ere $art!cular $eo$le l!&ed .-e $eo$le were o1 $art!cular $-o#e #u3bers S$!#ell! was a 5#ow# boo5!e /# !#1or3a#t -ad told t-e $ol!ce t-at -e0d be acce$t!#, wa,ers us!#, t-e $-o#e #u3bers t-at belo#,ed to t-e $eo$le t-at -e 3et. .-e court sa!d t-at t-e 1!rst two b!ts are Eust ra#do3 !#1or3at!o#. .-e t-!rd !s Eust c!rcular sus$!c!o# a#d !s e#t!tled to #o we!,-t. Court re1uses total!ty o1 c!rcu3sta#ces a#alys!s a#d !#stead wa#ts to a$$ly /,u!lar. R!le: "# order to 1!#d $robable cause t-at a cr!3e was be!#, co33!tted o# t-e bas!s o1 a# !#1or3a#t, t-e $erso# $ro&!d!#, t-e !#1or3at!o# 3ust be rel!able, a#d t-ere 3ust be so3e reaso#able e4$la#at!o# 1or t-e source to bel!e&e t-at t-e !#1or3at!o# !s true. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, t-e !#1or3at!o# -ad 1our bas!c $arts, outl!#ed abo&e. .-e $ol!ce asserted t-at t-e !#1or3a#t was rel!able, but d!d #ot e4$la!# w-y t-ey t-ou,-t so. .-e !#1or3a#t d!d #ot e4$la!# -ow -e 5#ew t-at S$!#ell! was ,a3bl!#,. "1 t-e !#1or3a#t -!3sel1 -ad sources, t-ere was #o !#d!cat!o# t-at t-ey were rel!able. Court says t-at t-e !#1or3at!o# !tsel1 ca# -el$ deter3!#e w-et-er t-e !#1or3a#t !s rel!able. "# %ra$er, t-e accuracy o1 so3e o1 t-e !#1or3at!o# corroborated t-e rest. Celd: "# t-!s case, t-ere was #ot e#ou,- ,rou#ds 1or a warra#t. %!sse#t: Court cla!3s to rely o# %ra$er !# d!st!#,u!s-!#, t-!s case, but !# real!ty !t0s s!3!lar to %ra$er. :-!te co#curre#ce a,rees t-at %ra$er !s d!st!#,u!s-able, but wa#ts to 1or,et about %ra$er 1or t-e t!3e be!#,, a#d su$$ress based o# /,u!lar. Notes: "t does see3 t-at %ra$er !s o1 a#ot-er l!#e o1 casess t-a# S$!#ell!, s!#ce !# %ra$er t-ere was bas!cally a# ad3!#!strat!o# o1 a total!ty o1 c!rcu3sta#ces test.

%ra$er Case
:ed#esday, October 0F, 2012 *:28 /M

%ra$er !s #ot o#e o1 t-e read!#, cases, but !t !s 3e#t!o#ed !# t-e cases t-at we read. "t was ar,uably a total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces test e&e# w-!le t-e /,u!lar-S$!#ell! test was st!ll !# 1orce. &acts: %ra$er was e&e#tually arrested o# Cero!# tra11!c5!#, c-ar,es. .-e warra#t was !ssued o# t-e bas!s o1 a# !#1or3a#t0s t!$. .-e t!$ was t-at -e0d be tra&el!#, by tra!# wear!#, a $art!cular out1!t, t-at -e0d ,o#e to C-!ca,o a#d was ,o!#, to retur# to %e#&er o# o#e o1 two days. R!le: $re-warra#t corroborat!o# o1 $art o1 t-e !#1or3a#t0s !#1or3at!o# ca# ser&e as a bas!s 1or bel!e&!#, t-e !#1or3at!o# a#d su$$ort!#, $robable cause. 9ol$ing: .-e S$!#ell! court sa!d, w!t-out co#s!der!#, t-!s a total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces test, t-at s!#ce t-e !#1or3a#t -ad bee# so clear o# so 3uc- about %ra$er, t-ere was a3$le reaso# 1or t-e 3a,!strate to !ssue t-e warra#t. .-e Court d!st!#,u!s-ed S$!#ell!, say!#, t-at t-e !#1or3at!o# t-at t-e !#1or3a#t $ro&!ded !# S$!#ell! was so3et-!#, -e could -a&e o&er-eard !# a bar. .-e S$!#ell! Co#curre#ce says t-at %ra$er !s t-e sa3e as S$!#ell!, s!#ce !# S$!#ell!, t-e !#1or3a#t -ad ,!&e# two $art!cular #u3bers a#d t-ose #u3bers tur#ed out to be t-e correct o#es. .-e co#curre#ce bel!e&es t-at /,u!lar a#d %ra$er were !# te#s!o#. 2e&ert-eless, t-e co#curre#ce a,rees t-at t-e /,u!lar test !s t-e correct o#e a#d S$!#ell! d!d #ot 3eet t-e corroborat!o# reBu!re3e#ts. Notes: %oes t-!s a$$ly !# Massac-usetts a1ter t-e S$!#ell! test !s dec!ded to st!ll be ,ood law<

"ll!#o!s &. @ates (1*8F+

.uesday, Se$te3ber 2 , 2012 11:G /M

&acts: Pol!ce rece!&ed a# a#o#y3ous letter tell!#, t-e3 t-at t-e @ateses were deal!#, dru,s. .-ey loo5ed !#to certa!# corroborat!#, deta!ls !# t-e letter a#d deter3!#ed w-ere t-e @ateses l!&ed a#d also 1ou#d out certa!# deta!ls about t-e tra&el $la#s t-at 3atc-ed w-at t-e letter su,,ested about t-e!r 3et-ods. Mader, t-e o11!cer !# c-ar,e, -ad a# o11!cer 3o#!tor t-e 1l!,-t t-at Mr. @ates was to be o#. Ot-er a,e#ts watc-ed Mr. @ates ta5e t-e car t-at -ad bee# le1t !# 7lor!da a#d dr!&e !t arou#d. Mader t-e# sub3!tted a# a11!da&!t w!t- t-e 1acts t-e $ol!ce -ad u#co&ered, a#d attac-ed t-e a#o#y3ous letter. .-e Eud,e !ssues a searc- warra#t. .-e 1acts sect!o# #otes t-at t-e Eud,e could -a&e 1ou#d t-at t-ere was $robable cause 1or t-e 3odus o$era#d!. 'ater, t-e $ol!ce searc-ed t-e car a#d 1ou#d 3ar!Eua#a. / searc- o1 t-e -o3e tur#ed u$ 3ore 3ar!Eua#a a#d wea$o#s. .-e C!rcu!t Court o1 "ll!#o!s ruled t-at t-e e&!de#ce #eeded to be su$$ressed, o# t-e ,rou#ds t-at t-ere was #o $robable cause to deter3!#e w-et-er t-e -ouse a#d car co#ta!#ed t-e dru,s or co#traba#d. .-!s was u$-eld !# -!,-er courts !# "ll!#o!s t-at t-e e&!de#ce #eeded to be su$$ressed. Disc!ssion: .-e Su$re3e Court (O1 t-e )S+ d!scusses t-at t-e "ll!#o!s Court was a$$ly!#, t-e S$!#ell! two $art test. )#der S$!#ell!, t-e court 1ou#d t-at t-ere was #o e&!de#ce at all o1 t-e &erac!ty o1 t-e !#1or3a#t. .-e court -ad 1ou#d t-at innocent $etails could #e&er ser&e as corroborat!o# o1 t-e re$ort o1 a# !#1or3a#t w!t- #o $redeter3!#ed &erac!ty.

1. 2. F.

Re&!ew!#, t-e two $art test: .-e bas!s o1 5#owled,e o1 t-e !#1or3a#t .-e &erac!ty o1 t-e !#1or3a#t, or t-e rel!ab!l!ty o1 -!s re$ort. SCO.)S a,rees t-at t-ese are !3$orta#t 1actors, but #ow a##ou#ces t-at t-ey are #ot !#de$e#de#t 1actors. "#stead, t-ere !s a total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces ele3e#t. Probable deals w!t- l!5el!-ood, #ot w!t- certa!#t!es. =&e# t-e two reBu!re3e#ts, 1or bas!s o1 5#owled,e a#d &erac!ty o1 !#1or3a#t, do&eta!l - !1 so3eo#e -as bee# &ery accurate !# t-e $ast, t-e# t-e reBu!re3e#t 1or a bas!s o1 5#owled,e !s less !3$orta#t. Aer$ict: .-ere was $robable cause a#d t-e e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble. R!le: Re$laces t-e /,u!lar-S$!#ell! test w!t- a total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces test, e.,. !1 t-e !#1or3at!o# !s u#usually deta!led, !t ca# -el$ s-ow t-e &erac!ty o1 t-e !#1or3a#t, or !1 t-e !#1or3a#t -as bee# su$er rel!able !# t-e $ast, !t ca# 3a5e u$ 1or t-e 1act t-at -e does#0t wa#t to 1ully e4$la!# -ow -e 5#ows t-!s !#1or3at!o# !# a curre#t case. <one+ 6!ote: Probable cause !s a H1lu!d co#ce$tUtur#!#, o# t-e assess3e#t o1 $robab!l!t!es !# $art!cular 1actual co#te4tsU#ot read!ly, or e&e# use1ully, reduced to a #eat set o1 le,al rulesPH Rat!o#ale: /11!da&!ts are #ot dra1ted by lawyers, t-ey0re dra1ted by co$s !# t-e t-!c5 o1 !#&est!,at!o#s. 7urt-er3ore, t-ere s-ould #ot be de #o&o re&!ew o1 t-e !ssua#ce o1 a warra#t. .-e 3a,!strate0s deter3!#at!o# s-ould be ,!&e# ,reat we!,-t. 7urt-er3ore, r!,!d a$$l!cat!o# o1 t-e test would be a -!#dra#ce !# $rotect!#, t-e $eo$le. Court t-e# aba#do#s t-e r!,!d two $art test o1 S$!#ell! a#d /,u!lar, a#d re$laces !t w!t- a total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces test. Court says, !# a 1oot#ote, t-at w-!le t-ere 3ay be so3e cr!t!Bues o1 t-e &erac!ty o1 t-e !#1or3a#t !# t-e letter !1 !t was read closely, t-e $ol!ce do#0t -a&e to do t-at. =&e# t-ou,Mrs. @ates d!d#0t tra&el t-e e4act way t-at t-e letter $red!cted, a#d e&e# t-ou,- accord!#, to t-e letter, t-e -ouse 1ull o1 dru,s would -a&e bee# le1t u#,uarded, t-at does#0t reBu!re t-e $ol!ce to assu3e t-at t-e !#1or3at!o# !s !#accurate. Court !#ter$rets t-e d!sse#t: t-!s w!ll dow#,rade t-e role o1 t-e 3a,!strate6 3a,!strates s-ould be restr!cted by stro#, rules6 a lac5 o1 r!,!d rules w!ll 3a5e e&eryo#e 1ree to &!olate r!,-ts. MaEor!ty says, (res$ect!&ely+ t-at t-e 3a,!strate w!ll #ow -a&e 3ore $ower, t-at $robable cause -as ,otte# so tec-#!cally labyr!#t-!#e t-at t-ere !s #o relat!o# a#y3ore to $robable cause, a#d t-at Eud,es u$-old!#, !#d!&!dual r!,-ts to r!d!culous e4tre3es !s #o 3ore r!,-t t-a# try!#, to ac-!e&e a bala#ce. Court c!tes %ra$er, (c!ted !# ot-er cases also+ w-ere t-e $ol!ce watc-ed t-e ,uy a#d 1ou#d t-at a lot o1 t-e deta!ls 3atc-ed. /ll t-e searc- #eeded to do was to 1!#d t-at -e !# 1act -ad 3ar!Eua#a. Court says t-at t-!s case !s -!,-ly s!3!lar to %ra$er. Conc!rrence: (:-!te+ " do#0t l!5e total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces because t-ere s-ould be clear rules. /lt-ou,- t-e 3aEor!ty !s r!,-t t-at t-e /,u!lar-S$!#ell! test -as bee# too r!,!dly ad3!#!stered !# so3e lower courts, !t ca# be u$-eld a#d ad3!#!stered 3ore loosely. .-e /,u!lar S$!#ell! test s-ould be u#derstood as lea&!#, roo3 1or t-e $ol!ce to corroborate t-e !#1or3at!o# !#de$e#de#tly, to su$$ort t-e co#te#t!o# t-at t-e !#1or3a#t a#d t-e !#1or3at!o# are accurate.

Dissent: (Bre##a#+ /,rees w!t- co#curre#ce t-at t-ere #eed to be clear rules. %oes#0t l!5e t-at t-ere are add!t!o#al ways t-at would sat!s1y e!t-er or bot- $ro#,s o1 t-e /,u!lar-S$!#ell! test s!3ulta#eously. :-!le !t0s true t-at t-e Co#curre#ce 3a5es se#se !# allow!#, /,u!lar S$!#ell! to be sat!s1!ed by outs!de !#1or3at!o#, t-at !#1or3at!o# #eeds to d!rectly relate to t-e !#1or3at!o# about t-e $re3!ses !# Buest!o#. "#1or3at!o# about a$art3e#t 60> ca# be corroborated !1 !t0s 1ou#d t-at !#1or3at!o# about /$art3e#t 60> was rel!able, but #ot because t-ere was u#related !#1or3at!o# about a$art3e#t F00 t-at was accurate. :-!le t-e Co#curre#ce0s su,,est!o#s 3a5e se#se, t-e MaEor!ty0s loose#!#, o1 t-e sta#dards !s too 1ar, a#d see3s to re1lect a 1rustrat!o# !# $ol!ce be!#, able to do t-e!r wor5. But t-at does #ot Eust!1y ta5!#, away all structure 1ro3 t-e test. Dissent: (Ste&e#s+ 'oo5s at t-e !#1ere#ces t-at could -a&e bee# 3ade about t-e !#1or3at!o#, a#d says t-at t-ere was e#ou,- t-ere, !#clud!#, t-e 1act t-at t-ey d!d#0t 1ly o#e way a#d dr!&e t-e ot-er way, as well as t-e 1act t-at t-e!r -ouse 1ull o1 dru,s was le1t u#,uarded, to cast sus$!c!o# o# t-e accuracy o1 t-e !#1or3a#t0s !#1or3at!o#. ("s t-!s 3erely a 1actual d!s$ute w!t- t-e co#curre#ce<+

Co3. &. )$to# (1*8 Massac-usetts Su$re3e Court +

.uesday, Se$te3ber 2 , 2012 8:G* /M

"s t-e sta#dard 1or states !ssu!#, warra#t t-e sa3e as !t !s u#der 7ederal 'aw< "# t-!s case, Massac-usetts !#st!tuted a -!,-er $rotect!o# 1or cr!3!#al de1e#da#ts, ado$t!#, t-e old /,u!lar-S$!#ell! test, a#d 1!#d!#, t-at t-ere !s a# e4clus!o#ary rule u#der Massac-usetts law. .-e $ol!ce -ad a warra#t so t-e o#ly e4a3!#at!o# !s w-et-er t-ere was $robable cause, a#d !t does#0t see3 t-at t-e /uto3ob!le =4ce$t!o# !s !# $lay. (@ert#er ar,ued 1or de1e#da#t+ &acts (cut a#d $asted 1ro3 t-e earl!er dec!s!o#, #ot !#cluded !# t-e later o#e+ /bout #oo# o# Se$te3ber 11, 1*80, '!eute#a#t Bela#d o1 t-e Iar3out- $ol!ce de$art3e#t ass!sted !# t-e e4ecut!o# o1 a searc- warra#t 1or a roo3 at t-e S#u, Carbor Motel !# :est Iar3out-. .-e searc- warra#t 3e#t!o#ed o#e ?elle-er. .-e $ol!ce 1ou#d &ar!ous !te3s, so3e co#ta!#!#, t-e #a3e o1 o#e Pe#der,ast w-ose $re3!ses -ad bee# bur,lar!;ed earl!er t-at 3o#t-. "# t-e 3!ddle o1 t-e a1ter#oo#, Bela#d rece!&ed a tele$-o#e call 1ro3 a# u#!de#t!1!ed wo3a# w-o, accord!#, to Bela#d0s a11!da&!t !# su$$ort o1 t-e warra#t, sa!d t-at Sa 3otor -o3e 1ull o1 stole# stu11 M!sN $ar5ed be-!#d V Ae11erso# /&e., t-e -o3e o1 Mt-e de1e#da#tN a#d -!s 3ot-er.R .-e a11!da&!t, t-e s!,#!1!ca#t $ort!o#s o1 w-!c- a$$ear !# t-e 3ar,!#, sets 1ortt-e co#&ersat!o# 1urt-er. .-e !#1or3a#t descr!bed t-e stole# !te3s ,e#erally a#d sa!d t-at t-e de1e#da#t was ,o!#, to 3o&e t-e 3otor -o3e because ?elle-er0s 3otel roo3 -ad bee# ra!ded. S-e sa!d t-e de1e#da#t -ad $urc-ased t-e stole# !te3s 1ro3 ?elle-er. S-e sa!d s-e -ad see# t-e !te3s, alt-ou,- s-e d!d #ot state w-e# a#d w-ere s-e -ad see# t-e3. "# 1urt-er co#&ersat!o#, s-e a,reed to Bela#d0s su,,est!o# t-at s-e was 'y## /lber!co, a 1or3er ,!rl 1r!e#d o1 t-e de1e#da#t. 'ater t-at day Bela#d we#t to Ae11erso# /&e#ue a#d saw a 3otor -o3e $ar5ed o# t-e $re3!ses. Ce t-e# $re$ared t-e a$$l!cat!o# 1or a searc- warra#t, obta!#ed t-e warra#t w-!le ot-er o11!cers watc-ed t-e $re3!ses, a#d, w!t- 1our ot-er o11!cers, e4ecuted t-e warra#t o# t-e e&e#!#, o1 t-e sa3e day. 2u3erous !te3s were se!;ed !# t-e course o1 searc-!#, t-e 3otor -o3e. &ro" the footnotes, e:cerpte$ fro" the affi$a,it

SO# Se$t. 11, 1*80, at a$$ro4. F:20 PM, t-!s o11!cer rece!&ed a call 1ro3 a# u#!de#t!1!ed 1e3ale stat!#, t-at t-ere !s a 3otor -o3e 1ull o1 stole# stu11 $ar5ed be-!#d V Ae11erso# /&e., t-e -o3e o1 @eor,e )$to# a#d -!s 3ot-er, #a3e u#5#ow#. .-!s u#!de#t!1!ed 1e3ale also told 3e t-at t-e stole# !te3s co#s!sted o1 Eewelry, ,old, s!l&er, .ele&!s!o# sets a#d a Bua#t!ty o1 #arcot!cs. S-e 1urt-er stated t-at @eor,e )$to# was ,o!#, to 3o&e t-e 3otor -o3e a#y t!3e #ow because o1 t-e 1act t-at R!c5y ?elle-er0s 3otel roo3 was ra!ded a#d t-at @eor,e -ad $urc-ased t-ese stole# !te3s 1ro3 R!c5y ?elle-er. .-!s u#!de#t!1!ed 1e3ale stated t-at s-e -ad see# t-e stole# !te3s but re1used to !de#t!1y -ersel1 because W-e0ll 5!ll 3eK, re1err!#, to @eor,e )$to#. " t-e# told t-!s u#!de#t!1!ed 1e3ale t-at " 5#ew w-o s-e was, ,!&!#, -er t-e #a3e o1 'y## /lber!co, w-o " -ad 3et o# May 16, 1*80, at @eor,e )$to#0s re$a!r s-o$ o11 Su33er St., !# Iar3out-$ort. S-e was !de#t!1!ed to 3e by @eor,e )$to# as be!#, -!s ,!rl1r!e#d, 'y## /lber!co. .-e u#!de#t!1!ed 1e3ale ad3!tted t-at s-e was t-e ,!rl t-at " -ad #a3ed, stat!#, t-at s-e was sur$r!sed t-at " 5#ew w-o s-e was. S-e t-e# told 3e t-at s-e0d bro5e# u$ w!t- @eor,e )$to# a#d wa#ted to bur# -!3. S-e also told 3e t-at s-e would#0t ,!&e 3e -er address or $-o#e #u3ber but t-at s-e would co#tact 3e !# t-e 1uture, !1 #eed be. SO# Se$t. 11, 1*80, " dro&e to V Ae11erso# /&e., :est Iar3out-, a#d obser&ed a w-!te, %od,e .!o,a Motor Co3e $ar5ed o# t-e $re3!ses, !33ed!ately to t-e le1t o1 t-e dwell!#,, e#c!rcled by a 6X -!,- stoc5ade 1e#ce. " t-ere1ore a3 reBuest!#, a searcwarra#t to searc- t-e e#t!re $re3!ses, !#clud!#, a#y &e-!cles $ar5ed t-ereo#, a#d curt!la,e, as " 1eel " -a&e $robable cause to bel!e&e t-at a#y/all o1 t-e !te3s l!sted o# attac-ed s-eets 3ar5ed WBK, WCK, W%K, are to be 1ou#d o# a#d w!t-!# t-e descr!bed $re3!ses.R %e1e#da#t was co#&!cted a1ter -!s 3ot!o# to su$$ress e&!de#ce obta!#ed a1ter a warra#t was !ssued w!t-out $robable cause was de#!ed. Ce a$$ealed case u$ward, a#d t-e )S Su$re3e Court 1ou#d t-at t-ere was $robable cause u#der t-e total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces test (1or co#st!tut!o#al $robable cause<+ a#d re3a#ded to t-e Massac-usetts court 1or act!o# !# accorda#ce w!t- t-at o$!#!o#. "t was Buest!o#able w-et-er t-e Massac-usetts Co#st!tut!o# (/rt!cle 1G+ was 3ore $rotect!&e o1 de1e#da#ts0 r!,-ts t-a# t-e )S Co#st!tut!o#. .-ere were esse#t!ally t-ree Buest!o#s: 1. "s t-e Massac-usetts Co#st!tut!o# 3ore $rotect!&e o1 t-e de1e#da#t t-a# t-e )S Co#st!tut!o#< 2. :as t-e warra#t obta!#ed !lle,ally u#der t-e Massac-usetts Co#st!tut!o#< F. "1 so, was t-e e&!de#ce allowed to be used, or !s !t statutor!ly de#!ed< R!les: (1+ Massac-usetts -as a# e4clus!o#ary rule, sourced !# a statute. (2+ .-e Massac-usetts sta#dard 1or $robable cause based o# a# !#1or3a#t !s 3ore str!#,e#t t-a# t-e 1ederal sta#dard, a#d !s so3ew-at s!3!lar to /,u!lar-S$!#ell!. (F+.-e a$$l!cat!o# !# t-!s case d!d#0t de3o#strate $robable cause. 9ol$ings: (1+ /lt-ou,- as a 3atter o1 co33o# law a#d Massac-usetts co#st!tut!o#al law, t-ere was #o e4clus!o#ary rule !# Massac-usetts, t-ere !s a statutory bas!s 1or e4clus!o# because t-ere were laws about a11!da&!ts t-at courts -ad ruled s-ould lead to e4clus!o#, so t-e sa3e s-ould -old true 1or #o $robable cause. (2+ /rt!cle 1G o1 t-e Massac-usetts declarat!o# o1 r!,-ts !s 3ore $rotect!&e t-a# t-e )S Co#st!tut!o#, a#d t-e /,u!lar-S$!#ell! sta#dard, (but #ot a$$l!ed -y$ertec-#!cally, t-e court war#s+ !s a rou,- a$$ro4!3at!o# o1 w-at t-e $rotect!o# reBu!res. Court co#ceded t-at t-ere was #o !#-ere#t !#ad3!ss!b!l!ty doctr!#e based o# t-e Massac-usetts Co#st!tut!o#. 34ote 5 the court did not have much case law about exclusion

under the &assachusetts constitution because there was no exclusionary rule in &assachusetts until they read it into the statute.# Cowe&er, t-ere was a statutory e4clus!o#, based o# t-e statute t-at reBu!res a# a11!da&!t 1ro3 t-e $erso# see5!#, t-e warra#t. .-e Court e4tra$olates 1ro3 t-ere t-at t-e results o1 t-e searc- are !#ad3!ss!ble w!t-out t-e a11!da&!t, a#d t-ere1ore, !t 3ust be true t-at !t0s !#ad3!ss!ble w!t-out a searc- warra#t as well. ("t does#0t say a#yw-ere !# t-e statute t-at t-e e&!de#ce !s !#ad3!ss!ble e!t-er.+ Court tur#s to t-e case law to deter3!#e w-at t-e sta#dard o1 $robable cause !s u#der t-e Massac-usetts Co#st!tut!o#0s declarat!o# o1 r!,-ts. H"# eac- case, t-e bas!c Buest!o# 1or t-e 3a,!strate !s w-et-er -e -as a substa#t!al bas!s 1or co#clud!#, t-at a#y o1 t-e art!cles descr!bed !# t-e warra#t are $robably !# t-e $lace to be searc-ed. Stro#, reaso# to sus$ect !s #ot adeBuate. Co#cer#!#, searc- warra#ts 1or alle,edly stole# $ro$erty, we -a&e sa!d t-at t-e a11!da&!t 3ust Sco#ta!# e#ou,- !#1or3at!o# 1or a# !ssu!#, 3a,!strate to deter3!#e t-at t-e !te3s sou,-t are related to t-e cr!3!#al act!&!ty u#der !#&est!,at!o#, a#d t-at t-ey reaso#ably 3ay be e4$ected to be located !# t-e $lace to be searc-ed.H C!tat!o#s o3!tted. Court ado$ts 1or Massac-usetts t-e old )S test: t-e Ag!ilar3 pinelli stan$ar$, !1 a# a11!da&!t !s based o# !#1or3at!o# 1ro3 a# u#5#ow# !#1or3a#t, t-e 3a,!strate 3ust Sbe !#1or3ed o1 (1+ so3e o1 t-e u#derly!#, c!rcu3sta#ces 1ro3 w-!c- t-e !#1or3a#t co#cluded t-at t-e co#traba#d was w-ere -e cla!3ed !t was (the 7asis of 2no%le$ge test+, a#d (2+ so3e o1 t-e u#derly!#, c!rcu3sta#ces 1ro3 w-!c- t-e a11!a#t co#cluded t-at t-e !#1or3a#t was Wcred!bleK or -!s !#1or3at!o# Wrel!ableK (the ,eracit+ test+. "1 t-e !#1or3a#t0s t!$ does #ot sat!s1y eac- as$ect o1 t-e /,u!lar test, ot-er alle,at!o#s !# t-e a11!da&!t t-at corroborate t-e !#1or3at!o# could su$$ort a 1!#d!#, o1 $robable cause. .-e court 1ou#d t-at u#der /,u!lar-S$!#ell!, t-e &erac!ty o1 t-e !#1or3a#t was !# Buest!o#. (Pro1 says t-at !t de3o#strates t-e d!11ere#ce betwee# t-e /,u!lar S$!#ell! l!#e a#d t-e #ew @ates sta#dard.+ 2ew Buest!o#: t-e Motor Co3e. .-ere0s a$$are#tly a rule t-at cars do#0t #eed a warra#t, or at least #ot t-e way t-at -o3es do. .-e 3otor -o3e was $ar5ed #e4t to t-e -ouse, a#d t-e de1e#da#t -ad bee# l!&!#, t-ere. Pol!ce d!d #ot #ot!ce !1 !t was re,!stered or !1 !t was -oo5ed u$ to ru##!#, water. Court #otes t-at t-ere0s a c!rcu!t s$l!t about 3otor -o3es, w-ere so3e say t-at !1 !t0s be!#, used 1or tra#s$ortat!o# !t0s 1a!r ,a3e, ot-er say !t0s #ot. Court a$$l!es e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy test, a#d says t-at warra#t was reBu!red. .-ere was "% 1ro3 )$to#0s w!1e !# t-e -otel roo3 t-at -ad bee# ra!ded. .-at was #ot !#cluded !# t-e a11!da&!t. /lso, )$to# -ad a -!story o1 be!#, !#&ol&ed w!t- 1e#c!#, stole# ,oods. .-ey tr!ed to !#troduce !t later, but !t was too late. Luest!o#: !1 searc- warra#ts are accurate a &ast 3aEor!ty o1 t-e t!3e (assu3$t!o#+ a#d so3e are su$$ressed, -ow ca# $robable cause be descr!bed as less t-a# 0T c-a#ce< "#terest!#, Buest!o#, #o<

Maryla#d &. Pr!#,le (S.Ct. 200F+

:ed#esday, October 0F, 2012 10:1> /M

Cow $robable does $robable cause -a&e to be< "s t-ere $robable cause 1or arrest !1 t-ere are t-ree $eo$le, o#e o1 w-o3 co33!tted a cr!3e< &acts: / car co#ta!#!#, Pr!#,le, Partlow (dr!&er/ow#er+ a#d S3!t- was $ulled o&er 1or s$eed!#,. /# o11!cer saw t-at t-ere was a lar,e a3ou#t o1 cas- !# t-e ,lo&e co3$art3e#t. O11!cer as5ed !1 -e could searc- t-e car, a#d Partlow, t-e ow#er o1 t-e car co#se#ted. .-e searc- tur#ed u$ a 1ew ba,s o1 coca!#e. .-e t-ree 3e# were arrested. Pr!#,le co#1essed to ow#!#, t-e dru,s, a#d sa!d t-at -e was ,o!#, to a $arty w-ere -e would sell or use t-e3. Ce sa!d t-e ot-er occu$a#ts o1 t-e car d!d#Kt 5#ow about t-e dru,s, a#d t-ey were released. Pr!#,le was se#te#ced to te# years w!t-out $arole. Pr!#,le 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e co#1ess!o# because !t was t-e 1ru!t o1 a# !lle,al se!;ure, s!#ce -e0d bee# arrested w!t-out $robable cause, but t-e tr!al court -ad de#!ed -!s 3ot!o#. C!s rat!o#ale was t-at t-e $ol!ce -ad arrested -!3 w!t-out 5#ow!#, a#yt-!#, about t-e actual $er$etrator, t-ey arrested e&eryo#e w-o was #ear t-e dru,s. .-e Maryla#d Court o1 /$$eals re&ersed t-e co#&!ct!o#, say!#, t-at Pr!#,le s-ould#0t -a&e bee# arrested s!3$ly because -e was !# a car t-at -ad dru,s. /lt-ou,- !t was u#co#tested t-at a cr!3e -ad bee# co33!tted, !t d!d#0t ,!&e e#ou,- $robable cause to arrest Pr!#,le s$ec!1!cally. .-e Su$re3e Court ruled t-at t-ere was $robable cause to arrest -!3, s!#ce -e was o#e o1 t-ree $eo$le !# a car at F a3, w-o -ad dru,s betwee# t-e3 to w-!c- #o o#e co#1essed ow#ers-!$. o .-!s was #ot ,u!lt by assoc!at!o#, l!5e Ibarra &. "ll!#o!s . "# Ibarra, t-e $ol!ce -ad sus$ected a bar ,e#erally o1 !#&ol&e3e#t !# cr!3!#al act!&!ty. .-ey -ad searc-ed e&eryo#e !# t-e bar a#d 1ou#d dru,s !# Ibarra0s $oc5et. .-e $ro$!#Bu!ty to ot-ers !#de$e#de#tly sus$ected o1 cr!3e !s #ot $robable cause. o But !# t-!s case, t-e $ro4!3!ty was closer - !t was t-ree $eo$le !# a s3all car. "# :yo3!#, &. Cou,-to#, t-e court -ad 1ou#d t-at $asse#,ers !# a car were 3ore l!5ely to be e#,a,ed !# a co33o# e#ter$r!se t-a# $atro#s !# a bar. o "# %e R!, t-e court -ad 1ou#d t-at !1 a ,o&er#3e#t !#1or3a#t -ad s!#,led out o#e $erso# !# t-e car, t-ere was #o $robable cause o# t-e rest. But !# t-!s case, o#e $asse#,er -ad as 3uc- $robable cause as t-e ot-ers. Aer$ict: .-ere was $robable cause to arrest Pr!#,le a#d t-e co#&!ct!o# sta#ds. R!le: "# a car, !t !s reaso#able to !3a,!#e t-at t-e $asse#,ers are e#,a,ed !# a co33o# e#ter$r!se, creat!#, $robable cause to arrest o#e $asse#,er 1or a cr!3e t-at t-e car was certa!#ly !#&ol&ed !#. Cowe&er, !1 t-ere0s a ,o&er#3e#t !#1or3a#t w-o s!#,led out one o1 t-e $eo$le !# t-e car, t-at $robable cause !s #ot t-ere o# t-e ot-ers.

P'/C=CO'%=R: =)ROP=/2 PR"8/CI PRO.=C."O2S

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 18, 2012 8:F6 PM

7ra#5s &. %elaware (1*>8+

:ed#esday, October 0F, 2012 F:FG PM

O#ce a warra#t !s !ssued, w-at ca# a cr!3!#al de1e#da#t do to attac5 t-e warra#t a#d t-us re#der t-e searc- carr!ed out o# !ts bas!s &o!d< &acts: .-!s !s a l!ttle u#clear, but -ere0s w-at t-ey see3 to be. / wo3a# #a3ed Ba!ley was assaulted (ra$ed<+ !# -er -o3e. S-e ,a&e a descr!$t!o# to t-e $ol!ce o1 -er assa!la#t a#d -!s clot-!#,. Co!#c!de#tally, 7ra#5s was arrested 1or a# assault

o# a ,!rl #a3ed Bre#da B. :-!le -e was be!#, ta5e# to a -ear!#,, be1ore -!s M!ra#da r!,-ts -ad bee# read to -!3, -e co33e#ted t-at -e 5#ew o1 t-!s Bre#da B. ,!rl, but t-at -e t-ou,-t t-at -e0d -eard t-e o11!cer 3e#t!o# t-e #a3e Ba!ley a#d -e was u#1a3!l!ar w!t- t-at #a3e. / 1ew days later, t-e o11!cer w-o -eard t-!s 3e#t!o#ed !t to t-e o11!cer wor5!#, o# t-e Ba!ley case. .-e o11!cers tr!ed to ,et a warra#t, a#d !# do!#, so, cla!3ed t-at t-ey0d s$o5e# to 7ra#5s0s bosses a#d t-at t-ey0d co#1!r3ed t-e clot-es t-at -e wore. %e1e#se attor#eys cla!3ed t-at !# 1act, t-e o11!cers w-o swore to t-e !#1or3at!o# o# t-e warra#t -ad#0t s$o5e# to t-e bosses, a#d t-ou,- a#ot-er o11!cer -ad, t-e $eo$le t-at -e0d s$o5e# to -ad #ot sa!d w-at t-e warra#t sa!d t-ey sa!d. 7urt-er3ore, t-e or!,!#al state3e#t !# t-e court-ouse was be1ore t-e M!ra#da war#!#, a#d t-ere1ore s-ould -a&e d!sBual!1!ed t-e e&!de#ce to w-!c- !t ,a&e r!se. Luest!o#: w-et-er a de1e#da#t !s allowed to c-alle#,e t-e &al!d!ty o1 t-e searc- warra#t based o# t-e 1act t-at !t was obta!#ed &!a blata#t 1alse-ood. .-e %elaware Su$re3e Court -ad sa!d t-at -e could #ot. 1. R!le: .-e )S Su$re3e Court sa!d (#ote #arrow -old!#,+ :-ere t-e de1e#da#t 3a5es a substa#t!al $rel!3!#ary s-ow!#, t-at a 1alse state3e#t 2no%ingl+ a#d intentionall+, or w!t- rec2less $isregar$ for the tr!th, was !#cluded 7+ the affiant !# t-e warra#t a11!da&!t, a#d !1 t-e alle,edly false state"ent is necessar+ to t-e 1!#d!#, o1 $robable cause, t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, as !#cor$orated !# t-e 7ourtee#t/3e#d3e#t, reBu!res t-at a -ear!#, be -eld at t-e de1e#da#t0s reBuest. a. .o 3a#date a# e&!de#t!ary -ear!#,, t-e c-alle#,er0s attac5 3ust be 3ore t-a# co#clusory a#d 3ust be su$$orted by 3ore t-a# a 3ere des!re to cross-e4a3!#e. .-e alle,at!o# o1 del!berate 1alse-ood or o1 rec5less d!sre,ard 3ust $o!#t out specificall+ w!t- s!pporting reasons t-e portion of the %arrant affi$a,it t-at !s cla!3ed to be 1alse. "t also 3ust be acco3$a#!ed by a# offer of proof, !#clud!#, a11!da&!ts or swor# or ot-erw!se rel!able state3e#ts o1 w!t#esses, or a satisfactor+ e:planation of their a7sence. b. "1 t-ese reBu!re3e#ts as to alle,at!o#s a#d o11er o1 $roo1 are 3et, a#d !1, w-e# 3ater!al t-at !s t-e subEect o1 t-e alle,ed 1als!ty or rec5less d!sre,ard !s set to o#e s!de, t-ere re3a!#s su11!c!e#t co#te#t !# t-e warra#t a11!da&!t to su$$ort a 1!#d!#, o1 $robable cause, #o -ear!#, !s reBu!red, but !1 t-e re3a!#!#, co#te#t !s !#su11!c!e#t, t-e de1e#da#t !s e#t!tled u#der t-e 7ourt- a#d 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#ts to a -ear!#,. c. "1, a1ter a -ear!#,, a de1e#da#t establ!s-es by a $re$o#dera#ce o1 t-e e&!de#ce t-at t-e 1alse state3e#t was !#cluded !# t-e a11!da&!t by t-e a11!a#t 5#ow!#,ly a#d !#te#t!o#ally, or w!t- rec5less d!sre,ard 1or t-e trut-, a#d t-e 1alse state3e#t was #ecessary to t-e 1!#d!#, o1 $robable cause, t-e# t-e searc- warra#t 3ust be &o!ded a#d t-e 1ru!ts o1 t-e searc- e4cluded 1ro3 t-e tr!al to t-e sa3e e4te#t as !1 $robable cause was lac5!#, o# t-e 1ace o1 t-e a11!da&!t. 9ol$ing: Re3a#ded to t-e %elaware court to o&ersee t-e $rocess del!#eated abo&e. (%oes t-!s !3$ly t-at s-ort o1 5#ow!#, or rec5less d!sre,ard 1or t-e trut-, t-e warra#t !s &al!d !# a#y case< So t-e# we d!d#0t -a&e to wa!t 1or Mass &. S-e$$ard 1or t-e ,ood 1a!t- e4ce$t!o#, d!d we<+ notes:

7ro3 7ederal Pract!ce a#d $rocedure: .-ere are st!ll so3e ot-er ways to c-alle#,e a warra#t, e&e# a1ter t-e ,ood 1a!t- e4ce$t!o#. / warra#t !s !#&al!d a#d t-e e&!de#ce ca# be e4cluded !1: (1+ w-ere t-e 3a,!strate-Eud,e was 3!sled by !#1or3at!o# !# t-e a11!da&!t su$$ort!#, t-e co3$la!#t t-at t-e a11!a#t 5#ew was 1alse or was rec5less as to !ts 1als!ty6 (2+ w-ere t-e !ssu!#, Eud,e w-olly aba#do#ed -!s or -er Eud!c!al role a#d 3erely Srubber sta3$edR t-e $ol!ce reBuest 1or a warra#t6 (F+ w-ere t-e a11!da&!t su$$ort!#, t-e co3$la!#t co#ta!#ed so l!ttle rele&a#t !#1or3at!o# t-at !t le1t t-e 3a,!strate Eud,e w!t- #o real bas!s to dec!de w-et-er $robable cause e4!sted, or w-e# t-e a11!da&!t was so lac5!#, !# $robable cause as to re#der bel!e1 !# !ts e4!ste#ce u#reaso#able6 (G+ w-ere t-e o11!cer0s rel!a#ce o# t-e warra#t was #ot obEect!&ely reaso#able, suc- as w-ere t-e warra#t was 1ac!ally de1!c!e#t. Notes on the case: Su$re3e Court sa!d t-at t-e $art!cular 1als!1!ed e&!de#ce -ad led to co#&!ct!o# - alt-ou,- t-e 5#!1e (w-!c- was $art o1 t-e !lle,ally obta!#ed e&!de#ce+ was #ot cla!3ed d!rectly to be t-e 5#!1e t-at 7ra#5s -ad used, !t was clear t-at t-e State -ad !#te#ded t-e Eury to ,et t-at !3$ress!o#. Court c!tes Ru,e#dor11 case, !# w-!c- state3e#ts o1 a t-!rd $arty t-at were $er!$-erally rele&a#t were $ro&e# u#true. Court d!st!#,u!s-es t-!s case a#d says t-at t-e state3e#ts were del!berately u#true, a#d t-ey were #ot $er!$-erally related a#d t-ey were 3ade by t-e o11!cer/a11!a#t. Court says t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t reBu!re3e#t o1 a swor# state3e#t 1or a warra#t !#d!cates t-at t-e warra#t 3ust be $erce!&ed as true, a#d t-at t-e $ur$ose o1 a 3a,!strate Eud,e to deter3!#e t-at !s so t-e Eud,3e#t ca# be -eld 1or $ote#t!al !3$eac-ab!l!ty. Court #otes t-at t-ere !s a co#1l!ct!#, &alue - t-e e4clus!o#ary rule !s #ot !#-ere#t !# t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t - !t0s a re3edy t-at !s o11ered as a deterre#t 1or &!olat!o#s o1 t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t. .-e court -as l!3!ted t-e e4clus!o#ary rule !# ot-er cases, a#d !t s-ould o&er -ere as well, w-e# e4clud!#, t-e e&!de#ce would a11l!ct soc!ety w!t- a cr!3!#al w-o could#0t be arrested. .-ere are already ot-er re3ed!es 1or $erEury, a#d t-ose re3ed!es su11!ce. .-e 3a,!strate !s already su$$osed to be deter3!#!#, t-e &erac!ty o1 t-e e&!de#ce, so 1urt-er e4clus!o#ary deterre#ce would $ro&!de o#ly a 3ar,!#al ,a!#. .-e 3a,!strate would be u#der3!#ed !# -!s role !1 -!s 1!#d!#,s were o$e# to later !3$eac-3e#t. "t w!ll add to t-e burde# o1 tr!al courts !1 &erac!ty o1 a11!da&!ts !s added to e&ery tr!al. .-e accuracy o1 t-e a11!da&!t !s 3ost o1te# outs!de t-e co#trol o1 t-e a11!a#t. .-ere1ore, t-e ut!l!ty o1 -!s searc- s-ould #ot be l!3!ted to t-e &erac!ty o1 t-e !#1or3at!o# o# t-e a11!da&!t a#d warra#t. Court #otes t-at t-ese co#cer#s are !3$orta#t. Cowe&er t-ere are co#cer#s o# t-e ot-er s!de as well. .-e reBu!re3e#t 1or e&!de#ce w!ll be a #ull!ty !1 t-e o11!cers ca# Eust 1abr!cate !t. @e#erally, e4 $arte $roceed!#,s are so3ew-at s5etc-y a#d are o#ly used by #ecess!ty. "# t-!s case, 3a5!#, t-e results u#!3$eac-able would erode t-e de1e#da#t0s r!,-ts e&e# 1urt-er.

PerEury !s #o 3ore a t-reat -ere t-a# 3!sco#duct was !# t-e or!,!#al Ma$$ &. O-!o, a#d t-e court st!ll used t-e e4clus!o#ary law. "t0s u#l!5ely t-at %./.s w!ll $rosecute t-e!r collea,ues 1or suc- &!olat!o#s. .-e 3a,!strate w!ll #ot be los!#, $ower. "t0s t-e #ature o1 t-e e4 $arte -ear!#,, rat-er t-a# Buest!o#s about t-e 3a,!strate0s co3$ete#ce t-at de3a#d t-at t-e de1e#da#t -a&e a c-a#ce to st!c5 u$ 1or -!3sel1. .-e tr!al court w!ll #ot be co#1us!#, t-ese !ssues w!t- t-e !ssues o1 ,u!lt or !##oce#ce, s!#ce t-!s w!ll be be1ore t-e tr!al !# a se$arate -ear!#, w!t- a Eud,e. .-!s !s #ot e4te#d!#, t-e e4clus!o#ary doctr!#e - !t0s Eust say!#, t-at as be1ore, !#su11!c!e#cy !# a11!da&!ts leads to e4clus!o#. .-!s !s Eust a #ew 5!#d o1 !#su11!c!e#cy.

?eywords: /ttac5!#, a warra#t 7alse a11!da&!t

=4ecut!o# !ssues w!t- warra#ts

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 18, 2012 *:0G PM

.-!s sect!o# !s about w-at -a$$e#s !1 t-ey ,et t-e warra#t a#d t-e# so3et-!#, ,oes wro#,P Or 3ore r!,-t t-a# $la##ed. .-ere are really t-ree bas!c !ssues t-at t-e cases co#1ro#t. 1. :-at -a$$e#s !1 $ol!ce act !# $ursua#ce o1 a warra#t, but do#0t real!;e t-at t-e warra#t -ad so3et-!#, wro#, w!t- !t< !. Per-a$s !t allowed t-e3 !#to a $lace 1or w-!c- t-ere was #o $robable cause, a#d t-ey 1ou#d co#traba#d t-ere. Maryla#d &. @arr!so#: Pol!ce searc-!#, a seco#d a$art3e#t w-!c- t-ey t-ou,-t, a#d t-e warra#t also !#d!cated, was $art o1 t-e 1!rst, were #ot barred 1ro3 us!#, e&!de#ce a,a!#st a#ot-er cr!3!#al t-at t-ey 1ou#d t-ereby. !!. Per-a$s !t was $rocedurally de1!c!e#t - !t was 3!ss!#, certa!# $arts or !t -ad so3e o1 t-e wro#, words. Mass. &. S-e$$ard: a warra#t t-at was ada$ted 1ro3 a d!11ere#t ty$e o1 warra#t a#d t-us e#ded u$ 3!ss!#, $arts d!d #ot lead to e4clus!o# o1 t-e e&!de#ce. .-ere !s a ,ood-1a!t- rule, a#d !# t-!s case, t-e $ol!ce3a# -ad bas!cally -eard 1ro3 t-e 3a,!strate t-at !t was 1!#e to use t-e warra#t. 2. :-at -a$$e#s !1 t-e warra#t !s based o# 1alse !#1or3at!o#< &ran2s ,. Dela%are: "1 $ol!ce l!ed to ,et a warra#t, t-e# t-e de1e#da#t ca# attac5 t-e warra#t by s-ow!#,, w!tlots o1 su$$ort!#, stu11, t-at t-e warra#t !s based o# a l!e. .-e# t-e Court s-ould a#aly;e w-et-er t-ere was $robable cause o# t-e warra#t w!t-out t-e ly!#, stu11. "1 t-ere !s $robable cause w!t-out t-e l!es, t-e# t-e case ca# ,o 1orward, but !1 t-ere was#0t t-e# t-e de1e#da#t #eeds to $ro&e t-at t-e a11!a#t acted 5#ow!#,ly a#d !#te#t!o#ally or w!t- a rec5less d!sre,ard 1or t-e trut-, a#d t-e# t-e e&!de#ce w!ll be t-row# out. 7or 3ore, see 7ra#5s &. %elaware.

Maryla#d &. @arr!so# (1*8>+

:ed#esday, October 0F, 2012 10:GF /M

:-at -a$$e#s !1 $ol!ce -a&e a warra#t t-at !s 3!sta5e#ly too broad6 !.e. !t does#0t state w!t$art!cular!ty t-e $lace to be searc-ed< "t leads to two Buest!o#s: "s t-e warra#t !#&al!d< "s t-e e&!de#ce se!;ed e4cluded< &acts: Pol!ce ,ot a warra#t to searc- a# a$art3e#t relat!#, to act!&!ty o1 'awre#ce Mc:ebb. .-e warra#t s$ec!1!ed Ht-e $re3!ses 5#ow# as 20F6 Par5 /&e#ue, t-!rd 1loor a$art3e#tH. Pol!ce reaso#ably bel!e&ed t-at t-ere was o#ly o#e suc- a$art3e#t, but t-ere were !# 1act two. .-e ot-er was occu$!ed by @arr!so#. :-e# $ol!ce, st!ll bel!e&!#, t-ey were !# t-e r!,-t $lace, searc-ed t-e @arr!so# a$art3e#t, t-ey 1ou#d t-e co#traba#d t-at ser&ed as t-e e&!de#ce !# co#&!ct!#, @arr!so#. .r!al court de#!ed @arr!so#0s 3ot!o# to su$$ress. Maryla#d Court o1 /$$eals re&ersed t-e co#&!ct!o# a#d re3a#ded 1or a #ew tr!al. .-e State a$$ealed. .-ere was #o Buest!o# t-at t-e warra#t was &al!d a#d su$$orted by $robable cause. .-e $ol!ce -ad bel!e&ed, a#d reaso#ably so a1ter e4a3!#!#, t-e $re3!ses 1ro3 t-e outs!de, -ear!#, 1ro3 a# !#1or3a#t, a#d d!scuss!#, w!t- ut!l!ty co3$a#!es, t-at t-ere was o#ly o#e a$art3e#t. :-e# $ol!ce arr!&ed, t-ey e#cou#tered Mc:ebb, w-o ,a&e t-e3 -!s 5ey to t-e t-!rd 1loor. O# t-e t-!rd 1loor, $ol!ce o$e#ed o#e door a#d saw two ot-ers. .-ey e4ecuted t-e searc- o# t-e e#t!re t-!rd 1loor w!t-out real!;!#, t-at !t was two a$art3e#ts. :-e# t-ey real!;ed t-at !t was two a$art3e#ts, t-ey sto$$ed searc-!#,. Court be,!#s by say!#, t-at t-e !ssue !s !#ter$retat!o# o1 t-e warra#t. o .-e# Court says t-at t-ere are two Buest!o#s - t-e 1!rst !s t-e &al!d!ty o1 t-e warra#t a#d t-e seco#d !s t-e 3et-od !# w-!c- t-e searc- was carr!ed out. (.-at seco#d Buest!o# !s t-e o#e t-at see3s to be l!3!ted to !#ter$retat!o#.+ Court !33ed!ately d!s$e#ses w!t- t-e Buest!o# o1 w-et-er t-e warra#t !s &al!d, say!#, t-at s!#ce !t was !ssued o# t-e &al!d a#d ,ood 1a!t- u#dersta#d!#, o1 t-e !ssu!#, Eud,e, !t !s &al!d. /lt-ou,- !# 1act !t was broader t-a# #ecessary, t-ere was #o way 1or t-e o11!cers or t-e Eud,e to Buest!o# t-at at t-e t!3e(2ot sure w-y t-at !s true - w-y does a# breadt- #eed to be Eud,ed 1ro3 t-at $o!#t, at least as re,ards ot-er $eo$le< /#d e&e# !1 !t !s, w-y does !t #eed to be &al!d o# ot-er $eo$le co33!tt!#, ot-er cr!3es< "1 !t tur#s out t-at t-e !#1or3at!o# a$$l!ed to t-e wro#, $erso# or cr!3e, let t-e warra#t be !#&al!d 1or t-at $erso# or cr!3e.+ o Rule: :arra#t 3ust be Eud,ed !# l!,-t o1 t-e !#1or3at!o# a&a!lable to t-e o11!cers at t-e t!3e t-at !t was !ssued. .-ere1ore t-e sole re3a!#!#, !ssue !s w-et-er t-e o11!cers &!olated Mc:ebb0s r!,-t to be 1ree 1ro3 searc-es a#d se!;ures. ("s t-!s t-e !#ter$retat!o# !ssue<+ o .-e o11!cers0 e#try was le,al. "1 t-ey -ad 5#ow# or s-ould -a&e 5#ow#, t-at !t was !lle,al, t-ey s-ould -a&e sto$$ed, a#d t-ey d!d w-e# t-ey 1ou#d out. o :-!le t-ere are l!3!ts o# w-at t-ey ca# do, t-ere !s also lat!tude 1or -o#est 3!sta5es. o Court c!tes C!ll &. Cal!1or#!a, !# w-!c- case t-ey arrested C!ll o# t-e bel!e1 t-at -e was M!ller. Ce0d bee# !# M!ller0s a$art3e#t w-e# -e was arrested. .-e sta#dard o1 subEect!&e ,ood 1a!t- bel!e1 !s #ot e#ou,-, but t-e correct sta#dard !s su11!c!e#t $robab!l!ty, #ot certa!#ty. .-at !s t-e sta#dard o1 reaso#able#ess u#der t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t. S!3!larly, !# t-!s case, t-ere was #o reaso# to t-!#5 t-at t-ere were two a$art3e#ts. .-e $ol!ce d!d #ot see a d!st!#ct!o# betwee# t-e $re3!ses o1 Mc:ebb a#d @arr!so# - t-ey t-ou,-t t-at Frd 7loor 3ea#t t-e e#t!re Frd 7loor, a#d t-ey

t-ou,-t t-at HMc:ebb0s a$art3e#tH 3ea#t t-e e#t!re Frd 7loor. .-us, u#der e!t-er !#ter$retat!o#, t-e searc- was warra#ted. Aer$ict: @u!lty - t-e e&!de#ce s-ould #ot be su$$ressed. R!le: 0. / warra#t t-at !s !ssued o# t-e &al!d a#d ,ood 1a!t- u#dersta#d!#, o1 t-e Eud,e !s &al!d. 1. :-e# $ol!ce e4ecute a warra#t, t-e &al!d!ty o1 t-e warra#t !s Eud,ed by t-e 5#owled,e t-at was a&a!lable to t-e o11!cers a#d t-e Eud,e at t-e t!3e t-at t-e warra#t was co3$osed. 2. 7urt-er3ore, !1 t-e $ol!ce st!c5 to a sta#dard o1 reaso#able su11!c!e#t $robab!l!ty !# e4ecut!#, t-e warra#t, t-ere !s #o &!olat!o# o1 t-e Gt- /3e#d3e#t, a#d t-ere1ore t-e e&!de#ce s-ould #ot be su$$ressed. Notes: :-at would -a&e to -a$$e# !# t-!s case 1or t-e &erd!ct to co3e out o# t-e ot-er s!de o1 t-e rule< :-at !1 t-ey -ad t-e warra#t a#d t-ere were two doors o# t-e t-!rd 1loor w!td!11ere#t #a3es< Probably e4cluded because o1 t-e reaso#ably su11!c!e#t $robab!l!ty t-at !t0s so3eo#e else0s -ouse. :-at !1 t-ere were two roo3s !# t-e sa3e a$art3e#t, a#d eac- -ad a #a3e o# t-e door< Closer case, !t see3s. /s $ro1 would say, fact intensi,e in6!ir+ re3e3ber -er Ca#dy rul!#, - to deter3!#e w-at was reaso#able. Dissent: (Blac53u#+ Searc- o1 t-e $re3!ses was !3$ro$er. :ords o1 t-e warra#t allowed t-e3 to searc- Mc:ebb0s a$art3e#t 1or e&!de#ce o1 -!s wro#,do!#,. .-ere !s #o reaso# w-y (as a 3atter o1 !#ter$retat!o#<+ t-at Frd 1loor a$art3e#t #eeds to 3ea# t-e w-ole Frd 1loor. (/lt-ou,- t-!s !s r!d!culous - we 5#ow w-at t-e 0dra1ters0 5#ew, because t-ey0re r!,-t -ere a#d #o o#e d!s$utes w-at t-ey 3ea#t.+ :-e# t-e wro#, $lace !s searc-ed, t-ere !s t-e $resu3$t!o# t-at t-e $erso#0s r!,-ts were &!olated, u#less t-ere !s e&!de#ce o1 $art!cular e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces. "# t-!s case t-ere !s #o suc- e&!de#ce o# t-e $art o1 t-e State a#d t-e e&!de#ce s-ould -a&e bee# e4cluded. O11!cer Marcus s-ould -a&e loo5ed at t-e se&e# 3a!lbo4es outs!de t-e -ouse, a#d t-at would -a&e t!$$ed -!3 o11 t-at t-ere were 3ore t-a# t-ree a$art3e#ts. Ce s-ould -a&e t-ou,-t to as5 t-e !#1or3a#t w-et-er t-ere was a#ot-er a$art3e#t o# t-e Frd 1loor. O11!cers s-ould -a&e #ot!ced t-at !t was so3eo#e else0s a$art3e#t lo#, be1ore t-ey d!sco&ered t-e !#cr!3!#at!#, e&!de#ce. o %etect!&e S-ea was r!,-t #e4t to t-e se&e# 3a!lbo4es. Ce ra#, se&e# bells, -o$!#, t-at so3eo#e would let -!3 !#. / reaso#able $erso# would -a&e real!;ed t-at t-ere were subd!&!s!o#s, a#d as5ed about t-e3. o O11!cers e#cou#tered @arr!so# o# t-e Frd 1loor - t-ey s-ould -a&e wo#dered w-at -e was do!#, t-ere, !1 !t was Mc:ebb0s a$art3e#t. o O11!cers s-ould -a&e #ot!ces t-at t-e a$art3e#ts were 3!rror !3a,es o1 eacot-er, 3a5!#, !t e&!de#t t-at t-ey were eac- a sta#d alo#e a$art3e#t. (.-!s &erd!ct !s odd, but " ,uess !t s-ows t-at t-e court sees a &!olat!o# o1 t-e Gt/3e#d3e#t as be!#, o#ly $oss!ble !1 t-e $ol!ce were Hwro#,H. :-y ca#0t so3eo#e0s r!,-ts be &!olated e&e# !1 t-e $ol!ce were a# 0o#e!s0< :-y ca#0t you su$$ress e&!de#ce e&e# !1 $ol!ce d!d#0t act wro#,ly, !1 t-ey !# 1act &!olated so3eo#e0s r!,-t< Cow does t-!s $lay !#to t-e co#&ersat!o# about t-e $o!#t o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t a#d w-o3 !t0s $rotect!#, a#d 1ro3 w-at, !1 !t does $lay !#to t-at co#&ersat!o# at all< :ould a ,ood su,,est!o# be to de-cou$le t-e wro#,#ess o1 t-e $ol!ce 1ro3 t-e su$$ress!o# o1 e&!de#ce<+

R!c-ards &. :!sco#s!# (1**>+

:ed#esday, October 0F, 2012

11:F1 /M

.-!s case !s about 0?#oc5 a#d /##ou#ce0 !# warra#ted searc-es. :!lso# &. /r5a#sas !#st!tuted t-e reBu!re3e#t 1or 05#oc5 a#d a##ou#ce0 t-e!r !de#t!ty a#d $ur$ose be1ore atte3$t!#, 1orc!ble e#try. Cowe&er, !t d!d #ot 3a5e t-e sta#dard r!,!d, a#d le1t !t to lower courts to deter3!#e !# w-!c- c!rcu3sta#ces !t would be reaso#able to reBu!re 5#oc5 a#d a##ou#ce. &acts: O11!cers !# Mad!so#, :!sco#s!#, -ad a warra#t to searc- R!c-ards0 -otel roo3 1or dru,s a#d $ara$-er#al!a. .-e 3a,!strate s$ec!1!cally de#!ed t-e reBuest 1or a #o-5#oc5 warra#t. O11!cers d!s,u!sed as 3a!#te#a#ce $eo$le 5#oc5ed o# t-e door, a#d R!c-ards crac5ed t-e door o$e# w!t- t-e c-a!# st!ll closed. Ce Bu!c5ly sla33ed t-e door w-e# -e real!;ed t-at t-ere was a# o11!cer t-ere. .-e $ol!ce wa!ted a cou$le seco#ds, a#d 5!c5ed t-e door !#. .-ey 1ou#d dru,s a#d $ara$-er#al!a. R!c-ards sou,-t to -a&e t-e e&!de#ce su$$ressed because t-ey -ad 1a!led to 5#oc5 a#d a##ou#ce. .-e tr!al court de#!ed t-e 3ot!o#, say!#, t-at t-e $ol!ce could -a&e ,at-ered 1ro3 -!s co#duct t-at -e was ,o!#, to destroy e&!de#ce. .-e :!sco#s!# Su$re3e Court u$-eld t-e lower court. "# t-e!r dec!s!o#, t-e :!sco#s!# Su$re3e Court d!d #ot del&e !#to t-e 1acts o1 t-e case, but sa!d t-at !# 1elo#y dru, arrests, !t was always l!5ely to !#&ol&e a -!,- r!s5 o1 !#Eury to $ol!ce as well as d!s$osal o1 t-e e&!de#ce. .-e court co#cluded t-at e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces Eust!1y!#, a #o 5#oc5 e#try are always $rese#t !# 1elo#y dru, cases. .-ere1ore, $ol!ce !# :!sco#s!# do #ot #eed s$ec!1!c !#1or3at!o# about da#,er or d!s$osal to d!s$e#se w!t- t-e 5#oc5 a#d a##ou#ce reBu!re3e#t. G!estion: Ca# t-ere be a rule t-at 3a5es all dru, ra!ds $er se e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces !# w-!ct-ere ca# be #o 5#oc5 a#d a##ou#ce reBu!re3e#t< R!le: .-e a#alys!s 3ust co#t!#ue to be case by case. Cowe&er, t-e $ol!ce w!ll be Eud,ed by t-e!r act!o#s a#d Eud,3e#t at t-e t!3e t-e warra#t !s e4ecuted. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, t-e $ol!ce at t-e t!3e t-at t-e warra#t was e4ecuted were le,!t!3ately co#cer#ed t-at t-e e&!de#ce was be!#, destroyed, so t-e!r act!o#s $ass t-e case-by-case a#alys!s as well. COTU says t-at t-e :!sco#s!# Su$re3e Court0s rule !s o&er,e#eral!;ed. "t !s $oss!ble, 1or e4a3$le, t-at t-e searc- !s e4ecuted w-e# t-e $eo$le t-ere are #ot !#&ol&ed !# t-e cr!3e at all, a#d t-ere !s t-ere1ore #o t-reat o1 &!ole#ce. Or, !t0s $oss!ble t-at t-e dru,s are 5#ow# to be !# a $lace or o1 a ty$e t-at ca#0t be Bu!c5ly destroyed. .-ere1ore, t-ere ca# be #o $er se rule t-at dru, ra!ds !#&ol&e e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces. /#ot-er reaso# to 5ee$ t-e reBu!re3e#t as a case-by-case a#alys!s !s t-e da#,er o1 us!#, t-e dru, rule !# all ot-er cases w-ere cr!3!#als are l!5ely to be &!ole#t, w-!c- would o&ertur# t-e Gt/3e#d3e#t 5#oc5-a#d-a##ou#ce rule co3$letely. (Cow bad !s t-at<+ .-ere1ore, t-e $ol!ce st!ll 3ust s-ow a reaso#able sus$!c!o# t-at t-e result o1 5#oc5!#, a#d a##ou#c!#, t-e3sel&es would result !# &!ole#ce or destruct!o# o1 e&!de#ce. "# t-!s case, -owe&er, t-e Su$re3e Court says t-at t-e $ol!ce !# R!c-ards0s case d!d #ot &!olate t-e Gt- /3e#d3e#t. S!#ce t-e tr!al court -eard e&!de#ce a#d co#cluded t-at t-ere was reaso#able sus$!c!o#, t-e 1ru!ts o1 t-e searc- are #ot e4cluded. /lt-ou,- t-e or!,!#al warra#t d!d #ot allow #o-5#oc5, t-e co#duct !s Eud,ed by t-e act!o#s at t-e t!3e o1 e4ecut!o#. ("s t-!s !#

te#s!o# w!t- @arr!so#, !# w-!c- t-ey loo5ed 3a!#ly at t-e t!3e o1 t-e warra#t !ssua#ce, at least !# re1ere#ce to t-e &al!d!ty o1 t-e warra#t<+

Mass. &. S-e$$ard (1*8G+

:ed#esday, October 0F, 2012 G:G> PM

?eywords: =4lus!o#ary rule @ood 1a!t2o#-3ater!al error :-at -a$$e#s !1 $ol!ce searc- w!t- a warra#t, but !t later tur#s out t-at t-e warra#t was #ot ,ood< Must t-e e&!de#ce t-e# be e4cluded< .-!s case was dec!ded to,et-er w!t- 'eo# a#d t-e result o1 t-e two !s t-at t-ere !s a goo$ faith r!le t-at says t-at !1 t-e o11!cer acted !# ,ood 1a!t-, t-ere !s #o e4clus!o#. &acts: .-e body o1 a Ms. Boulware was 1ou#d. S-e$$ard was a 1or3er boy1r!e#d a#d $ol!ce !#ter&!ewed -!3. Ce sa!d t-at -e0d bee# ,a3!#, at a $art!cular $lace t-e e#t!re #!,-t !# Buest!o#, a#d t-at ot-ers could co#1!r3 -!s story. Ot-ers w-o were called u$o# to co#1!r3 t-e story sa!d t-at -e0d le1t !# t-e 3!ddle o1 t-e #!,-t a#d -ad bee# ,o#e about two -ours, us!#, so3eo#e else0s car. Pol!ce were ,!&e# co#se#t to searc- t-e car a#d t-ey 1ou#d w!re, a#d traces o1 blood a#d -a!r. /# o11!cer a$$l!ed 1or a warra#t to searc- S-e$$ard0s -o3e 1or Ms. Boulware0s e11ects a#d 1or $oss!ble 3urder wea$o#s. .-ere were #o warra#t 1or3s ly!#, arou#d at t-at t!3e, so t-e o11!cer used o#e t-at -ad bee# created as a te3$late 1or a co#trolled substa#ces searc-. .-e o11!cer 3ade so3e c-a#,es a#d t-e# sub3!tted t-e altered 1or3 to a Eud,e. .-e Eud,e 3ade 1urt-er c-a#,es a#d s!,#ed t-e 1or3. Ce told t-e o11!cer t-at t-e warra#t was t-e# o5ay to be used. But !t !# 1act was#0t - !t d!d #ot !#cor$orate t-e s$ec!1!c $laces a#d t-!#,s t-at t-e o11!cer was to searc-. "# t-e searc-, t-e $ol!ce 1ou#d Ms. Boulware0s $ossess!o#s a#d clot-!#,, 3uc- o1 !t w!t- blood o# !t. S-e$$ard was arrested a#d -e tr!ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce o# ,rou#ds t-at !t was wro#,1ully obta!#ed. .-e court says t-at s!#ce t-ey dec!ded (!# t-e 'eo# case w-!c- was -eard !# co#Eu#ct!o# w!tt-!s case+ t-at t-ere was to be a ,ood 1a!t- e4ce$t!o# to t-e e4clus!o#ary rules, t-e o#ly Buest!o# to address was w-et-er t-ere was !# 1act ,ood 1a!t- o# t-e $art o1 t-e o11!cers. Court 1ou#d t-at alt-ou,- t-e o11!cer -ad bee# o# #ot!ce t-at t-e warra#t 3!,-t #ot $ass 3uster, -e st!ll acted !# ,ood 1a!t- o#ce t-e Eud,e told -!3 t-at !t was o5ay to use. .-ere1ore, -e was e#t!tled to t-e ,ood 1a!t- e4ce$t!o# a#d t-e e&!de#ce was ad3!ss!ble. Aer$ict: =&!de#ce was ad3!ss!ble. R!le: .-e 1oo$ faith e4ce$t!o# to t-e e4clus!o#ary rule. =&!de#ce t-at !s obta!#ed !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, but w-!c- !s obta!#ed us!#, a warra#t t-at t-e o11!cer reaso#ably bel!e&ed was le,al, !s #ot e4cluded 1ro3 e&!de#ce. "# t-!s case, s!#ce t-e o11!cer -ad -eard 1ro3 t-e Eud,e w-o ,ra#ted t-e warra#t t-at t-e warra#t was &al!d, !t was reaso#able 1or -!3 to assu3e t-at !t was a &al!d warra#t a#d to $roceed u$o# !t. 7ro3 7ederal Pract!ce a#d $rocedure: .-ere are st!ll so3e e:ceptions to the goo$ faith e:ception:

(1+ w-ere t-e 3a,!strate-Eud,e was 3!sled by !#1or3at!o# !# t-e a11!da&!t su$$ort!#, t-e co3$la!#t t-at t-e a11!a#t 5#ew was 1alse or was rec5less as to !ts 1als!ty6 (2+ w-ere t-e !ssu!#, Eud,e w-olly aba#do#ed -!s or -er Eud!c!al role a#d 3erely Srubber sta3$edR t-e $ol!ce reBuest 1or a warra#t6 (F+ w-ere t-e a11!da&!t su$$ort!#, t-e co3$la!#t co#ta!#ed so l!ttle rele&a#t !#1or3at!o# t-at !t le1t t-e 3a,!strate Eud,e w!t- #o real bas!s to dec!de w-et-er $robable cause e4!sted, or w-e# t-e a11!da&!t was so lac5!#, !# $robable cause as to re#der bel!e1 !# !ts e4!ste#ce u#reaso#able6 (G+ w-ere t-e o11!cer0s rel!a#ce o# t-e warra#t was #ot obEect!&ely reaso#able, suc- as w-ere t-e warra#t was 1ac!ally de1!c!e#t.

/ttac5!#, a warra#t
Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 1*, 2012 11:0F /M

%o#0t 5#ow w-at to do about t-!s6 t-e o#ly case we -ad o# !t was 7ra#5s &. %elaware. See t-at case, " su$$ose. "t !s $robably wort- #ot!#, t-at !# t-at case t-e attac5 was o# s$ec!1!c ,rou#ds w-!c- 3ay -a&e 3ade !t $art!cularly -ard to attac5. .-e Pol!ce3a# l!ed, w-!c- led to t-e 1!rst #ecess!ty to s-ow e&!de#ce t-at -e -ad l!ed, t-e# o#ly a1ter t-at, ree&aluat!o# o1 t-e warra#t to deter3!#e w-et-er t-ere was $robable cause w!t-out t-e l!e. But !# so3e cases, !t 3!,-t be eas!er, 1or e4a3$le, !1 t-e warra#t allowed too 3uc- d!scret!o# about w-ere to searc-, t-e# !t would be relat!&ely easy, or at least a so3ew-at d!11ere#t e4erc!se, to attac5 t-e warra#t o# t-at bas!s. Per-a$s t-e !#1or3a#t ad3!tted to a# !#terest !# re&e#,e a,a!#st t-e de1e#da#t. .-at would see3!#,ly be easy to $ro&e, es$ec!ally !1 t-e e&!de#ce u#co&ered was #ot d!rectly related to t-e cr!3e !# Buest!o#. Aust s$ell!#, !t out: Iou ,et a warra#t because a# e4 ,!rl1r!e#d sa!d t-at -e0s ta5!#, dru,s. Pol!ce co3e w!t- t-e warra#t, a#d t-ey do#0t 1!#d dru,s but t-ey 1!#d a# !lle,al wea$o#. .-e warra#t 3!,-t be called !#to Buest!o# !1 $ol!ce 5#ew o1 t-e a#!3os!ty betwee# t-e !#1or3a#t a#d t-e de1e#da#t.

.-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t reBu!res t-at t-e warra#t be su$$orted by H$robable cause, su$$orted by oat- or a11!r3at!o#, a#d $art!cularly descr!b!#, t-e $lace to be searc-ed, a#d t-e $erso#s or t-!#,s to be se!;ed.H Prel!3!#ary: (2ot !# t-e syllabus, but 3ust be s!,#ed by !3$art!al Eud,e.+ 1. Probable cause !. 7ederally, /,u!lar/S$!#ell! ,a&e way to %ra$er/@ates total!ty o1 c!rcu3sta#ces. 1. / swor# state3e#t o1 a# a11!a#t t-at W-e -as cause to sus$ect a#d does bel!e&e t-atK l!Buor !lle,ally brou,-t !#to t-e )#!ted States !s located o# certa!# $re3!ses w!ll #ot doR to establ!s- $robable cause. "ll!#o!s &. @ates, 1*8F, 10F S.Ct. 2F1>, 2FF2, G62 ).S. 21F, 2F* (c!tat!o# o3!tted+. 2. / cla!3 t-at Sa11!a#ts -a&e rece!&ed rel!able !#1or3at!o# 1ro3 a cred!ble $erso# a#d bel!e&eR t-at dru,s are located !# a -o3e !s !#su11!c!e#t to s-ow $robable cause. /,u!lar &. .e4as, 1*6G, 8G S.Ct. 1 0*, F>8 ).S. 108, 12 '.=d.2d >2F. 2. "# Massac-usetts , t-e declarat!o# o1 r!,-ts reBu!res t-e -!,-er /,u!lar/S$!#ell! reBu!re3e#t !. /#d t-ere0s a statutory e4clus!o#ary rule F. Probable cause 1or arrest !s t-at -e co33!tted a cr!3e. Su$$orted by oat- or a11!r3at!o# ("s t-at t-e a11!da&!t $ract!ce today<+

2.

!. !!. F.

'y!#, o# t-ea11!da&!t: 7ra#5s &. %elaware =&e# !1 t-ere !s $robable cause, t-e warra#t !s #ot ,ood w!t-out oat- or a11!r3at!o# Part!cularly descr!b!#, t-e $erso#s/$laces/t-!#,s to be searc-ed or se!;ed

S$ec!al Proble3s o1 Co3$uter Searc-es

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 1*, 2012 11:16 /M

O# outl!#!#, re&!ew, !t does#0t a$$ear t-at t-!s actually e4!sts

:arra#tless arrest a#d searcMo#day, 2o&e3ber 1*, 2012 11:18 /M

CB 1G>-160, 166-1>* .-ere are d!11ere#t reaso#s w-y a warra#t 3!,-t be !ssued, a#d d!11ere#t outco3es 1or e4$ost re&!ew. 1. Arrests !# $ubl!c $laces are u#l!5e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t searc-es, !# t-at t-ere !s #o warra#t $re1ere#ce. So lo#, as t-ere !s $robable cause, t-e o11!cer does#0t #eed to see5 a warra#t be1ore arrest!#, t-e sus$ect, e&e# !1 t-ere was $le#ty o1 t!3e to ,et a warra#t. 2. Arrests in ho"es #eed warra#ts, a#d are $resu3$t!&ely u#reaso#able w!t-out t-e3, co#t!#,e#t o# t-e e4ce$t!o#s l!sted below. F. earches are $resu3$t!&ely u#reaso#able w!t-out a warra#t, e4ce$t u#der t-e co#d!t!o#s l!sted below. .-e Su$re3e Court l!5es searc- warra#ts a#d arrest warra#ts 1ar better t-a# lea&!#, t-!#,s to $ol!ce !# t-e -eat o1 t-e 3o3e#t. But t-e Court -as st!ll a$$ro&ed o1 certa!# warra#tless act!&!ty. "t usually does so 1or o#e o1 t-ree reaso#s: G. Pol!ce were act!#, !# e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces . .-e !#trus!o# was o# lesser 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !#terests 6. .-e Pol!ce were #ot !#&ol&ed !# a way t-at be1ore-t-e-1act Eud!c!al !#Bu!ry ca3e !#to $lay. /#ot-er l!st t-at see3s 3ore co3$re-e#s!&e, a#d ca3e o11 t-e !#ter#ets was t-!s: .-ere are a ser!es o1 c!rcu3sta#ces !# w-!c- warra#ts are #ot reBu!red. Co#se#t Searc-es Searc- !#c!de#t to arrest =4!,e#t C!rcu3sta#ces Searc- o1 /uto3ob!les Sto$-a#d-1r!s5 (.-e o11!cer sa1ety e4cuse+ Pla!# &!ew e4ce$t!o# a. .-e $la!# &!ew e4ce$t!o# -as t-ree reBu!re3e#ts: (7ro3 @ert#er0s dec!s!o# !# Ca#dy+ !. t-e o11!cer0s $rese#ce at t-e $o!#t o1 d!sco&ery was law1ul, !!. t-e o11!cer -ad a law1ul r!,-t o1 access to t-e obEect !tsel1, a#d !!!. t-e S W!#cr!3!#at!#, c-aracter Mo1 t-e !te3 se!;edN 3ust also be W!33ed!ately a$$are#t.

1. 2. F. G. . 6.

.-e #e4t sect!o# deals w!t- t-e 1ollow!#, !ssues: )#!ted States &. :atso# e4$la!#s w-y arrest w!t-out warra#t !s o5ay as lo#, as t-ere !s $robable cause. 2. O#ce so3eo#e !s ,ett!#, arrested, t-ere are certa!# searc-es t-at are allowed w-!c- are Htr!,,eredH by -!s arrest. )S &. Rob!#so# e4$resses t-at. O#ce t-at !s deter3!#ed, !t leads to Buest!o#s about w-o3 $ol!ce 3ay arrest. F. :-re# &. )#!ted States a#d /twater &. 'a,o 8!sta bas!cally say t-at $ol!ce -a&e carte bla#c-e to arrest $eo$le w!t-!# t-e bou#ds o1 t-e law, a#d t-e court w!ll #ot e&aluate t-e reaso#able#ess o1 t-e sto$ or arrest so lo#, as !t was aut-or!;ed by statute, e&e# !1 t-e de1e#da#t says t-at !t was a $rete4t 1or so3et-!#, else, or t-at !t was u#reaso#able. G. .e##essee &. @ar#er says t-at a# arrest ca# be u#reaso#able because !t was 3ade us!#, too 3uc- 1orce. "# t-at case, a# o11!cer s-oot!#, a# esca$!#, bur,lary sus$ect was dee3ed to be a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. 1.

)S &. :atso# ()S 1*>6+

Mo#day, October 1 , 2012 8: 6 /M

(/ccord!#, to t-e boo5, t-!s case !s to e4$la!# w-y a warra#t !s #ot reBu!red to 3a5e a# arrest.+ Rob!#so# addresses t-e warra#tless searc- o1 t-e arrestee. .-!s ,a&e r!se to :-re# a#d /twater, address!#, res$ect!&ely w-et-er a# arrest 3ade o# $robable cause ,rou#ds ca# st!ll be u#reaso#able based o# a# o11!cer0s ulter!or 3ot!&es, a#d w-et-er a# arrest 3ay be reaso#able because t-e o11e#der s-ould -a&e 3erely bee# !ssues a c!tat!o# a#d released. .e##essee &. @ar#er teac-es t-at a# arrest ca# be u#reaso#able because !t was 3ade us!#, too 3uc- 1orce. Bac2 to the (atson case: "t see3s t-at t-!s case !s #ot $art!cularly deta!led or co#tro&ers!al. /ll t-at -a$$e#ed was a $ol!ce o11!cer (actually a $ostal $ol!ce o11!cer+ ,ot a t!$ t-at so3eo#e would be brea5!#, t-e law by -a&!#, stole# cred!t cards a#d try!#, to tra#s1er t-e3. .-e o11!cer d!d#0t bot-er ,ett!#, a warra#t, -e Eust wa!ted at t-e $lace se&eral days later a#d w-e# t-e !#1or3a#t s!,#aled t-at t-e $er$etrator -ad stole# cred!t cards, t-e o11!cer arrested -!3. .-e arrestee cla!3ed t-at t-e o11!cer -ad bee# reBu!red to -a&e a warra#t because -e -ad $le#ty o1 t!3e to ,et o#e a#d t-ere were #o e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces barr!#, -!3 1ro3 ,ett!#, o#e. .-e o11!cer sa!d !t d!d#0t 3atter - t-e statute allowed -!3 to arrest o# $robable cause a#d -e -ad $robable cause. 8erd!ct: @u!lty. R!le: Aust because o#e -as t!3e to ,et a warra#t 1or arrest, does #ot 3ea#t t-at o#e !s reBu!red to ,et o#e. "t !s su11!c!e#t t-at t-ere be $robable cause. (.-!s does #ot a$$ly to searc-es.+ Cold!#,: "# t-!s case, s!#ce t-ere was clear $robable cause t-e arrest was allowed. Co#curre#ce: Powell: .-e rul!#, !s a#o3alous !# t-e se#se t-at t-ere0s a lo#, sta#d!#, rule t-at searches w!t-out warra#ts are u#reaso#able e4ce$t !# &ery s$ec!1!c c!rcu3sta#ces. /#d yet, -ere we are, say!#, t-at t-e sa3e does #ot -old true 1or arrests, e&e# t-ou,- t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t 3e#t!o#s t-e3 eBually. Cowe&er, t-e H5#owled,eH cedes to -!story, a#d

warra#tless 1elo#y arrests are allowed. .-e doctr!#e -as lo#, allowed warra#tless arrests e&e# w-ere !t d!d#0t allow searc-es w!t-out warra#ts. 7urt-er3ore, 1orc!#, $ol!ce to ,et warra#ts would -a3$er t-e!r ab!l!ty to e#1orce t-e law, es$ec!ally !# cases w-ere t-ey -ad d!11!culty ,ett!#, a warra#t a#d later arrested t-e ,uy based o# e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces - t-ey would -a&e to worry t-at t-e c!rcu3sta#ces w!ll be called !#to Buest!o#. "1 t-ey ,et a warra#t early !# case o1 t-e #eed to arrest later, t-ey w!ll be 1orced to worry t-at t-e warra#t w!ll be 1ou#d stale at t-e t!3e o1 t-e arrest. %!sse#t: Mars-all: 7!rst o1 all, t-!s was a case o1 e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces, s!#ce t-e o11!cer -ad t-e ,uy -old!#, stole# cred!t cards !# 1ro#t o1 -!3 a#d 5#ew t-at -e was co33!tt!#, a cr!3e at t-e 3o3e#t. .-ere1ore, t-e court does #ot #eed to dec!de t-e !ssue o1 warra#tless arrest at all. Cowe&er, o# t-e !ssue o1 warra#tless arrest, " d!sa,ree. .-e court bases !ts -old!#, o# t-e co33o# law rules, but co33o# law !s co3$letely d!11ere#t t-a# t-e curre#t doctr!#e. o Co33o# law 1elo#!es were ser!ous cr!3es, #ow e&ery l!ttle t-!#, !s a 1elo#y. /lso, t-e Co#st!tut!o# d!ctates w-at ca# a#d ca#0t be do#e, a#d lo#,sta#d!#, $ract!ce does#0t o&errule t-e Co#st!tut!o#. .-e Court says t-at t-e lesse#!#, o1 $eo$le0s r!,-ts !s #ecessary so as #ot to burde# law e#1orce3e#t. But t-at !s #ot true. o "t see3s t-at t-!s ,oes bac5 to t-e!r 3!su#dersta#d!#, o1 t-e !#sta#t case. .-ere :/S e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces !# t-!s case. 2obody s-ould su,,est t-at $ol!ce -a&e to ,et a warra#t t-e seco#d $robable cause e4!sts, because cases suc- as t-!s would co#t!#ue to 1!t !#to t-e e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces case. 4ote6 *t seems that &arshall is right, and the issue really arises from the fact that the %ourt chose a poor case to rule on. *f they wanted to institute a rule that an arrest with probable cause needs a warrant, they should have found one where there was no probable cause the second time around 5 e.g. there$s probable cause but the police get no warrant, and then later, they arrest the guy with no further probable cause, on a whim. Since they chose a case li e this, they structured their analysis around a case that didn$t support their position. 34ote6 2his might be an incetivi'ation issue 5 while the guy did have probable cause, this will li ely give rise to police figuring they$d be better off claiming probable cause rather than trying and failing to get a warrant, figuring that they can play around with the rules of exclusion later.#

)S &. Rob!#so# ()S 1*>F+

Mo#day, October 1 , 2012 *:2> /M

"1 a# o11!cer !s 3a5!#, a# arrest w!t-out a warra#t, ca# -e also searc- t-e $erso# w-o3 -e !s arrest!#,< .-!s !s a class!c e4a3$le o1 t-e searc- !#c!de#t to arrest. Pol!ce w-o are 3a5!#, a# arrest ca# auto3at!cally searc- t-e deta!#ee, s!3$ly o# t-e bas!s o1 t-e arrest. .-!s leads to !#terest!#, !#ce#t!&es, s!#ce $ol!ce #eed a warra#t to searc- but #ot to arrest. So !1 t-ey wa#t to searc-, a#d bel!e&e t-ey -a&e $robable cause, e&e# !1 !t0s 1or a 3!#or &!olat!o#, t-ey ca# arrest, a#d t-e# s#owball t-e searc- o#to t-e ,uy. &acts: O11!cer Ae#5s arrested Rob!#so# because -e 1ou#d -!3 dr!&!#, a#d -e -ad cause to bel!e&e t-at Rob!#so# -ad -ad -!s l!ce#se sus$e#ded. Because Rob!#so# was arrested, t-e o11!cer d!d a $at dow# searc-. Ce 1ou#d a lu3$y obEect !# a coat $oc5et, w-!c- Rob!#so# t-e# too5 out. "t was a c!,arette $ac5a,e, but !t was clear t-at w-at was !#s!de was#0t c!,arettes. .-e

o11!cer o$e#ed t-e $ac5a,e a#d !t tur#ed out to be -ero!#. Rob!#so# was t-e# c-ar,ed w!tCero!# $ossess!o# a#d co#&!cted. %!scuss!o#: "t was well settled t-at searc-es !#c!de#t to a law1ul arrest are e4ce$t!o#s to t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t warra#t reBu!re3e#t. .-!s -as -ad two $arts: a searc- o1 the person a#d a searc- o1 t-e area #ear t-e $erso#. Court #otes t-at searc- o1 t-e $erso# !s co3$letely u#c-alle#,ed s!#ce !ts !#ce$t!o#. Cowe&er, al3ost all t-e d!scuss!o# !# $re&!ous cases was !# d!cta. .-ere1ore, t-e Court !s 1ree to u$-old t-e 7ourt- C!rcu!t0s dec!s!o# t-at t-e searc- !s -eld to so3e restr!ct!o#. Cowe&er, t-e Court does #ot t-!#5 !t would be a ,ood !dea to l!3!t t-e searc- to t-ose o1 a H.erryH sto$ (de1!#e !# .erry &. O-!o, w-ere t-ere !s reaso#able sus$!c!o# rat-er t-a# $robable cause, a#d w-!le $ol!ce are allowed to !#&est!,ate a#d ta5e l!3!ted ste$s to be sa1e dur!#, t-at !#&est!,at!o# o1 t-e sus$ect, t-e $ara3eters are #arrow.+ e,en tho!gh !t was Eust a# arrest 1or a $ri,ing ,iolation. See3s t-at de1e#da#ts t-eory was t-at s!#ce -e -ad #ot do#e a#yt-!#, 1or t-e $ol!ce3a# to 1ear da#,er, t-e o11!cer could#0t searc- -!3 o11 a 3ere tra11!c sto$, but t-e court d!d#0t buy !t, say!#, t-at t-e br!,-t l!#e rule !s t-at o11!cers 3a5!#, a# arrest ca# searc-, w!t-out ru##!#, dow# a c-ec5l!st. Aer$ict: @u!lty (e&!de#ce #ot e4cluded+ R!le: /# o11!cer 3a5!#, a# arrest ca# searc- t-e $erso# w-o3 -e arrested, w!t-out re,ard 1or w-et-er t-e $erso# $rese#ts a#y 1urt-er $robable cause, a#d w!t-out a warra#t. ("t see3s too t-at t-!s !s $retty co3$re-e#s!&e - t-e $ac5et was clearly #ot a wea$o# a#d yet !t was allowed to be o$e#ed a#d searc-ed+. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, t-at0s w-at -a$$e#ed - !t was a tra11!c sto$ a#d dr!&!#, arrest, t-ere was #o 1urt-er sus$!c!o#, a#d yet t-e o11!cer was allowed to searc- a#d t-e result!#, e&!de#ce was #ot e4cluded. %!sse#t: Mars-all: %"SS=2.: (Mars-all, A.+ .-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t reBu!res a case37+3case assess"ent o1 t-e reaso#able#ess o1 a searc- !#c!de#t to arrest. :-!le t-e o11!cer -ere was !#structed to ta5e Rob!#so# (%+ !#to custody, 3a#y tra11!c &!olat!o#s are $u#!s-able o#ly by c!tat!o#. Iet, u#der t-e CourtKs $er se rule a# o11!cer -as t-e aut-or!ty to searc- t-e !#d!&!dual. Pote#t!ally, t-e $ol!ce, #ot ca$able o1 establ!s-!#, $robable cause 1or a searc- warra#t, 3ay use a traffic stop as prete:t to co#duct a searc-. %eter3!#!#, w-et-er a searc- a#d se!;ure are u#reaso#able reBu!res a court to co#s!der w-et-er t-e o11!cerKs act!o# was =!stifie$ at its inception a#d w-et-er t-e sco$e o1 t-e searc- was reaso#ably related to t-e c!rcu3sta#ces t-at Eust!1!ed !t. Cere, t-e o11!cer was Eust!1!ed !# co#duct!#, a l!3!ted $atdow# u$o# arrest to e#sure t-at Rob!#so# (%+ was #ot carry!#, a wea$o#. Cowe&er, t-e o11!cer -ad #o reaso# to bel!e&e t-at t-e obEect !# Rob!#so#Ks (%+ $oc5et was a wea$o#. Because t-e searc- d!d #ot $roduce a wea$o# a#d could #ot -a&e $roduced a#y e&!de#ce related to t-e tra11!c &!olat!o# c-ar,ed, t-e sco$e o1 t-e searc- e4ceeded t-e !#!t!al Eust!1!cat!o# a#d was u#reaso#able. /#d e&e# assu3!#, t-e o11!cer was Eust!1!ed !# searc-!#, t-e $erso# a#d re3o&!#, t-e $ac5a,e 1ro3 -!s $oc5et to e#sure -!s sa1ety, t-e searc- o1 t-e $ac5a,e !tsel1 ra!ses d!11ere#t co#cer#s, 1or t-e searce4$a#ds beyo#d t-e $erso# to -!s $a$ers a#d e11ects. .-e $ac5a,e could #ot -a&e co#ta!#ed a wea$o#. =&e# !1 !t d!d, Rob!#so# (%+ could #ot -a&e used !t o#ce t-e $ac5a,e was !# t-e o11!cerKs -a#ds.

)S &. :-re# 1**6

.uesday, October 16, 2012

1:1* PM

&acts: Pet!t!o#er/%e1e#da#t: :-re# a#d -!s $art#er6 t-e de1e#da#ts were sto$$ed at a sto$ s!,# !# a -!,- dru, area. 8!ce sBuad o11!cers, w-o were wear!#, $la!# clot-es a#d dr!&!#, u#3ar5ed car, #ot!ced t-e de1e#da#tsK S)8 sto$$ed at t-e sto$ s!,# 1or about 20 seco#ds. /1ter t-e o11!cers 3ade a u-tur#, t-e de1e#da#ts 3ade a r!,-t tur# w!t-out ,!&!#, a s!,#al a#d t-e# t-ey dro&e o11 at a 1ast s$eed. .-e o11!cers cau,-t u$ to t-e de1e#da#ts a#d $ulled t-e3 o&er. /s o#e o1 t-e o11!cer wal5ed to t-e S)8, -e s$otted two lar,e $last!c ba,s 1ull o1 dru,s. .-e de1e#da#ts were co#&!cted 1or t-e $ossess!o# o1 dru,s. %e1e#da#ts a$$ealed a#d ar,ue t-at t-e o11!cers sto$$ed t-e3 #ot 1or t-e tra11!c &!olat!o#, but to co#duct !#&est!,at!o# 1or a cr!3e t-e o11!cers -ad #o $robable cause 1or, a#d t-at &!olates t-e de1e#da#tsK Gt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts. .-e de1e#da#ts also ar,ue t-at s!#ce t-ey were blac5, t-e o11!cers used t-e 3!#or tra11!c &!olat!o# to &er!1y t-e!r stereoty$!cal sus$!c!o#s. .-e de1e#da#ts 1urt-er as5 t-e court to a$$ly t-e test o1 w-et-er a reaso#able o11!cer would -a&e sto$$ed t-e de1e#da#ts 1or t-e 3!#or tra11!c &!olat!o# t-ey were $ulled o&er 1or. "ssue: "s t-e te3$orary dete#t!o# o1 a 3otor!st w-o t-e $ol!ce -a&e $robable cause to bel!e&e -as co33!tted a c!&!l tra11!c &!olat!o# !#co#s!ste#t w!t- t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#tKs $ro-!b!t!o# a,a!#st u#reaso#able se!;ures, !1 a reaso#able o11!cer would #ot -a&e sto$$ed t-e3 1or t-at cr!3e< R!le: /s lo#, as t-ere !s le,al aut-or!ty to 3a5e t-e arrest, t-ere are #o 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !3$l!cat!o#s !# 3a5!#, t-e arrest, e&e# !1 a# arrest 1or t-!s o11e#se !s o# so3e le&el u#reaso#able. 9ol$ing: .-e de1e#da#ts !# t-!s case -ad ad3!ttedly &!olated tra11!c laws. So lo#, as t-ere !s u#d!s$uted aut-or!ty to arrest t-e sus$ect 1or t-e cr!3e t-at -e co33!tted, t-e Court w!ll #ot e&aluate t-e o11!cer0s !#te#t u#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t to 3a5e sure t-e sto$ was reaso#able a#d #ot a $rete4t 1or so3et-!#, else. 'e,al Reaso#!#,: .-e court ruled t-at !t !s !3$ract!cal to a$$ly t-e reaso#able o11!cer test !# t-e curre#t s!tuat!o#. .-e de1e#da#ts &!olated a tra11!c rule a#d t-e o11!cers -ad $robable cause to bel!e&e t-at t-e &!olat!o# too5 $lace a#d t-at !s w-y t-ey $ulled t-e de1e#da#ts o&er. .-e court 1urt-er ruled t-at a bala#c!#, test #eed #ot to be a$$l!ed -ere because t-at o11!cers d!d #ot co#duct t-e sto$ a#d t-e searc- S!# a# e4traord!#ary 3a##er, u#usually -ar31ul to a# !#d!&!dualKs $r!&acy or e&e# $-ys!cal !#terestsPR .-e court also stated t-at t-e de1e#da#tsK cla!3s o1 be!#, d!scr!3!#ated a,a!#st due to t-e!r race s-ould be co#s!dered u#der t-e =Bual Protect!o# Clause a#d #ot t-e Gt- /3e#d3e#t. SSubEect!&e !#te#t!o#s $lay #o role !# ord!#ary, $robable-cause 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t a#alys!s.R So t-e co#&!ct!o# was a11!r3ed. Notes: "# t-!s case, de1e#da#ts -ad a so3ew-at stro#,er case because t-e o11!cers were !# $la!# clot-es !# a# u#3ar5ed car, a#d $ol!ce $ol!cy was to a&o!d ,ett!#, !#&ol&ed !# 3!#or tra11!c sto$s u#der t-ose c!rcu3sta#ces. .-ey t-ere1ore -ad a so3ew-at 3ore $laus!ble cla!3 t-at t-e tra11!c sto$ was $rete4t. Cowe&er, !t ult!3ately was #ot e#ou,-. .-e /twater case !s a &ery s!3!lar rule, but a$$l!ed sl!,-tly d!11ere#tly. "# t-at case, t-e Buest!o# was w-et-er !t was u#reaso#able to arrest w-e# a c!tat!o# would -a&e su11!ced a#d would #or3ally -a&e bee# !ssued. "# t-at case t-e &erd!ct was t-e sa3e, t-ou,- - as lo#, as t-ere0s $robable cause o1 a 3!#or cr!3e, t-e o11!cer0s 3ot!&at!o# ca#0t be Buest!o#ed.

/twater &. 'a,o 8!sta

Mo#day, October 1 , 2012 10: 6 /M Facts of the Case

>nder 7exas law, it is a misdemeanor, punishable only by a fine, either for a front5seat passenger in a car equipped with safety belts not to wear one or for the driver to fail to secure any small child riding in front. %n (994, Gail Atwater was driving her truc! in +ago Oista. =either of Atwater&s children, who were sitting in the front seat, was wearing seatbelts. +ago Oista policeman 2art 7ure! observed the violations and pulled Atwater over. >ltimately, Atwater was handcuffed, placed in ail, and released on bond. Atwater then filed suit alleging that 7ure!&s actions had violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seiAure. %n granting the city summary udgment, the *istrict 'ourt ruled the claim meritless. %n affirming, the en banc 'ourt of Appeals held that the arrest was not unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes because no one disputed that 7ure! had probable cause to arrest Atwater, and there was no evidence the arrest was conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to Atwater&s privacy interests. Question *oes the Fourth Amendment, either by incorporating common5law restrictions on misdemeanor arrests or otherwise, limit a police officer&s authority to arrest without warrant for minor criminal offenses1 Rule: 7he Fourth Amendment does not allow reasonableness review in cases where the defendant committed the offense, even if it was a very minor offense. "%s this essentially the same holding as Whren1 %n Whren the issue was exclusion, over here it was a (9@# suit against the officer.$ Legal provision: Amendment :D Fourth Amendment =o. %n a /5: opinion delivered by Bustice *avid <. 0outer, the 'ourt held that the Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine. "%f an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender," wrote Bustice 0outer for the 'ourt. Bustice 0andra *ay ;&'onnor&s dissenting opinion argued that the 'ourt&s decision "neglects the Fourth Amendment&s express command in the name of administrative ease" and thus "cloa!s the pointless indignity that Gail Atwater suffered with the mantle of reasonableness." Notes: 6rof says that there was also a law that allowed police to arrest violators at their discretion, which is what he did in this case. 7he basis for Atwater&s claim was that a citation should have sufficed. 0he argued that in cases where the citation presented no danger and could not result in ail time, it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement to bring her into custody. 2ut the 'ourt instead favored a bright line rule. <owever, 7ennessee v. Garner says that the method of arrest is still sub ect to reasonableness review. "%n that case police seiAed a burglar by shooting him dead.$

.e##essee &. @ar#er (1*8 +

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 20, 2012 *:G PM

"s t-ere a l!3!t to t-e reaso#able#ess o1 t-e se!;ure based o# t-e way t-at !t0s $er1or3ed< :ell, !1 t-e sus$ect e#ds u$ dead, t-e# $oss!bly !t0s a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. &acts: /t about 10:G $.3. o# October F, 1*>G, Me3$-!s Pol!ce %e$art3e#t O11!cers 'esl!e :r!,-t a#d =lto# Cy3o# were d!s$atc-ed to a#swer a bur,lary call. #e4t door. O11!cer Cy3o# we#t be-!#d t-e -ouse as -!s $art#er rad!oed bac5 to t-e stat!o#. Cy3o# w!t#essed so3eo#e ru##!#, across t-e yard. .-e 1lee!#, sus$ect, =dward @ar#er, sto$$ed at a 6-1oot--!,- (1.8 3+ c-a!#-l!#5 1e#ce. )s!#, -!s 1las-l!,-t, Cy3o# could see @ar#er0s 1ace a#d -a#ds, a#d was reaso#ably sure t-at @ar#er was u#ar3ed. .-e $ol!ce test!1!ed t-at t-ey bel!e&ed @ar#er was 1> or 18 years old6 @ar#er was !# 1act 1 years old. /1ter Cy3o# ordered @ar#er to -alt, @ar#er be,a# to cl!3b t-e 1e#ce. Bel!e&!#, t-at @ar#er would certa!#ly 1lee !1 -e 3ade !t o&er t-e 1e#ce, Cy3o# s-ot -!3. .-e bullet struc5 @ar#er !# t-e bac5 o1 t-e -ead, a#d -e d!ed s-ortly a1ter a# a3bula#ce too5 -!3 to a #earby -os$!tal. .e# dollars a#d a $urse ta5e# 1ro3 t-e bur,lar!;ed -ouse were 1ou#d o# -!s body.

Cy3o# acted accord!#, to a .e##essee state statute a#d o11!c!al Me3$-!s Pol!ce %e$art3e#t $ol!cy aut-or!;!#, deadly 1orce a,a!#st a 1lee!#, sus$ect. .-e statute $ro&!ded t-at H!1, a1ter #ot!ce o1 t-e !#te#t!o# to arrest t-e de1e#da#t, -e e!t-er 1lee or 1orc!bly res!st, t-e o11!cer 3ay use all t-e #ecessary 3ea#s to e11ect t-e arrest.H @ar#er0s 1at-er t-e# brou,-t su!t !# t-e )#!ted States %!str!ct Court 1or t-e :ester# %!str!ct o1 .e##essee u#der t-e C!&!l R!,-ts /ct o1 18>1, G2 ).S.C. Y 1*8F, #a3!#, t-e C!ty o1 Me3$-!s, !ts 3ayor, t-e Me3$-!s Pol!ce %e$art3e#t, !ts d!rector, a#d O11!cer Cy3o# as de1e#da#ts. .-e %!str!ct Court 1ou#d t-e statute, a#d Cy3o#0s act!o#s, to be co#st!tut!o#al. O# a$$eal, t-e )#!ted States Court o1 /$$eals 1or t-e S!4t- C!rcu!t re&ersed. .-e Court o1 /$$eals -eld t-at t-e 5!ll!#, o1 a 1lee!#, sus$ect !s a Hse!;ureH 1or t-e $ur$oses o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, a#d !s t-ere1ore co#st!tut!o#al o#ly w-e# !t !s reaso#able. .-e court t-e# 1ou#d t-at based o# t-e 1acts !# t-!s case, t-e .e##essee statute 1a!led to $ro$erly l!3!t t-e use o1 deadly 1orce by re1ere#ce to t-e ser!ous#ess o1 t-e 1elo#y. Luest!o#: "s t-e se!;ure o1 a 1lee!#, sus$ect by s-oot!#, a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t< R!le: ?!ll!#, so3eo#e !s a se!;ure. "t !s o#ly allowed !1 !t !s reaso#able u#der t-e c!rcu3sta#ces. C!rcu3sta#ces are deter3!#ed by we!,-!#, t-e !3$orta#ce o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts !# Buest!o# a,a!#st t-e ,o&er#3e#t0s !#terest t-at Eust!1y t-e !#trus!o#. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, t-e !#1r!#,e3e#t o# 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !#terests !s e4tre3e, a#d t-e ,o&er#3e#t0s !#terest relat!&ely s3all. Notes: .-e Court d!scussed t-e co33o# law doctr!#e t-at deadly 1orce was allowed !# order to $re&e#t 1elo#s 1ro3 esca$!#,. But t-e court also #oted t-at H1elo#yH !# t-ose days !#cluded o#ly ca$!tal cr!3es, $retty 3uc-. Aust!ce :-!te wrote 1or t-e 3aEor!ty, 1!rst a,ree!#, w!t- t-e S!4t- C!rcu!t0s deter3!#at!o# t-at a$$re-e#s!o# by use o1 deadly 1orce !s a se!;ure, t-e# 1ra3!#, t-e le,al !ssue as w-et-er t-e total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces Eust!1!ed t-e se!;ure. "# order to deter3!#e t-e co#st!tut!o#al!ty o1 a se!;ure, :-!te reaso#ed, t-e court 3ust we!,- t-e #ature o1 t-e !#trus!o# o1 t-e sus$ect0s 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts a,a!#st t-e ,o&er#3e#t !#terests w-!c- Eust!1!ed t-e !#trus!o#. .-e use o1 deadly 1orce a,a!#st a subEect !s t-e 3ost !#trus!&e ty$e o1 se!;ure $oss!ble, because !t de$r!&es t-e sus$ect o1 -!s l!1e, a#d :-!te -eld t-at t-e state 1a!led to $rese#t e&!de#ce t-at !ts !#terest !# s-oot!#, u#ar3ed 1lee!#, sus$ects outwe!,-s t-e sus$ect0s !#terest !# -!s ow# sur&!&al. :-!te e4a3!#ed t-e co33o# law rule o# t-!s 3atter a#d !ts rat!o#ale. /t co33o# law, !t was $er1ectly le,!t!3ate 1or law e#1orce3e#t $erso##el to 5!ll a 1lee!#, 1elo#. /t t-e t!3e w-e# t-!s rule was 1!rst created, 3ost 1elo#!es were $u#!s-able by deat-, a#d t-e d!11ere#ce betwee# 1elo#!es a#d 3!sde3ea#ors was relat!&ely lar,e. "# 3oder# /3er!ca# law, #e!t-er o1 t-ese c!rcu3sta#ces e4!sted. 7urt-er3ore, t-e co33o# law rule de&elo$ed at a t!3e be1ore 3oder# 1!rear3s, a#d 3ost law e#1orce3e#t o11!cers d!d #ot carry -a#d,u#s. .-e co#te4t !# w-!c- t-e co33o# law rule e&ol&ed was #o lo#,er &al!d. :-!te 1urt-er #oted t-at 3a#y Eur!sd!ct!o#s -ad already do#e away w!t- !t, a#d t-at curre#t researc- -as s-ow# t-at t-e use o1 deadly 1orce co#tr!butes l!ttle to t-e deterre#ce o1 cr!3e or t-e $rotect!o# o1 t-e $ubl!c. O# t-e bas!s o1 t-e 1acts 1ou#d by t-e d!str!ct court, Cy3o# -ad #o reaso# to bel!e&e t-at @ar#er was ar3ed or da#,erous. :-!te ordered t-e case to be re3a#ded 1or deter3!#at!o# o1 t-e l!ab!l!ty o1 t-e ot-er de1e#da#ts.

Med!tN%!sse#t "# -er d!sse#t, Aust!ce O0Co##or -!,-l!,-ted t-e 1act t-at $ol!ce o11!cers 3ust o1te# 3a5e sw!1t, s$ur-o1-t-e-3o3e#t dec!s!o#s w-!le o# $atrol, a#d t-at t-e 3aEor!ty d!d #ot $ro$erly co#s!der t-!s as$ect o1 t-e case. Moreo&er, bur,lary !s a ser!ous cr!3e w-!c- o1te# leads to ra$e a#d 3urder, a#d t-e .e##essee statute re$rese#ts t-e state le,!slature0s Eud,3e#t t-at suc- cr!3es 3ay reBu!re t-e use o1 deadly 1orce !# order to $rotect t-e $ubl!c a,a!#st t-ose w-o co33!t suc- cr!3es. S-e also d!sa,reed t-at a sus$ect0s !#terest !# -!s ow# l!1e #ecessar!ly e4te#ds to t-e r!,-t to 1lee 1ro3 t-e sce#e o1 a cr!3e. .-e sus$ect bel!e&ed -e was !# !33!#e#t da#,er a#d t-ere1ore 1led t-e sce#e.

Rose#bau3 &. :as-oe (2011 *t- C!rcu!t+

:ed#esday, October 0F, 2012 11: /M

Rose#bau3 was sell!#, t!c5ets outs!de a state 1a!r. Ce -ad wo# t-e t!c5ets 1ro3 a rad!o stat!o#. Ce was wear!#, a .-S-!rt w!t- t-e rad!o stat!o#0s lo,o as -e stood a#d sold t-e t!c5ets. .wo o1 -!s c-!ldre#, a,es 8 a#d G, were sta#d!#, w!t- -!3 as -e sold t-e t!c5ets. Ce was arrested a#d -!s c-!ldre# were escorted to t-e!r 3ot-er w-o was #earby. :-!le t-ey were wal5!#,, t-e o11!cer told t-e c-!ldre# t-at t-e!r 1at-er was brea5!#, t-e law a#d -e would ,o to Ea!l because w-at -e d!d was wro#,. )lt!3ately, t-at was wro#,, s!#ce -e was#0t do!#, a#yt-!#, wro#, a#d w-at c-ar,es t-ere were were dro$$ed. Ce sued 1or &!olat!o# o1 -!s 7ourt--a#d-7ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#t r!,-ts, a#d 1or &!olat!#, -!s r!,-t to H1a3!ly !#te,r!tyH 1ou#d !# t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t. .-e %!str!ct Court 1ou#d t-at t-e o11!cers -ad Bual!1!ed !33u#!ty s!#ce t-ere was a law, w-!c$ro-!b!ted Hcollect!#, 1or be#e1!t w!t-out aut-or!tyH was a3b!,uous a#d could be !#ter$reted to 3ea# t-at w-at Rose#bau3 -ad bee# do!#, was wro#,. .-e court t-e# de#!ed t-e state cla!3s, s!#ce t-e 1ederal cla!3s were #ot ,o!#, to wor5. .-e a$$eals court loo5ed a,a!# at t-e laws u#der w-!c- Rose#bau3 -ad bee# arrested. .-e court #oted t-at Hs!,#!1!ca#tlyH t-e law t-at -ad bee# ra!sed as t-e a3b!,uous o#e -ad #ot bee# 5#ow# to t-e o11!cer at t-e t!3e o1 t-e arrest, a#d !# 1act, accord!#, to Rose#bau3, -ad bee# u#co&ered two years later, dur!#, t-e act!o# 1or -!s c!&!l r!,-ts cla!3s. Rose#bau3 -ad bee# boo5ed o# 1elo#y c-ar,es 1or abuse, #e,lect, or e#da#,er3e#t o1 a c-!ld a#d 1or obta!#!#, 3o#ey by 1alse $rete#ses, as well as o# a 3!sde3ea#or c-ar,e 1or obta!#!#, 3o#ey u#der 1alse $rete#ses. Ce was released o# ba!l t-e 1ollow!#, day. .-e :as-oe Cou#ty %!str!ct /ttor#ey0s O11!ce would later c-ar,e Rose#bau3 o#ly w!t- o#e 1elo#y cou#t o1 obta!#!#, 3o#ey by 1alse $rete#ses a#d t-e# dro$ t-e c-ar,e. Rose#bau3 sou,-t rel!e1 o# #!#e cla!3s. (1+ 7alse /rrest, )#law1ul %ete#t!o#, 7alse "3$r!so#3e#t a#d Mal!c!ous Prosecut!o# Pursua#t to t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t a#d G2 ).S.C. Y 1*8F6 (2+ 8!olat!o# o1 Substa#t!&e a#d Procedural %ue Process R!,-t to 7a3!l!al "#te,r!ty, a#d o1 '!berty "#terest to Rear C-!ldre# :!t-out )#reaso#able @o&er#3e#t "#ter1ere#ce6 (F+ '!bel (based o# a /u,ust 26, 2006, $ress release reBuest!#, !#1or3at!o# about Rose#bau3 a#d t-e sale o1 t-e t!c5ets+6 (G+ '!bel (based o# a /u,ust F1, 2006 $ress release+6 ( + /ssault6

( + Battery6 (6+ "#te#t!o#al "#1l!ct!o# o1 =3ot!o#al %!stress6 (>+ 2e,l!,e#t "#1l!ct!o# o1 =3ot!o#al %!stress6 (8+ 7alse /rrest6 a#d (*+ 7alse "3$r!so#3e#t. .-e court we!,-ed t-e two 3aEor co#st!tut!o#al cla!3s - 1alse arrest a#d 1a3!ly !#te,r!ty. .-e Buest!o# was w-et-er t-e o11!cer 3et t-e reBu!re3e#ts 1or Bual!1!ed !33u#!ty - :-et-er -e !# 1act &!olated a co#st!tut!o#al r!,-t, a#d w-et-er t-at r!,-t was clearly establ!s-ed at t-e t!3e t-at t-e &!olat!o# occurred. It see"s sill+ to parse an$ s!""ari'e this case, 7!t the here is %hat see"s to 7e the RU*0: "# ter3s o1 !nla%f!l arrest, t-e 6!alifie$ i""!nit+ test ca# be e4$ressed a l!ttle 3ore s$ec!1!cally6 o :as t-ere a# $robable cause 1or t-e arrest (or was !t !# 1act u#law1ul+, a#d (prof sa+s that the "ain point of this case is to sho% that if thereBs pro7a7le ca!se for the arrest there is no &o!rth A"en$"ent ,iolation. 2ot sure w-y s-e c-ose t-!s case, s!#ce we -a&e ot-ers a#d t-!s !s !# a# odd set o1 c!rcu3sta#ces. Maybe to s-ow t-at e&e# !1 t-ey ca3e u$ w!t- t-e $robable cause afterward/# o :as t-ere a reaso#ably ar,uable $rese#ce o1 $robable cause, or was !t clearly a# u#law1ul arrest< .-e d!str!ct court -ad a,reed t-at t-ere was !# 1act #o $robable cause 1or t-e arrest, but ,ra#ted su33ary Eud,3e#t o# ,rou#ds t-at t-e o11!cer -ad reaso#ably t-ou,-t t-at t-ere was $robable cause because -e 3!s!#ter$reted t-e law re,ard!#, obta!#!#, 3o#ey by 1alse $rete#ses. o /$$eals court ruled t-at s!#ce -e -ad #ot de1rauded a#ybody, -e -ad #ot obta!#ed a#y 3o#ey by 1alse $rete#ses. %!str!ct Court 1ou#d t-at Rose#bau3 -ad #ot &!olated t-e law a,a!#st obta!#!#, 3o#ey 1or t-e be#e1!t o1 a#ot-er s!3$ly because -e0d bee# wear!#, a ?ODD t-s-!rt. .-e law was !#te#ded to $rotect c-ar!t!es, by $u#!s-!#, t-ose w-o cla!3ed to be ra!s!#, 3o#ey 1or t-e3, w-o !# 1act were#0t. But Rose#bau3 d!d#0t cla!3 to be act!#, 1or ?ODD, #or, !1 -e -ad bee#, would -e -a&e bee# &!olat!#, t-e statute. Re,ard!#, bot- o1 t-e abo&e laws, t-e d!str!ct court ,ra#ted Bual!1!ed !33u#!ty because t-ey t-ou,-t t-at t-e later d!sco&ered H1alsely obta!#!#, 3o#ey 1or t-e be#e1!t o1 a#ot-erH was $oss!bly !#ter$reted to 3a5e Rose#bau30s co#duct u#law1ul. .-e /$$eals Court ruled t-at t-at law could #ot $oss!bly 3ea# t-at, a#d t-ere1ore, t-e o11!cer was l!able. o /$$eals court also $o!#ted out t-at t-!s was #ot a case !# w-!c- t-e co#tours o1 t-e co#st!tut!o#al r!,-t were a3b!,uous. (2ote: "t0s #ot clear 1ro3 t-e dec!s!o# e4actly w-ere t-e court 1eels t-e Bual!1!ed !33u#!ty we#t. /re t-ey s!3$ly d!sa,ree!#, w!t- t-e d!str!ct court t-at t-e law could be so !#ter$reted< /re t-ey say!#, t-at s!#ce at t-e t!3e t-at Rose#bau3 was arrested, t-e arrest!#, o11!cer d!d#0t e&e# 5#ow o1 t-e law, !t could#0t be ,rou#ds 1or Bual!1!ed !33u#!ty< /re t-ey rely!#, o# so3e co3b!#at!o# o1 t-e two<+

Pre3!ses a#d Cars - searc- a#d se!;ure

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 20, 2012 10:18 PM

2ote: t-ere0s a case t-at0s #ot !# t-e syllabus called ?#owles &. "owa, !# w-!c- t-e Court ruled t-at $ol!ce could #ot searc- a car !#c!de#t to a 3ere tra11!c t!c5et, e&e# t-ou,- t-ey -ad t-e r!,-t u#der t-e law to arrest t-e dr!&er 1or t-e &!olat!o#. .-e $asse#,er co3$art3e#t o1 a car 3ay be searc-ed !#c!de#t to arrest: Belto# case, #ot !# t-e syllabus, but c!ted !# 3a#y o1 t-e cases we read.

Payto# &. 2ew Ior5 (1*80+

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 20, 2012 10:1* PM

Ca# $ol!ce arrest so3eo#e !# -!s -o3e w!t-out a warra#t, a#d t-e# searc- t-e -o3e !#c!de#t to arrest< &acts of the Case 2ew Ior5 C!ty $ol!ce sus$ected .-eodore Payto# o1 3urder!#, a ,as stat!o# 3a#a,er. .-e $ol!ce 1orc!bly e#tered Payto#0s -o3e t-!#5!#, -e was t-ere (-e was #ot+ a#d 1ou#d e&!de#ce co##ect!#, Payto# to t-e cr!3e, w-!c- was !#troduced at Payto#0s tr!al. .-e $ol!ce lac5ed a# arrest warra#t w-e# t-ey e#tered -!s -o3e. Cowe&er, t-ey acted u#der a 2ew Ior5 law allow!#, $ol!ce to e#ter a $r!&ate res!de#ce to 3a5e a 1elo#y arrest w!t-out a warra#t. /t tr!al, Payto# u#success1ully sou,-t to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce as t-e 1ru!t o1 a# !lle,al searc-. State courts u$-eld. "# t-e co3$a#!o# case, &!ct!3s !de#t!1!ed Ob!e R!dd!c5 !# Au#e 1*>F 1or robber!es !# 1*>1. Pol!ce lear#ed o1 -!s w-ereabouts !# 1*>G. :!t-out a warra#t, t-ey 5#oc5ed o# -!s door, e#tered -!s res!de#ce a#d arrested -!3. / searc- 1or wea$o#s re&ealed !lle,al dru,s. Ce was !#d!cted o# #arcot!cs c-ar,es but sou,-t t-e su$$ress!o# o1 t-e e&!de#ce based o# a warra#tless e#try. .-e tr!al Eud,e co#cluded t-at t-e e#try was aut-or!;ed by t-e 2ew Ior5 law a#d t-at t-e searc- was t-ere1ore $er3!ss!ble. R!dd!c5 was co#&!cted. .-e a$$eals court a11!r3ed. G!estion %oes 2ew Ior5 statute aut-or!;!#, warra#tless arrests a#d searc-es &!olate t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t $ro-!b!t!o# a,a!#st u#reaso#able searc-es a#d se!;ures< R!le: /rrests w!t-!# a -o3e ca# o#ly be w!t- a warra#t. .-ere !s a br!,-t l!#e at t-e e#tra#ce to a -ouse. .-ere1ore, ob&!ously t-ey ca##ot searc- a -o3e !#c!de#t to a warrantless arrest w!t-!# !t (assu3!#, t-e arrest !s #ot Eust!1!ed so3e ot-er way.+ Decision: 6 &otes 1or Payto#, F &ote(s+ a,a!#st *egal pro,ision: /3e#d3e#t G: 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t Ies. Aust!ce Ao-# Paul Ste&e#s, wr!t!#, 1or t-e 6 to F 3aEor!ty, -eld t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, as a$$l!ed to t-e states by t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t, H$ro-!b!ts t-e $ol!ce 1ro3 3a5!#, a warra#tless a#d #o#co#se#sual e#try !#to a sus$ect0s -o3e !# order to 3a5e a rout!#e 1elo#y arrest.H :arra#tless arrests a#d searc-es we#t to t-e core o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t0s $rotect!o# o1 $r!&acy !# a c!t!;e#0s dwell!#,. .-!s $rotect!o# was too !3$orta#t to be &!olated o# t-e bas!s o1 a $ol!ce o11!cer0s o#-t-e-s$ot dec!s!o# re,ard!#, $robable cause. "# t-e abse#ce o1 s$ec!al c!rcu3sta#ces, a searc- o1 a res!de#ce !s $er3!ss!ble o#ly a1ter a 1!#d!#, o1 $robable cause by a #eutral 3a,!strate !ssu!#, a searc- warra#t. Aust!ce Byro# R. :-!te, Eo!#ed by C-!e1 Aust!ce :arre# =. Bur,er a#d Aust!ce :!ll!a3 C. Re-#Bu!st, d!sse#ted. :-!te 3a!#ta!#ed t-at co33o# law a#d $ract!ce $r!or to a#d at t-e t!3e t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t was ado$ted d!d #ot l!3!t a $ol!ce o11!cer0s !#-ere#t $ower to arrest or searc-. Notes: "# #e!t-er case d!d a#yo#e co#test $robable cause. .-e Buest!o# was w-et-er t-e arrest !# t-e -o3e was allowed w!t-out a warra#t e&e# t-ou,- t-ere was $robable cause.

.-e Court e4tra$olates 1ro3 t-e searc- a#d se!;ure rule, t-at t-ey #eed warra#ts !# a -ouse all t-e t!3e, a#d a$$l!es !t to t-e arrest reBu!re3e#t as well, e&e# t-ou,- arrests ,e#erally are less warra#t-$re1erred t-a# searc-es.

C-!3el &. Cal!1or#!a

.uesday, October 16, 2012 12:1F PM

:-at are t-e ,u!del!#es 1or Hsearc- !#c!de#t to arrestH !# a -o3e< (2ot sure !1 t-ere are d!11ere#t ,u!del!#es outs!de a -o3e. O#e t-!#, t-at we d!d#0t see3 to s$e#d 3uc- t!3e o# !s ware-ousety$e e#&!ro#3e#ts.+ &acts of the Case 'ocal $ol!ce o11!cers we#t to C-!3el0s -o3e w!t- a warra#t aut-or!;!#, -!s arrest 1or bur,lary. )$o# ser&!#, -!3 w!t- t-e arrest warra#t, t-e o11!cers co#ducted a co3$re-e#s!&e searc- o1 C-!3el0s res!de#ce. .-e searc- u#co&ered a #u3ber o1 !te3s t-at were later used to co#&!ct C-!3el. State courts u$-eld t-e co#&!ct!o#. G!estion :as t-e warra#tless searc- o1 C-!3el0s -o3e co#st!tut!o#ally Eust!1!ed u#der t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t as H!#c!de#t to t-at arrest<H R!le: :-e# a sus$ect !s arrested !# -!s -o3e, t-e o#ly searc- t-at !s allowed !#c!de#t to t-at arrest !s t-e area w!t-!# t-e !33ed!ate co#trol o1 t-e sus$ect. Decision: 6 &otes 1or C-!3el, 2 &ote(s+ a,a!#st *egal pro,ision: /3e#d3e#t G: 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t "# a >-to-2 dec!s!o#, t-e Court -eld t-at t-e searc- o1 C-!3el0s -ouse was u#reaso#able u#der t-e 7ourt- a#d 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#ts. .-e Court reaso#ed t-at searc-es H!#c!de#t to arrestH are l!3!ted to t-e area w!t-!# t-e !33ed!ate co#trol o1 t-e sus$ect. :-!le $ol!ce could reaso#ably searc- a#d se!;e e&!de#ce o# or arou#d t-e arrestee0s $erso#, t-ey were $ro-!b!ted 1ro3 ru33a,!#, t-rou,- t-e e#t!re -ouse w!t-out a searc- warra#t. .-e Court e3$-as!;ed t-e !3$orta#ce o1 warra#ts a#d $robable cause as #ecessary bulwar5s a,a!#st ,o&er#3e#t abuse, say!#, t-at a searc- o1 t-e w-ole -ouse !#c!de#t to arrest !s esse#t!ally a ,e#eral warra#t, w-!ct-e Co#st!tut!o# does#0t l!5e. Notes: .-e Court does #ot tal5 about t-e te3$oral $ro4!3!ty to t-e arrest, a#d we d!scussed !t a lot !# class. But t-e case see3s to rely -ea&!ly o# t-e !dea t-at !t0s 1or $ol!ce sa1ety, w-!c- l!5ely 3ea#s t-at o#ce -e0s !# t-e co$ car, t-ere0s #o sa1ety !ssue. " do#0t t-!#5 t-e later cases bear t-at out. Dissent ((hite): .-ere !s #o reaso# to 3a5e $ol!ce lea&e to ,et a#ot-er warra#t, s!#ce t-ey clearly already -a&e $ro4!3ate cause a#d all t-at w!ll -a$$e# #ow !s t-at t-e arrest w!ll alert t-e co#1ederates o1 t-e arrestee t-at t-ey better ,et r!d o1 t-e e&!de#ce. C-!3el !s a Su$re3e Court o1 t-e )#!ted States case -a#ded dow# !# 1*6*. "# t-e case, t-e Court -eld t-at $ol!ce o11!cers arrest!#, a $erso# !# t-e!r -o3e could #ot searc- t-e e#t!re -o3e w!t-out a searc- warra#t, alt-ou,- t-ey ca# searc- t-e area w!t-!# !33ed!ate reac- o1 t-e $erso#. .-e rule relat!#, to searc-es !#c!de#t to a law1ul arrest establ!s-ed !# t-!s case !s 5#ow# as t-e C-!3el rule. .-e you#, %e$uty /ttor#ey @e#eral w-o u#success1ully ar,ued t-e State o1 Cal!1or#!a0s $os!t!o# be1ore t-e -!,- court was Ro#ald M. @eor,e, w-o would ult!3ately ret!re as C-!e1 Aust!ce o1 Cal!1or#!a.

Could t-e warra#tless searc- o1 C-!3el0s e#t!re -ouse be co#st!tut!o#ally Eust!1!ed as !#c!de#t to -!s arrest< .-e Su$re3e court ruled !# 1a&or o1 C-!3el >-2. .-e Court -eld t-at t-e searc- o1 C-!3el0s -ouse was u#reaso#able u#der t-e 7ourt- a#d 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#ts. .-e Court reaso#ed t-at searc-es H!#c!de#t to arrestH are l!3!ted to t-e area w!t-!# t-e !33ed!ate co#trol o1 t-e sus$ect. :-!le $ol!ce could reaso#ably searc- a#d se!;e e&!de#ce o# or arou#d t-e arrestee0s $erso#, t-ey were $ro-!b!ted 1ro3 ru33a,!#, t-rou,- t-e e#t!re -ouse w!t-out a searc- warra#t. .-e Court e3$-as!;ed t-e !3$orta#ce o1 warra#ts a#d $robable cause as #ecessary bulwar5s a,a!#st ,o&er#3e#t abuse. :-e# a# arrest !s 3ade, !t !s reaso#able 1or t-e arrest!#, o11!cer to searc- t-e $erso# arrested !# order to re3o&e a#y wea$o#s t-at t-e latter 3!,-t see5 to use !# order to res!st arrest or e11ect -!s esca$e. Ot-erw!se, t-e o11!cer0s sa1ety 3!,-t well be e#da#,ered, a#d t-e arrest !tsel1 1rustrated. "# add!t!o#, !t !s e#t!rely reaso#able 1or t-e arrest!#, o11!cer to searc- 1or a#d se!;e a#y e&!de#ce o# t-e arrestee0s $erso# !# order to $re&e#t !ts co#ceal3e#t or destruct!o#. /#d t-e area !#to w-!c- a# arrestee 3!,-t reac- !# order to ,rab a wea$o# or e&!de#t!ary !te3s 3ust, o1 course, be ,o&er#ed by a l!5e rule. / ,u# o# a table or !# a drawer !# 1ro#t o1 o#e w-o !s arrested ca# be as da#,erous to t-e arrest!#, o11!cer as o#e co#cealed !# t-e clot-!#, o1 t-e $erso# arrested. .-ere !s a3$le Eust!1!cat!o#, t-ere1ore, 1or a searc- o1 t-e arrestee0s $erso# a#d t-e area Hw!t-!# -!s !33ed!ate co#trolHUco#stru!#, t-at $-rase to 3ea# t-e area 1ro3 w!t-!# w-!c- -e 3!,-t ,a!# $ossess!o# o1 a wea$o# or destruct!ble e&!de#ce. .-ere !s #o co3$arable Eust!1!cat!o#, -owe&er, 1or rout!#ely searc-!#, a#y roo3 ot-er t-a# t-at !# w-!c- a# arrest occurs Uor, 1or t-at 3atter, 1or searc-!#, t-rou,- all t-e des5 drawers or ot-er closed or co#cealed areas !# t-at roo3 !tsel1. Suc- searc-es, !# t-e abse#ce o1 well reco,#!;ed e4ce$t!o#s, 3ay be 3ade o#ly u#der t-e aut-or!ty o1 a searc- warra#t. .-e Had-ere#ce to Eud!c!al $rocessesH 3a#dated by t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t reBu!res #o less. UAust!ce Stewart, del!&er!#, t-e o$!#!o# o1 t-e Court Rule: .-e o11!cers could reaso#ably searc- o#ly Ht-e $et!t!o#er0s $erso# a#d t-e area 1ro3 w!t-!# w-!c- -e 3!,-t -a&e obta!#ed e!t-er a wea$o# or so3et-!#, t-at could -a&e bee# used as e&!de#ce a,a!#st -!3.H ?eywords: Searc- !#c!de#t to arrest Co3e :!#,s$a# "33ed!ate co#trol

?e#tuc5y &. ?!#, (2011+

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 20, 2012 10:G* PM

:-at -a$$e#s !1 t-ere are e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces, but t-e $ol!ce created t-e e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces< &acts of the Case Pol!ce o11!cers !# 'e4!#,to#, ?y., e#tered a# a$art3e#t bu!ld!#, !# $ursu!t o1 a sus$ect w-o sold crac5 coca!#e to a# u#derco&er !#1or3a#t. .-e o11!cers lost s!,-t o1 t-e sus$ect a#d 3!sta5e#ly assu3ed -e e#tered a# a$art3e#t 1ro3 w-!c- t-ey could detect t-e odor o1 3ar!Eua#a. /1ter $ol!ce 5#oc5ed o# t-e door a#d !de#t!1!ed t-e3sel&es, t-ey -eard 3o&e3e#ts, w-!c- t-ey bel!e&ed !#d!cated e&!de#ce was about to be destroyed. Pol!ce 1orc!bly e#tered t-e a$art3e#t a#d 1ou#d Coll!s ?!#, a#d ot-ers s3o5!#, 3ar!Eua#a. .-ey

also 1ou#d cas-, dru,s a#d $ara$-er#al!a. ?!#, e#tered a co#d!t!o#al ,u!lty $lea6 reser&!#, -!s r!,-t to a$$eal de#!al o1 -!s 3ot!o# to su$$ress e&!de#ce obta!#ed 1ro3 w-at -e ar,ued was a# !lle,al searc-. .-e ?e#tuc5y Court o1 /$$eals a11!r3ed t-e co#&!ct!o#, -old!#, t-at e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces su$$ort!#, t-e warra#tless searc- were #ot o1 t-e $ol!ceKs 3a5!#, a#d t-at $ol!ce d!d #ot e#,a,e !# del!berate a#d !#te#t!o#al co#duct to e&ade t-e warra#t reBu!re3e#t. "# Aa#uary 2010, t-e ?e#tuc5y Su$re3e Court re&ersed t-e lower court order, 1!#d!#, t-at t-e e#try was !3$ro$er. .-e court -eld t-at t-e $ol!ce were #ot !# $ursu!t o1 a 1lee!#, sus$ect w-e# t-ey e#tered t-e a$art3e#t, s!#ce t-ere was #o e&!de#ce t-at t-e or!,!#al sus$ect e&e# 5#ew -e was be!#, 1ollowed by $ol!ce. G!estion %oes t-e e4clus!o#ary rule, w-!c- 1orb!ds t-e use o1 !lle,ally se!;ed e&!de#ce e4ce$t !# e3er,e#cy s!tuat!o#s, a$$ly w-e# t-e e3er,e#cy !s created by law1ul $ol!ce act!o#s< R!le: .-e e4clus!o#ary rule ca# a$$ly e&e# !# e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces w-e# t-e e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces co3e as a result o1 a $ol!ce &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. Decision: 8 &otes 1or ?e#tuc5y, 1 &ote(s+ a,a!#st *egal pro,ision: e4clus!o#ary rule Ies. .-e Su$re3e Court re&ersed a#d re3a#ded t-e lower court order !# a dec!s!o# by Aust!ce Sa3uel /l!to. H.-e e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces rule a$$l!es w-e# t-e $ol!ce do #ot create t-e e4!,e#cy by e#,a,!#, or t-reate#!#, to e#,a,e !# co#duct t-at &!olates t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t,H /l!to wrote 1or t-e 3aEor!ty. Aust!ce Rut- Bader @!#sbur, d!sse#ted, co#te#d!#, t-at Ht-e Court today ar3s t-e $ol!ce w!t- a way rout!#ely to d!s-o#or t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t0s warra#t reBu!re3e#t !# dru, cases. H #rof sa+s: Pro1 says t-at ?e#tuc5y &. 5!#, says t-at t-e $roble3 !s us!#, t-e aut-or!ty o1 t-e state w-e# you do#0t -a&e !t u#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. Pro1 d!d #ot l!5e t-!s &erd!ct, s!#ce !t leads to all 5!#ds o1 terr!ble results. =4a3$le s-e ,!&es !s $ol!ce sett!#, a 1!re a#d cla!3!#, t-at t-e c!rcu3sta#ces were e4!,e#t because t-e -ouse was about to bur# dow#. (But tec-#!cally, t-at0s #ot a ,reat e4a3$le s!#ce t-at would be a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t.+ ?eywords: =4!,e#c!es =4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces

Maryla#d &. Bu!e 1**0

.uesday, October 16, 2012 12: 0 PM

?eywords: Searc- !#c!de#t to arrest Pla!# &!ew Pol!ce sa1ety :-at sort o1 c!rcu3sta#ces 3!,-t allow $ol!ce to searc- a -ouse !#c!de#t to arrest w!t- a warra#t< :-at 3ay $ol!ce 1!#d dur!#, t-at t!3e w!t-out r!s5!#, e4clus!o#< &acts: 7ollow!#, a Maryla#d ar3ed robbery by two 3e#, o#e o1 w-o3 was wear!#, a red ru##!#, su!t, $ol!ce obta!#ed arrest warra#ts 1or res$o#de#t Bu!e a#d -!s sus$ected acco3$l!ce a#d e4ecuted t-e warra#t 1or Bu!e at -!s -ouse. /1ter Bu!e was arrested u$o# e3er,!#, 1ro3 t-e base3e#t, o#e o1 t-e o11!cers e#tered t-e base3e#t S!# case t-ere was so3eo#e elseR t-ere

a#d se!;ed a red ru##!#, su!t ly!#, !# $la!# &!ew. .-e tr!al court de#!ed Bu!e0s 3ot!o# to su$$ress t-e ru##!#, su!t, t-e su!t was !#troduced !#to e&!de#ce, a#d Bu!e was co#&!cted o1 ar3ed robbery a#d a wea$o#s o11e#se. .-e !#ter3ed!ate a$$ellate court a11!r3ed t-e de#!al o1 t-e su$$ress!o# 3ot!o#, but t-e State Court o1 /$$eals re&ersed, rul!#, t-at t-e ru##!#, su!t was !#ad3!ss!ble because t-e o11!cer w-o co#ducted t-e S$rotect!&e swee$R o1 t-e base3e#t d!d #ot -a&e $robable cause to bel!e&e t-at a ser!ous a#d de3o#strable $ote#t!al!ty 1or da#,er e4!sted. Aer$ict: Re3a#ded to t-e lower court 1or e4erc!se o1 t-e rule below. R!le I: .-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $er3!ts a $ro$erly l!3!ted $rotect!&e swee$ !# co#Eu#ct!o# w!ta# !#--o3e arrest w-e# t-e searc-!#, o11!cer $ossesses a reasona7le 7elief based o# specific an$ artic!la7le facts t-at t-e area to be swe$t -arbors a# !#d!&!dual $os!#, a da#,er to t-ose o# t-e arrest sce#e. (2ote: .-e sta#dard o1 reaso#able bel!e1 !s lower t-a# $robable cause - !t0s l!5e .erry sto$s.+ (R!le 1a: "#c!de#t to t-e actual arrest, $ol!ce ca# searc- t-e !33ed!ate area o1 t-e sus$ect !#clud!#, closets a#d s$aces 1ro3 w-!c- a# attac5 could be lau#c-ed. 2otw!t-sta#d!#, t-at t-!s see3s to be 3ere d!cta, !t -as beco3e a stro#, $art o1 t-e Bu!e le,acy, a#d $ol!ce -a&e searc-ed #earby roo3s $retty co3$re-e#s!&ely w-!le t-e arrest !s $roceed!#,.+ R!le II: 7or t-e $la!# &!ew doctr!#e to a$$ly, (1+ t-e $ol!ce #eed to law1ully be !# t-e area w-ere t-e e&!de#ce !s 1ou#d, a#d (2+ "t #eeds to be !33ed!ately a$$are#t t-at t-e !te3 !# Buest!o# !s !#cr!3!#at!#, (alt-ou,- " do#0t t-!#5 #ecessar!ly 1or that crime - !1 t-ey see dru,s, !t s-ould be 1!#e e&e# !1 t-e arrest !s 1or o$erat!#, a $otato c-!$ 1actory w!t-out a l!ce#se.+ 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, s!#ce $ol!ce -ad reaso#able co#cer# 1or t-e!r sa1ety !# l!,-t o1 t-e $oss!b!l!ty o1 a# acco3$l!ce be!#, so3ew-ere !# t-e -ouse, t-ey were allowed to searc- t-e base3e#t a#d ot-er areas !# w-!c- t-ere was a reaso#able bel!e1 t-at t-ere 3!,-t be da#,er. O#ce t-ey were allowed to be t-ere, !# t-!s case, s!#ce $ol!ce 5#ew t-at t-e red trac5 su!t was $art o1 t-e descr!$t!o#, !t was !33ed!ately a$$are#t t-at !t was !#cr!3!#at!#,. <one+ 6!ote: H.-e swee$ lasts #o lo#,er t-a# !s #ecessary to d!s$el t-e reaso#able sus$!c!o# o1 da#,er a#d !# a#y e&e#t #o lo#,er t-a# !t ta5es to co3$lete t-e arrest a#d de$art t-e $re3!ses.H .-e te,ens conc!rrence a,rees a#d e3$-as!;es t-!s 3ore, say!#, t-at t-e rule !s correct, a#d t-at t-e state w!ll -a&e a d!11!cult t!3e o# re3a#d, because t-e acco3$l!ce see3ed $eaceable w-e# -e e3er,ed, a#d t-ere0s also a Buest!o# about w-et-er t-e $ol!ce could -a&e ,uarded t-e base3e#t door u#t!l t-ey le1t rat-er t-a# searc-!#, - $ro1 also 5ee$s as5!#, w-e# $ol!ce could -a&e wa!ted rat-er t-a# e#,a,e !# a searc- t-at !#&ades $r!&acy. Notes: Case c!tes to C-!3el a#d d!st!#,u!s-es t-!s because t-!s !s Eust searc-es 1or a# acco3$l!ce t-at 3!,-t t-reate# $ol!ce. Case c!tes to .erry 1or t-e $ro$os!t!o# t-at $ol!ce are allowed to ta5e $ro&!s!o#s 1or t-e!r sa1ety. Case says w!t-out c!te (but could -a&e c!ted to :arde# &. Cayde#+ t-at $ol!ce could OB8"O)S'I -a&e searc-ed t-e e#t!re -ouse B=7OR= t-ey 1ou#d -!3, !# order to e4ecute t-e warra#t. Notes II: :-at would 1all outs!de t-!s rule< "1 $ol!ce 5#ew -e was a lo#er< "1 $ol!ce searc-ed -!s cab!#ets !# case t-ere was a booby tra$ or bo3b< .-e bo3b -y$o see3s to 1all outs!de o1 reaso#able sus$!c!o#. O#e could 3a5e a# ar,u3e#t t-at $ol!ce 5#ew t-at Bu!e -ad a# acco3$l!ce, so t-at led to reaso#able sus$!c!o#. =&e# t-ou,- t-e dec!s!o# !s worded 3ore broadly, t-at 3!,-t 1all !#to t-e cate,ory o1 d!cta.

Maryla#d &. Bu!e was a dec!s!o# by t-e Su$re3e Court o1 t-e )#!ted States -a#ded dow# !# 1**0. "# t-e case, t-e Court -eld t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $er3!ts a $ro$erly l!3!ted $rotect!&e swee$ !# co#Eu#ct!o# w!t- a# !#--o3e arrest w-e# t-e searc-!#, o11!cer $ossesses a reaso#able bel!e1 based o# s$ec!1!c a#d art!culable 1acts t-at t-e area to be swe$t -arbors a# !#d!&!dual $os!#, a da#,er to t-ose o# t-e arrest sce#e.

7ollow!#, a# ar3ed robbery o1 a $!;;a restaura#t dur!#, w-!c- o#e o1 t-e robbers wore a red ru##!#, su!t, $ol!ce o11!cers !# Pr!#ce @eor,e0s Cou#ty, Maryla#d obta!#ed arrest warra#ts 1or Aero3e =dward Bu!e a#d 'loyd /lle#. :-!le e4ecut!#, t-e arrest warra#t, t-e o11!cers 1a##ed out t-rou,- t-e 1!rst a#d seco#d 1loors. %ur!#, t-!s sa3e t!3e, o#e o1 t-e o11!cers e4ecut!#, t-e arrest warra#t tw!ce s-outed !#to t-e base3e#t, order!#, a#yo#e dow# t-ere to co3e out. / &o!ce !#Bu!red w-o was call!#,, to w-!ct-e o11!cer res$o#ded Ht-!s !s t-e $ol!ce, s-ow 3e your -a#ds.H Bu!e e3er,ed 1ro3 t-e base3e#t. Ce was arrested, searc-ed, a#d -a#dcu11ed by Ro;ar. .-erea1ter, a#ot-er o11!cer e#tered t-e base3e#t to c-ec5 w-et-er t-ere was so3eo#e else dow# t-ere. Ce #ot!ced a red ru##!#, su!t ly!#, !# $la!# &!ew o# a stac5 o1 clot-!#, a#d se!;ed !t. .-e tr!al court de#!ed Bu!e0s 3ot!o# to su$$ress t-e ru##!#, su!t be1ore tr!al a#d t-e Maryla#d Court o1 S$ec!al /$$eals a11!r3ed. By a G-F &ote, t-e Maryla#d Court o1 /$$eals, t-e state su$re3e court, re&ersed. .-e Su$re3e Court o1 t-e )#!ted States ,ra#ted cert!orar!. .-e real !ssue !# t-!s case !s t-e $la!# &!ew doctr!#e o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. S$ec!1!cally, t-e $la!# &!ew doctr!#e allows a $ol!ce o11!cer to se!;e co#traba#d or e&!de#ce !# $la!# &!ew w!t-out 1!rst obta!#!#, a warra#t $ro&!ded t-at (1+ -e or s-e was law1ully located !# t-e area w-ere t-e e&!de#ce was obser&ed a#d (2+ t-e !#cr!3!#at!#, #ature o1 t-e e&!de#ce was !33ed!ately a$$are#t. Because t-e descr!$t!o# o1 t-e ba#5 robber !#cluded a red ru##!#, su!t, t-e H!33ed!ately a$$are#tH $ro#, was sat!s1!ed. .-e o#ly Buest!o# was w-et-er t-e o11!cer t-at 3ade t-e obser&at!o# was law1ully !# t-e base3e#t w-e# -e 3ade t-e obser&at!o#. Med!tNAust!ce :-!te0s 3aEor!ty o$!#!o# "# u$-old!#, t-e le,al!ty o1 t-e e#try !#to t-e base3e#t a#d subseBue#t se!;ure o1 t-e ru##!#, su!t, Aust!ce Byro# :-!te rel!ed o# .erry &. O-!o, F*2 ).S. 1 (1*68+ ($er3!tt!#, o11!cers to co#duct 1r!s5 o1 !#d!&!dual u$o# reaso#able, art!culable sus$!c!o# t-at $erso# was ar3ed a#d da#,erous+ a#d M!c-!,a# &. 'o#,, G6F ).S. 10F2 (1*8F+ ($er3!tt!#, $rotect!&e $at-dow# o1 3otor &e-!cle 1or o11!cer sa1ety+. )t!l!;!#, t-e bala#c!#, test set 1ort- !# t-ose o$!#!o#s (#eed 1or o11!cer secur!ty &. #ature o1 !#trus!o#+, Aust!ce :-!te reaso#ed t-at t-e Harrest!#, o11!cers are $er3!tted !# suc- c!rcu3sta#ces to ta5e reaso#able ste$s to e#sure t-e!r sa1ety a1ter, a#d w-!le 3a5!#,, t-e arrest.H /ccord!#, to :-!te, HMtN-at !#terest Mo11!cer sa1etyN !s su11!c!e#t to outwe!,t-e !#trus!o# suc- $rocedures 3ay e#ta!l.H Aust!ce :-!te set 1ort- a two-$art -old!#,: /s a# !#c!de#t to t-e arrest o11!cers 3ay, as a $recaut!o#ary 3atter a#d w!t-out $robable cause or reaso#able sus$!c!o#, loo5 !# closets a#d ot-er s$aces !33ed!ately adEo!#!#, t-e $lace o1 arrest 1ro3 w-!c- a# attac5 could be !33ed!ately lau#c-ed. .-!s $ort!o# o1 t-e -old!#, -as rece#tly bee# called !#to Buest!o#.M2N "1 a# o11!cer w!s-es to co#duct a swee$ o1 t-e $re3!ses, t-ere 3ust be art!culable 1acts w-!c-, ta5e# to,et-er w!t- t-e rat!o#al !#1ere#ces 1ro3 t-ose 1acts, would warra#t a reaso#ably $rude#t o11!cer !# bel!e&!#, t-at t-e area to be swe$t -arbors a# !#d!&!dual $os!#, a da#,er to t-ose o# t-e arrest sce#e. Aust!ce :-!te d!st!#,u!s-ed t-e case o1 C-!3el &. Cal!1or#!a, F* ).S. > 2 (1*6*+, w-!c- -eld t-at !# t-e abse#ce o1 a searc- warra#t, Eust!1!able searc-es !#c!de#t to a law1ul arrest could #ot e4te#d beyo#d t-e arrestee0s $erso# a#d t-e area 1ro3 w!t-!# w-!c- t-e arrestee 3!,-t -a&e obta!#ed a wea$o#. 7!rst, Aust!ce :-!te e4$la!#ed t-at t-e searc- !# C-!3el was a 1ull-blow#

searc- o1 t-e e#t!re -ouse. Moreo&er, t-e searc- was co#ducted 1or t-e $ur$ose o1 1!#d!#, e&!de#ce o1 t-e cr!3e 1or w-!c- t-e arrest was 3ade. "# co#trast, t-e o11!cers !# Bu!e were #ot loo5!#, 1or co#traba#d. Seco#d, Aust!ce :-!te e4$la!#ed t-at t-e $oss!ble t-reat was d!11ere#t. H.-e Eust!1!cat!o# 1or t-e searc- !#c!de#t to arrest co#s!dered !# C-!3el was t-e t-reat $osed by t-e arrestee, #ot t-e sa1ety t-reat $osed by t-e -ouse, or 3ore $ro$erly by u#see# t-!rd $art!es !# t-e -ouse.H .-e ty$e o1 searc- aut-or!;ed by t-e court !# Bu!e !s 1ar re3o&ed 1ro3 t-e to$-tobotto3 searc- !#&ol&ed !# C-!3el. "t !s #ot auto3at!cally $er3!tted, a#d !s o#ly $ro$erly co#ducted o#ly w-e# Eust!1!ed by a reaso#able, art!culable sus$!c!o# t-at t-e -ouse !s -arbor!#, a $erso# $os!#, a da#,er to t-ose o# t-e arrest sce#e. Med!tNAust!ces Bre##a# a#d Mars-all d!sse#t!#, Aust!ces Bre##a# a#d Mars-all too5 !ssue w!t- e4te#d!#, t-e doctr!#es o1 .erry a#d 'o#, to a $r!&ate res!de#ce. /ccord!#, to t-e Aust!ces, $-ys!cal e#try o1 t-e -o3e !s t-e c-!e1 e&!l a,a!#st w-!c- t-e word!#, o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !s d!rected. )#!ted States &. )#!ted States %!str!ct Court, =aster# %!str!ct o1 M!c-!,a#, G0> ).S. 2*>, F1F (1*>2+. =sse#t!ally, because .erry a#d 'o#, !#&ol&ed s!tuat!o#s w-ere cr!3!#al de1e#da#ts are a11orded s!,#!1!ca#tly less $rotect!o# t-a# w-e# !#s!de o1 a $r!&ate res!de#ce, e4te#d!#, t-e doctr!#e !# t-e 3a##er t-e 3aEor!ty d!d was #ot a$$ro$r!ate.

:arde# &. Cayde# (1*6>+

.uesday, October 16, 2012 12: 6 PM

"1 $ol!ce -a&e e4!,e#t Eust!1!cat!o# to e#ter a -ouse to 3a5e a# arrest w!t-out a warra#t, ca# t-ey also se!;e e&!de#ce w-!le t-ey are t-ere< "s t-e r!,-t to se!;e l!3!ted to !#stru3e#tal!t!es o1 t-e cr!3e, or ca# t-ey se!;e H3ere e&!de#ceH as well< &acts: :arde# &. Cayde#, F8> ).S. 2*G (1*6>+, was a )#!ted States Su$re3e Court case t-at -eld t-at 03ere e&!de#ce0 3ay be se!;ed a#d -eld as e&!de#ce !# a tr!al !1 !t was se!;ed #ot !#c!de#t to arrest, but !# t-e lead-u$ to a#d e#1orce3e#t o1 arrest. "# t-e 3or#!#, o1 Marc- 1>, 1*62, t-e %!a3o#d Cab Co3$a#y !# Balt!3ore, Maryla#d was robbed by a# ar3ed 3a#. .wo cab dr!&ers 1ollowed t-e 3a# to a -ouse a#d d!s$atc-ers relayed t-e !#1or3at!o# to $ol!ce. .-e $ol!ce arr!&ed !# soo# a1ter, 5#oc5ed o# t-e door, a#d a##ou#ced t-e3sel&es. :-e# Mrs Cayde# a#swered t-e door, t-ey stated t-at a robber -ad e#tered t-e -ouse a#d as5ed to co#duct a searc-. S-e allowed t-e3 !#. / searc- o1 t-e $re3!ses re&ealed clot-!#,, 1ou#d !# a was-!#, 3ac-!#e, t-at 3atc-ed t-e descr!$t!o# o1 t-e ar3ed 3a# t-at -ad bee# re$orted by t-e cab co3$a#y. :ea$o#s were 1ou#d !# a bat-roo3 t-at 3atc-ed t-e descr!$t!o# o1 t-ose used by t-e robber. /33u#!t!o# 1or t-e s-ot,u# was 1ou#d !# Mr Cayde#0s c-est o1 drawers a#d a33u#!t!o# 1or t-e -a#d,u# u#der -!s 3attress. Mr Cayde# was co#&!cted at a be#c- tr!al. %ur!#, a$$eals, courts -eld t-at t-e searc- o1 t-e -ouse was &al!d6 t-e searc- 1or wea$o#s t-at were used !# t-e cr!3e, or could be used a,a!#st t-e $ol!ce was also &al!d. Cowe&er, t-e a$$ellate court -eld t-at t-e clot-!#, was o1 03ere e&!de#t!al0 #ature, #ot !# $la!# s!,-t, a#d t-!s was #ot $ro$erly se!;ed. .-e $ol!ce -ad bee# !# !33ed!ate $ursu!t o1 t-e robber, a#d t-us were e4e3$t 1ro3 #eed!#, a warra#t to searc- t-e -ouse. Cowe&er, u#der t-e rules at t-at t!3e, se!;!#, e&!de#ce suc- as t-e clot-!#, t-at 1!t t-e descr!$t!o# o1 t-e 1lee!#, robber would #ot -a&e bee# allowed. Su$$ress!#, t-e !3$ro$erly se!;ed e&!de#ce would lead to a #ew tr!al u#der t-e $r!#c!$le o1 t-e 1ru!t o1 t-e $o!so#ous tree. "t see3s t-at t-e de1e#da#t rel!ed o# t-e 1act t-at alt-ou,- t-e searc- -ad tur#ed u$ wea$o#s as well, t-e $ol!ce -ad ad3!tted t-at t-ey were loo5!#, 1or e&!de#ce as well. Aer$ict: #ot e4cluded

R!le: Pol!ce act!#, !# e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces 3ay e#ter a -o3e to 3a5e a# arrest, a#d searc1or wea$o#s or ot-er t-!#,s t-at $rese#t a da#,er to t-e3. Mere e&!de#ce 3ay be se!;ed, e&e# w-e# !t !s 1ou#d as a result o1 a searc- !#c!de#t to arrest !# a -o3e w!t-out a warra#t. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, alt-ou,- $ol!ce 3ay -a&e e4$ressed t-at t-ey were !#terested !# e&!de#ce, t-at !s #ot d!s$os!t!&e. .-e 1act !s t-at t-ey were also loo5!#, 1or wea$o#s a#d t-ey !# 1act 1ou#d wea$o#s -!dde# !# t-e $laces t-at t-ey loo5ed. S!#ce t-e o11!cers w-o 1ou#d t-e clot-!#, were le,!t!3ately searc-!#, 1or wea$o#s at t-e t!3e t-at t-ey 1ou#d t-e clot-!#,, t-e clot-!#, !s ad3!ss!ble. (2ote: t-e sus$ect -ad already bee# arrested, but t-e o11!cers d!d#0t 5#ow t-at at t-e t!3e t-ey 1ou#d t-e e&!de#ce+. Notes: :-at would !t ta5e 1or t-e e&!de#ce to be !#ad3!ss!ble< :-at !1 t-ere were #o wea$o#s !#&ol&ed, a#d t-ey were Eust searc-!#, 1or a sus$ect< :-at !1 t-ey 5#ew t-at t-e ,uy -ad bee# arrested< (2ote t-at $ro1 see3s to t-!#5 t-at t-ere0s doctr!#al a3b!,u!ty, but t-!s case also see3s $retty clear t-at o#ce t-ere0s #o t-reat 1ro3 t-e sus$ect, t-e searc- 3ust e#d.+ :-at !1 !t was#0t t-e ,uy0s -ouse a#d -e would#0t -a&e -ad t!3e to -!de a wea$o# !# a $art!cular $lace< Notes: "t see3s $retty clear t-at $ol!ce are #ot allowed to search 1or e&!de#ce, but !# t-e!r searc- 1or t-e sus$ect a#d $oss!ble da#,er, t-ey are allowed to 1!#d e&!de#ce a#d use !t. ?eywords: =4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces Pla!# &!ew :arra#tless searc- o1 -o3e Co3e O11!cer sa1ety

Car searc-es - a s$ec!al case

:ed#esday, 2o&e3ber 21, 2012 11:16 /M

?eywords: Car e4ce$t!o# /uto3ob!le e4ce$t!o# "#c!de#t to arrest .-!s !s t-e Car e4ce$t!o# to t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t warra#t reBu!re3e#t. 1. Cal!1or#!a &. Car#ey says t-at you ca# searc- cars/3otor -o3es w!t- $robable cause w!t-out a warra#t. 2. Searc- !#c!de#t to arrest !s also allowed e&e# w!t-out $robable cause u#der certa!# c!rcu3sta#ces. /r!;o#a &. @a#t (l!3!ts t-e -old!#, 1ro3 Belto# to o#ly w-e# t-ere !s reaso#able bel!e1 o1 da#,er or e&!de#ce !# t-e car.+ F. / warra#tless !#&e#tory !s allowed. Colorado &. Bert!#e. G. Perso#al e11ects l!5e lu,,a,e are so3ew-ere !# betwee# cars a#d -ouses o# t-e $rotect!o# scale. Cal!1or#!a &. /ce&edo. . Searc- o1 #o#-!3$l!cated $asse#,ers ra!ses ot-er !ssues (See :yo3!#, &. Cou,-to# a#d c-ec5 bac5 !#P+ 6. Iou ca##ot searc- a car !#c!de#t to a tra11!c t!c5et ("owa &. ?#owles+, u#less t-ere !s so3e ot-er H-oo5H, 1or e4a3$le, !# :-re# t-e $ol!ce saw dru,s !# $la!# &!ew.

Cal!1or#!a &. Car#ey (1*8 +

:ed#esday, 2o&e3ber 21, 2012 11:21 /M

.-ere was a case !# 1*2 , Carroll &. )#!ted States, t-at sa!d t-at auto3ob!les are #ot e#t!tled to t-e sa3e $rotect!o# as as -o3es. :-at about 3otor -o3es<

&acts: / %ru, =#1orce3e#t /d3!#!strat!o# (%=/+ a,e#t, w-o -ad !#1or3at!o# t-at res$o#de#t0s 3ob!le 3otor -o3e was be!#, used to e4c-a#,e 3ar!-ua#a 1or se4, watc-ed res$o#de#t a$$roac- a yout- w-o acco3$a#!ed res$o#de#t to t-e 3otor -o3e, w-!c- was $ar5ed !# a lot !# dow#tow# Sa# %!e,o. .-e a,e#t a#d ot-er a,e#ts t-e# 5e$t t-e &e-!cle u#der sur&e!lla#ce, a#d sto$$ed t-e yout- a1ter -e le1t t-e &e-!cle. Ce told t-e3 t-at -e -ad rece!&ed 3ar!-ua#a !# retur# 1or allow!#, res$o#de#t se4ual co#tacts. /t t-e a,e#ts0 reBuest, t-e yout- retur#ed to t-e 3otor -o3e a#d 5#oc5ed o# t-e door6 res$o#de#t ste$$ed out. :!t-out a warra#t or co#se#t, o#e a,e#t t-e# e#tered t-e 3otor -o3e a#d obser&ed 3ar!Eua#a. / subseBue#t searc- o1 t-e 3otor -o3e at t-e $ol!ce stat!o# re&ealed add!t!o#al 3ar!-ua#a, a#d res$o#de#t was c-ar,ed w!t- $ossess!o# o1 3ar!-ua#a 1or sale. /1ter -!s 3ot!o# to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce d!sco&ered !# t-e 3otor -o3e was de#!ed, res$o#de#t was co#&!cted !# Cal!1or#!a Su$er!or Court o# a $lea o1 nolo contendere. .-e Cal!1or#!a Court o1 /$$eal a11!r3ed. .-e Cal!1or#!a Su$re3e Court re&ersed, -old!#, t-at t-e searc- o1 t-e 3otor -o3e was u#reaso#able a#d t-at t-e 3otor &e-!cle e4ce$t!o# to t-e warra#t reBu!re3e#t o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t d!d #ot a$$ly, because e4$ectat!o#s o1 $r!&acy !# a "otor ho"e are 3ore l!5e t-ose !# a dwell!#, t-a# !# a# auto3ob!le. Luest!o#: "s a 3otor -o3e e#t!tled to t-e sa3e $rotect!o# as a -o3e, or !s !t 3ore s!3!lar to a car, w-!c- -as less 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#< R!le: .-ere are two rat!o#ales 1or t-e lower $rotect!o# $ro&!ded to auto3ob!les: 1. .-e 3ob!l!ty o1 t-e car 3ea#s t-at esse#t!ally t-ere !s always t-e t-reat o1 loss o1 t-e e&!de#ce. 2. .-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !# a car !s lower t-a# !# ot-er $laces because cars are ,e#erally subEect to -ea&y re,ulat!o# a#d $eo$le t-ere1ore -a&e less o1 a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. 9ol$ing: .-e warra#tless searc- o1 res$o#de#t0s 3otor -o3e d!d #ot &!olate t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t. (a+ :-e# a &e-!cle !s be!#, used o# t-e -!,-ways or !s ca$able o1 suc- use a#d !s 1ou#d stat!o#ary !# a $lace #ot re,ularly used 1or res!de#t!al $ur$oses, t-e two Eust!1!cat!o#s 1or t-e &e-!cle e4ce$t!o# co3e !#to $lay. 7!rst, t-e &e-!cle !s read!ly 3ob!le, a#d, seco#d, t-ere !s a reduced e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy ste33!#, 1ro3 t-e $er&as!&e re,ulat!o# o1 &e-!cles ca$able o1 tra&el!#, o# -!,-ways. Cere, w-!le res$o#de#t0s &e-!cle $ossessed so3e attr!butes o1 a -o3e, !t clearly 1alls w!t-!# t-e &e-!cle e4ce$t!o#. .o d!st!#,u!s- betwee# res$o#de#t0s 3otor -o3e a#d a# ord!#ary seda# 1or $ur$oses o1 t-e &e-!cle e4ce$t!o# would reBu!re t-at t-e e4ce$t!o# be a$$l!ed de$e#d!#, o# t-e s!;e o1 t-e &e-!cle a#d t-e Bual!ty o1 !ts a$$o!#t3e#ts. Moreo&er, to 1a!l to a$$ly t-e e4ce$t!o# to &e-!cles suc- as a 3otor -o3e would !,#ore t-e 1act t-at a 3otor -o3e le#ds !tsel1 eas!ly to use as a# !#stru3e#t o1 !ll!c!t dru, tra11!c or ot-er !lle,al act!&!ty. (b+ .-e searc- !# Buest!o# was #ot u#reaso#able. "t was o#e t-at a 3a,!strate could -a&e aut-or!;ed !1 $rese#ted w!t- t-e 1acts. .-e %=/ a,e#ts, based o# u#co#trad!cted e&!de#ce t-at res$o#de#t was d!str!but!#, a co#trolled substa#ce 1ro3 t-e &e-!cle, -ad abu#da#t $robable cause to e#ter a#d searc- t-e &e-!cle. Notes: :-at would !t ta5e 1or t-!s rule to #ot a$$ly< "# d!cta, !t see3s t-at t-e court wa#ts to !#clude as 3a#y 3otor -o3es as $oss!ble, e&e# !1 t-ey do#0t a$$ear to be read!ly 3ob!le, s!#ce t-ere !s also t-e HsubEect to re,ulat!o#H rat!o#ale. :-at about a #o#-re,!stered car w!t-out w-eels !# so3eo#e0s bac5yard, w-!c- t-e ,uy uses 1or stora,e< .-at 3!,-t be a# !#terest!#, case. Dissent: .-e d!sse#t ta5es !#to accou#t w-at reBu!r!#, a warra#t would -a&e !#&ol&ed. .-e 3otor -o3e was $ar5ed r!,-t #ear t-e court-ouse, so !t would -a&e bee# #o b!, deal to ,et a warra#t.

Court says t-at lu,,a,e was ,!&e# ,reater $r!&acy r!,-ts, !# )S &. C-adw!c5, $ro&!#, t-at 3ob!l!ty alo#e does#0t re3o&e t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. .-e !ssue -ere !s t-at t-e ,uy d!d !# 1act use t-e 3otor -o3e as a $er3a#e#t res!de#ce. ?eywords: Motor -o3e /uto3ob!le e4ce$t!o# =4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy 'u,,a,e

/r!;o#a &. @a#t (200*+

.uesday, October 16, 2012 12:G2 PM

&acts: /r!;o#a $ol!ce we#t to t-e -o3e o1 Rod#ey @a#t !# searc- o1 dru,s a#d to arrest -!3 1or 1a!l!#, to a$$ear !# court. :-e# t-ey arr!&ed at t-e -ouse, @a#t was #ot t-ere (t-ou,- two ot-er $eo$le were !# -!s -o3e, o#e o1 w-o3 was !# $ossess!o# o1 a crac5 $!$e+ but w-!le t-e $ol!ce were st!ll at t-e -ouse @a#t $ulled !#to t-e dr!&eway. :-!le @a#t was st!ll !# -!s car, a# o11!cer s-!#ed a 1las-l!,-t !#to t-e &e-!cle, but t-e $ol!ce 3ade #o ot-er co#tact w!t- -!3 u#t!l -e ste$$ed out o1 t-e car. @a#t was arrested a#d -a#dcu11ed a#d $laced !# t-e $ol!ce car. 'ater, $ol!ce searc-ed -!s car a#d 1ou#d dru,s a#d $ara$-er#al!a. @a#t was t-e# c-ar,ed w!t$ossess!o# o1 dru,s a#d dru, $ara$-er#al!a. Be1ore tr!al, @a#t as5ed t-e Eud,e to rule t-e e&!de#ce 1ou#d !# t-e car u#co#st!tut!o#al because t-e searc- -ad bee# co#ducted w!t-out a warra#t !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t0s $ro-!b!t!o# o1 u#reaso#able searc-es a#d se!;ures. .-e tr!al Eud,e de#!ed t-e 3ot!o#, rul!#, t-at t-e searc- was a d!rect result o1 @a#t0s law1ul arrest a#d t-ere1ore a# e4ce$t!o# to t-e ,e#eral 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t warra#t reBu!re3e#t u#der 2ew Ior5 &. Belto# (1*81+. @a#t was co#&!cted a#d se#te#ced to t-ree years !# $r!so#. @a#t a$$ealed, a#d t-e /r!;o#a Court o1 /$$eals re&ersed t-e co#&!ct!o#, rul!#, t-e searcu#co#st!tut!o#al. .-e court 1ou#d t-at e4ce$t!o#s to t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t warra#t reBu!re3e#t 3ust be Eust!1!ed by co#cer#s 1or o11!cer sa1ety or e&!de#ce $reser&at!o#. .-e court ruled t-at t-ese Eust!1!cat!o#s d!d #ot a$$ly !# @a#t0s case because -e -ad le1t t-e &e-!cle &olu#tar!ly w!t-out be!#, sto$$ed by $ol!ce or as5ed to ,et out o1 t-e car. .-e searc- o1 t-e &e-!cle was t-ere1ore #ot d!rectly co##ected to t-e arrest a#d, w!t-out t-at Eust!1!cat!o#, clearly &!olated t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. G!estion Ca# $ol!ce searc- a car !#c!de#t to arrest a1ter t-e sus$ect !s secured a#d #e!t-er -e #or a#yt-!#, !# t-e area to searc- $rese#t a da#,er< Aer$ict: .-e e&!de#ce s-ould be e4cluded. R!le: Pol!ce ca# searc- a car !#c!de#t to arrest o#ly !# cases w-ere t-ere !s t-e le,!t!3ate t-reat to t-e $ol!ce3a#0s sa1ety or w-ere !t !s reaso#able to bel!e&e t-at $ol!ce w!ll d!sco&er arrest related 3ater!al. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, @a#t was secured !# t-e bac5 o1 t-e $ol!ce car, so t-ere was #o c-a#ce t-at -e could $rese#t a sa1ety t-reat. .-e o11e#se t-at -e was arrested 1or was a dr!&!#, w!t- a sus$e#ded l!ce#se, so t-ere was #o c-a#ce t-at e&!de#ce o1 t-at o11e#se would be 1ou#d !# t-e car. Notes: .-!s !s a &ery !3$orta#t case, because !t !s rece#t, because !t addresses C-!3el a#d Belto#, a#d because !t e4$a#ds t-e H!#c!de#t to arrestH doctr!#e !# a #ew way. .-e old rule was 1ro3 a case called 2ew Ior5 &. Belto#. "# t-at case, a lo#e o11!cer -ad arrested 1our sus$ects a#d searc-ed t-e car a1ter t-ey were secured. "t see3ed t-at t-at case ,a&e carte bla#c-e to loo5 t-rou,- t-e car a1ter a# arrest. But t-e Court !# @a#t ree&aluates a#d says t-at t-e reaso# !# t-at case was because t-ere were 1our sus$ects a#d o#e o11!cer (,!&!#, r!se to t-e

!3$l!cat!o# t-at alt-ou,- t-ey were secured, t-ere was st!ll a t-reat.+ "# t-!s case, t-ere were 3a#y o11!cers, a#d o#e secured sus$ect so t-ere was #o t-reat. .-ere are two $arts to t-e rule. O#e !s 3ore $rotect!&e o1 r!,-ts t-a# $re&!ous doctr!#e, t-e ot-er less $rotect!&e t-a# $re&!ous doctr!#e. Searc- !#c!de#t to arrest #ow -as two $oss!ble Eust!1!cat!o#s: 1. "1 $ol!ce #eed to loo5 out 1or t-e!r sa1ety, (More $rotect!&e t-a# Belto#+ a#d 2. "1 $ol!ce -a&e reaso#able bel!e1 t-at t-ere !s e&!de#ce o1 t-e o11e#se 1or w-!c- t-e sus$ect !s be!#, arrested (less $rotect!&e t-a# Belto# a#d $re&!ous doctr!#e.+ !. .-e Court does#0t s$ec!1y w-at t-e sta#dard !s 1or t-!s reaso#able bel!e1 t-at t-ere !s e&!de#ce. Reaso#able bel!e1 $retty clearly !s less t-a# $robable cause, but t-e ty$e o1 a#alys!s !s d!11ere#t because u#l!5e !# a .erry sto$, w-ere t-e sus$!c!o# !s 1ocused o# a# !#d!&!dual, !# t-!s case, !t0s a broader Buest!o# - 3!,-t t-ere be e&!de#ce -ere< %oes !t 3ea# t-at t-ey -a&e a ,ood reaso# to t-!#5 t-ere might be e&!de#ce, or t-at t-ere actually is e&!de#ce< Notes: "t !s &ery !3$orta#t to a#aly;e t-e $ara3eters o1 t-!s rule. %oes He&!de#ce o1 t-e arrestable o11e#seH a$$ly to -ouses< Presu3ably #ot - t-e searc- 1or e&!de#ce !# -ouses !#&ol&es a 3uc- stro#,er e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy a#d reBu!res a warra#t. So !# -ouses, C-!3el st!ll rules. But does !t a$$ly to ot-er tra#s$ortable t-!#,s, l!5e lu,,a,e, w-!c- 1all so3ew-ere !# betwee#< ,rof notes that there was substantial evidence that he was a drug dealer. 2he court said that the state waived the right to ma e that assertion. ,rof further notes that it$s not clear if they are loo ing for something related to 2H*S arrest, or, the alternative language, "evidence of a crime". ,rof as s if this overturns .obinson, since in .obinson they patted him down for safety and although there was no chance that the soft container the officer felt was a weapon, he still too it out and opened it, finding drugs. Dissent: .-e Court0s read!#, o1 Belto# !s u#reaso#able. Bas!cally t-e court !s o&ertur#!#, Belto#. .-ere1ore, t-e Court s-ould e4$la!# w-y t-ey are o&errul!#, stare dec!s!s. %!sse#t says t-at t-e Court0s 1a!lure !# C-!3el to create a te3$oral bou#dary, say!#, t-at $ol!ce could o#ly searc- be1ore t-e sus$ect was secured, t-at 3ust 3ea# t-at $ol!ce ca# searc- t-e area e&e# after t-e arrest !s co3$lete, so lo#, as t-ey are searc-!#, w!t-!# t-e Hw!#,s$a#H. (.-e d!sse#t does #ot e4$la!# -ow t-at 3a5es se#se, e4ce$t as a 1or3al!st $er3utat!o# o1 a 1u#ct!o#al!st rule. .-e o#ly reaso# t-e searc- !s Eust!1!ed !s because t-e $ol!ce -a&e to be co#cer#ed 1or t-e!r sa1ety. "t0s #ot a r!,-t, !t0s a# e4!,e#cy. O#ce t-ey -a&e t-e e4!,e#cy, !# t-e d!sse#t0s &!ew, !t s-ould allow t-e3 to searc- a1ter t-e e4!,e#cy !s ,o#e. .-at0 s lo,!cally u#te#able.+ /r!;o#a &. @a#t, 6 ).S. FF2 (200*+, was a )#!ted States Su$re3e Court dec!s!o# -old!#, t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t to t-e )#!ted States Co#st!tut!o# reBu!res law e#1orce3e#t o11!cers to de3o#strate a# act!al an$ contin!ing threat to t-e!r sa1ety $osed by a# arrestee, or a nee$ to preser,e e,i$ence related to t-e cr!3e o1 arrest 1ro3 ta3$er!#, by t-e arrestee, in or$er to =!stif+ a %arrantless ,ehic!lar search inci$ent to arrest co#ducted a1ter t-e &e-!cle0s rece#t occu$a#ts -a&e bee# arrested a#d secured. .-e case !#&ol&ed Rod#ey A. @a#t, w-o was arrested by .ucso#, /r!;o#a, $ol!ce a#d c-ar,ed w!t- dr!&!#, o# a sus$e#ded dr!&erKs l!ce#se. Pol!ce arrested @a#t !# a 1r!e#d0s yard a1ter -e -ad $ar5ed -!s &e-!cle a#d was wal5!#, away. @a#t a#d all ot-er sus$ects o# t-e sce#e were t-e# secured !# $ol!ce $atrol cars. .-e o11!cers t-e# searc-ed @a#t0s &e-!cle. /1ter 1!#d!#, a wea$o# a#d a ba, o1 coca!#e, t-ey also c-ar,ed -!3 w!t- $ossess!o# o1 a #arcot!c 1or sale a#d $ossess!o# o1 dru, $ara$-er#al!a.

Blurr!#, t-e Belto# br!,-t l!#e .-o3as 7ra#5 Aacobs (.ucso#, /r!;o#a+, lead cou#sel 1or Rod#ey @a#t, ar,ued t-e case be1ore t-e ).S. Su$re3e Court o# October >, 2008. Aacobs ar,ued t-at a# u#reaso#able e4$a#s!o# o1 a l!3!ted aut-or!ty to searc- &e-!cles !#c!de#t to arrest $ro&!ded by t-e Su$re3e Court0s 1*81 dec!s!o# !# 2ew Ior5 &. Belto# was occurr!#,. 'ower courts were allow!#, searc-es a1ter t-e !#!t!al Eust!1!cat!o#s 1or sett!#, as!de t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t0s warra#t reBu!re3e#t -ad ceased to e4!st, rely!#, o# a so-called br!,-t-l!#e rule o1 H!1 arrest, t-e# searc-.H Aacobs ar,ued, a#d t-e Court ult!3ately a,reed, t-at suc- a$$l!cat!o# o1 t-e Belto# e4ce$t!o# caused t-e e4ce$t!o# to Hswallow t-e rule,H allow!#, u#co#st!tut!o#al searc-es. Sc-olarly !#terest / ,rou$ o1 le,al sc-olars, !#clud!#, )#!&ers!ty o1 "owa law $ro1essor Aa3es .o35o&!c;, wrote a# a3!cus cur!ae br!e1 as5!#, t-e court to o&ertur# a 1*81 case, 2ew Ior5 &. Belto#, t-at ,ra#ted $ol!ce t-e aut-or!ty to searc- a $erso#0s &e-!cle e&e# !1 t-at $erso# !s #ot !# t-e &e-!cle. /ccord!#, to .o35o&!c;, Belto# 1a!ls to 3eet t-e co#st!tut!o#al sta#dard o1 $robable cause.M1N Su$re3e Court dec!s!o# "# a# o$!#!o# del!&ered by Aust!ce Ste&e#s, t-e Su$re3e Court -eld t-at $ol!ce 3ay searc- t-e $asse#,er co3$art3e#t o1 a &e-!cle, !#c!de#t to a rece#t occu$a#t0s arrest (a#d t-ere1ore w!t-out a warra#t+ o#ly !1 !t !s reaso#able to bel!e&e t-at t-e arrestee 3!,-t access t-e &e-!cle at t-e t!3e o1 t-e searc-, or t-at t-e &e-!cle co#ta!#s e&!de#ce o1 t-e o11e#se o1 arrest. Aust!ce Scal!a wrote a co#curr!#, o$!#!o#, stat!#, t-at Hwe s-ould s!3$ly aba#do# t-e Belto#.-or#to# c-arade o1 o11!cer sa1ety a#d o&errule t-ose cases. " would -old t-at a &e-!cle searc!#c!de#t to arrest !s !$so 1acto 0reaso#able0 o#ly w-e# t-e obEect o1 t-e searc- !s e&!de#ce o1 t-e cr!3e 1or w-!c- t-e arrest was 3ade, or o1 a#ot-er cr!3e t-at t-e o11!cer -as $robable cause to bel!e&e occurred.H Aust!ce /l!to wrote a d!sse#t Eo!#ed by C-!e1 Aust!ce Roberts, Aust!ce ?e##edy, a#d Aust!ce Breyer !# $art, say!#, t-at t-e court could #ot o&errule 2ew Ior5 &. Belto# a#d .-or#to# &. )#!ted States, G1 ). S. 61 (200G+. Aust!ce Breyer wrote a se$arate d!sse#t. ,rof notes that there was substantial evidence that he was a drug dealer. 2he court said that the state waived the right to ma e that assertion. ,rof further notes that it$s not clear if they are loo ing for something related to 2H*S arrest, or, the alternative language, "evidence of a crime". ?eywords: "#c!de#t to arrest Pol!ce sa1ety =&!de#ce 1or o11e#se o1 arrest

Cal!1or#!a &. /ce&edo (1**1+

:ed#esday, 2o&e3ber 21, 2012 12: 6 PM

:-at -a$$e#s !1 t-ere !s $robable cause to searc- a car, but !#s!de t-e car are co#ta!#ers< May $ol!ce o$e# t-e co#ta!#ers as well, or are t-ere so3e l!3!ts to t-at u#less t-ey ,et a warra#t< &acts: Pol!ce -ad obser&ed a s-!$3e#t o1 3ar!Eua#a to a -o3e. S-ortly a1terward, t-ey saw so3eo#e lea&e t-e a$art3e#t a#d 1ou#d t-at -e -ad 3ar!Eua#a. .-e#, /ce&edo arr!&ed a#d we#t !#to t-e a$art3e#t. :-e# -e e3er,ed, -e was -old!#, a $ac5a,e s!3!lar to o#e o1 t-e $ac5a,es o1 3ar!Eua#a t-at -ad bee# del!&ered. Ce $ut t-e $ac5a,e !# -!s car, a#d dro&e o11. Pol!ce sto$$ed t-e car, searc-ed t-e car, o$e#ed t-e $ac5a,e a#d 1ou#d t-at !t co#ta!#ed 3ar!Eua#a. %e1e#da#t 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce, s!#ce !t was t-e result o1 a searc- o1 a co#ta!#er w!t-out $robable cause. Disc!ssion: .-e case !#&ol&es co#1lue#ce o1 a #u3ber o1 doctr!#es. Cars are 1a!r ,a3e as lo#, as t-ere !s $robable cause 1or t-e searc-. 'u,,a,e, -owe&er, -as a -!,-er e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. Pol!ce -a&e bee# 5#ow# to wa!t 1or t-e lu,,a,e to be $ut !# a car, so t-at t-ey ca# searc-. ()S &. C-adw!c5+. "# C-adw!c5, t-e Court sa!d t-at t-ey would #ot a$$ly t-e sa3e rule to lu,,a,e as to cars6 a#d lu,,a,e st!ll #eeded a warra#t. Rat-er, t-e car was searc-able but t-e lu,,a,e !#s!de was #ot. (See also /r5a#sas &. Sa#ders+. .-!s rule -as beco3e 5#ow# as t-e C-adw!c5-Sa#ders rule. .-e# ca3e a case called )S &. Ross, !# w-!c- t-e Court ruled t-at !1 t-ere was $robable cause to searc- t-e car, t-e# t-ey could searc- t-e co#ta!#er also. .-e Court drew a l!#e betwee# t-e Carroll %octr!#e, allow!#, searc-es !# cars w!t- $robable cause but #o warra#t, a#d t-e C-adw!c--Sa#ders rule, de#y!#, searc-es o1 lu,,a,e w!t- $robable cause but #o warra#t. .-e l!#e was so3ew-at cou#ter!#tu!t!&e6 !t bas!cally sa!d t-at !1 t-e $robable cause e4!sted o# t-e &e-!cle, t-e# t-e co#ta!#er could be searc-ed as well, but !1 t-e $robable cause was o# t-e co#ta!#er !tsel1, t-e# !t #eeded a warra#t. .-!s -old!#, was Eust!1!able o# ,rou#ds t-at $ol!ce could #ot be $er3!tted to searc- t-e car, but t-e# !33ed!ately sto$ w-e# t-ey e#cou#tered a $a$er ba,. /#d !# t-e o$$os!te sce#ar!o, w-ere t-ey -ad lu,,a,e w!t- $robable cause, but d!d#0t -a&e a warra#t, t-ey could se!;e t-e lu,,a,e u#t!l t-ey -ad a warra#t to o$e# !t. But t-e rule st!ll ca3e across as $retty arb!trary. G!estion: S-ould t-e Court o&ertur# Ross, a#d !#st!tute t-e sa3e sta#dard 1or cars a#d co#ta!#ers w!t-!# cars< R!le: Ross !s o&ertur#ed, a#d t-e #ew rule !s t-at co#ta!#ers w!t-!# cars 3ay be searc-ed u#der Carroll t-e sa3e way t-at t-e rest o1 t-e auto3ob!le 3ay be searc-ed - w!t- $robable cause e&e# w!t- #o warra#t. Notes: Cow 1ar does t-!s rule ,o, t-ou,-< %oes !t e4te#d to searc- o1 a car !#c!de#t to arrest< M!,-t !t de$e#d o# searc- !#c!de#t to arrest 1or sa1ety reaso#s as o$$osed to 1or e&!de#t!ary reaso#s< )#der a sa1ety searc- rat!o#ale 3aybe t-ey ca# searc- t-e co#ta!#er Eust t-e way t-at t-ey could -a&e !1 t-ere was a c-a#ce t-at -e could ,rab a wea$o# 1ro3 !t. But !1 !t0s a searc1or e&!de#ce !#c!de#t to arrest, t-e# t-ere ca# st!ll be 3ore e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !# a co#ta!#er t-a# !# a car - a#d s!#ce !# cases l!5e t-at, t-ere see3s to be #o reBu!re3e#t o1 $robable cause, so t-ey s-ould -a&e to ,et a warra#t !1 t-ey are to o$e# t-e co#ta!#er.

Notes: Scal!a co#curred a#d !# -!s co#curre#ce ,a&e a -a#dy l!st o1 so3e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t e4ce$t!o#s: searc-es !#c!de#t to arrest ... auto3ob!le searc-es ... border searc-es ... ad3!#!strat!&e searc-es o1 re,ulated bus!#esses ... e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces ... searc-MesN !#c!de#t to #o#arrest w-e# t-ere !s $robable cause to arrest ... boat board!#, 1or docu3e#t c-ec5s ... wel1are searc-es ... !#&e#tory searc-es ... a!r$ort searc-es ... sc-ool searc-MesN....R But -!s co#curre#ce t-e# ,oes o# to su,,est t-at t-e best o#e, searc- !#c!de#t to #o#-arrest w-e# t-ere !s $robable cause to arrest, ou,-t to be dro$$ed.

:yo3!#, &. Cou,-to# (1***+

:ed#esday, 2o&e3ber 21, 2012 1: 1 PM

?eywords: Ross rule /uto3ob!le e4ce$t!o# Passe#,er Co#ta!#er 'u,,a,e Searc- o1 $erso#s &acts: Pol!ce $ulled o&er a car 1or s$eed!#,. .-e o11!cer #ot!ced a syr!#,e !# t-e dr!&er0s $oc5et, w-!c- t-e dr!&er co#1!r3ed was used 1or dru,s. Pol!ce t-e# searc-ed t-e rest o1 t-e car 1or 3ore e&!de#ce o1 dru,s, a#d 1ou#d a $urse. O#e $asse#,er sa!d t-at !t was -er $urse, a#d $ol!ce o$e#ed !t a#yway. "t also co#ta!#ed dru, $ara$-er#al!a, so t-e $asse#,er was arrested also a#d c-ar,ed w!t- dru, o11e#ses. .-e $asse#,er, Cou,-to#, 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce u#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. G!estion: %oes t-e rule !# Ross t-at co#ta!#ers !# a car are searc-able w-e# t-ere !s $robable cause to searc- t-e car, a$$ly e&e# w-e# a #o#-sus$ect cla!3s ow#ers-!$ o1 a co#ta!#er< R!le: .-e Ross rule t-at $robable cause o# a car allows $ol!ce to searc- t-e w-ole car !#clud!#, $ac5a,es a$$l!es e&e# !1 t-e co#ta!#er !# Buest!o# belo#,s to a $asse#,er, as lo#, as t-e co#ta!#er !# Buest!o# 3!,-t -a&e t-e e&!de#ce sou,-t. (2ote t-at t-!s does#0t a$$ly to t-e $erso# o1 t-e $asse#,er, o#ly to t-e!r belo#,!#,s.+ 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, t-e Ross rule t-at t-e e#t!re car 3ay be searc-ed !#clud!#, $asse#,ers, a$$l!es to t-e $urse t-at belo#,ed to a $asse#,er. Notes: Cow 1ar does t-!s rule ,o< "s !t cate,or!cal, !.e. w-e#e&er t-e lu,,a,e !s !# t-e car, #o 3atter w-at e&!de#ce $o!#ts to !t be!#, u#related to t-e $robable cause, !t !s 1a!r ,a3e< Or !s t-ere so3e sce#ar!o !# w-!c- t-e rule s-ould#0t a$$ly< "t0s $oss!ble t-at !1 t-e $robable cause arose u#e4$ectedly, t-e way !t d!d -ere, a#d t-e co#ta!#er !s utterly u#related to t-e accused or to t-e cr!3e, t-e# !t would#0t a$$ly. Scal!a !3$l!es t-at !t would st!ll a$$ly, but t-e 1acts 3!,-t c-a#,e t-at. (=.,., cab dr!&er w!t- dru,s !# t-e car, a#d $asse#,er0s lu,,a,e !s !# t-e tru#5 t-e e#t!re t!3e.+ Notes: .-e Court d!st!#,u!s-es Ibarra, t-e 1a3ous $ro4!3!ty case t-at " do#0t t-!#5 was !# t-e syllabus. "# t-at case, t-e $ol!ce -ad a warra#t 1or a ta&er# a#d !ts barte#der, a#d t-e Court ruled t-at t-ey could #ot searc- t-e $atro#s o1 t-e bar, because t-at was a stro#,er $rotect!o# o1 searc- o1 $erso#s. Sa3e rat!o#ale a$$l!es to t-e %! Re case, w-!c- !#&ol&ed a searc- o1 t-e $erso#. Note: .-e rule o1 %e R!, say!#, t-at $eo$le t-e3sel&es ca##ot be searc-ed !# t-!s s!tuat!o# st!ll a$$l!es. .-!s rule a$$l!es o#ly to $urses/$ac5a,es o1 $asse#,ers, but #ot t-e!r $erso#s. :-at about w-e# o#e $erso# ad3!ts t-at -e !s t-e ow#er o1 stu11 t-at was 1ou#d !# t-e car< %oes t-at 3ea# t-e $ol!ce -a&e to lea&e -!s 1r!e#ds alo#e< "t0s a b!t l!5e Maryla#d &. Pr!#,le, but " t-!#5 t-at ar,u3e#ts could be 3ade e!t-er way6 t-e e4cul$atory e&!de#ce &s. t-e l!5el!-ood t-at o#e !s ta5!#, res$o#s!b!l!ty 1or strate,!c reaso#s.

Colorado &. Bert!#e (1*8>+

:ed#esday, 2o&e3ber 21, 2012 2:FG PM

Ca# $ol!ce w-o -a&e #o warra#t or $robable cause to searc- a car st!ll ,et t-e !#1or3at!o# t-rou,- !#&e#tory!#, t-e co#te#ts o1 t-e car w-e# t-ey !3$ou#d !t<

&acts: /# o11!cer arrested Bert!#e 1or dru#5 dr!&!#, a#d !3$ou#ded -!s car. 7ollow!#, t-at, a#ot-er o11!cer o&ersaw t-e tow!#, o1 t-e car a#d !# t-e $rocess -e o$e#ed a 5#a$sac5. .-e 5#a$sac5 co#ta!#ed dru, $ara$-er#al!a a#d a lar,e a3ou#t o1 cas-. Bert!#e was c-ar,ed w!tdru, o11e#ses as well. Ce 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce. .-e Colorado Courts su$$ressed t-e e&!de#ce6 t-e lower court rul!#, t-at t-e Colorado Co#st!tut!o# barred t-e e&!de#ce, but #ot t-e )S Co#st!tut!o# a#d t-e Colorado Su$re3e Court rul!#, t-at t-e )S Co#st!tut!o# barred t-e e&!de#ce. G!estion: :-at are t-e $ara3eters o1 t-e !#&e#tory e4ce$t!o# to t-e warra#t reBu!re3e#t< R!le: /s lo#, as t-ere !s #o e&!de#ce o1 bad 1a!t-, $ol!ce 3ay !#&e#tory t-e se!;ed or !3$ou#ded ,oods o1 arrestees, a#d !1 t-ey 1!#d e&!de#ce o1 a cr!3e, !t w!ll be ad3!ss!ble. Disc!ssion: !#&e#tory searc-es allow t-e $ol!ce to $rotect t-e $ossess!o#s o1 t-e sus$ect w-!le -e !s !# t-e custody o1 $ol!ce. .-ey also $rotect $ol!ce 1ro3 cla!3s o1 t-e1t a#d da3a,e. S!#ce t-e $rocedures are reaso#able, t-ey outwe!,- t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !#terests o1 t-e sus$ect. .-e Court d!scusses t-at $ol!ce -ad d!scret!o# to #ot !3$ou#d t-e car at all, but rat-er to Eust lea&e !t loc5ed !# a $ubl!c $lace6 but t-e Court rules t-!s !s #ot rele&a#t to t-e reaso#able#ess deter3!#at!o#. Dissent: .-ere !s too 3uc- d!scret!o# !#&ol&ed -ere, a#d co$s !# 1act are 3ot!&ated by t-e searc- 1or e&!de#ce to c-oose to !3$ou#d t-e car o&er ot-er o$t!o#s. .-e earl!er cases o1 car !#&e#tory searc-es are #ot o# $o!#t because t-!s was a bac5$ac5 w!t-!# a car, so t-ere was a ,reater $r!&acy !#terest !# !t. .o t-e e4te#t t-e ot-er cases !#&ol&ed a ,e#u!#e we!,-!#, o1 !#terests betwee# $rotect!#, t-e $ro$erty a#d t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts, t-e eBuat!o# !s d!11ere#t -ere. Notes: :-at would !t ta5e 1or t-e d!sse#t0s ar,u3e#t to -old sway e&e# u#der t-!s rule< =&!de#ce o1 bad 1a!t- !s o#e t-!#,. :-at !1 t-ere was a de$art3e#t $ol!cy t-at t-ey s-ould#0t c-ec5 t-e stu11< :-at !1 t-ey -ad ar3ed ,uards arou#d t-e car lot, so t-ere !s $rotect!o# a,a!#st t-e1t, a#d $rotect!o# a,a!#st alle,at!o#s o1 $ol!ce 3!s3a#a,e3e#t<

'esser "#trus!o#s: Sto$ a#d 7r!s5

:ed#esday, 2o&e3ber 21, 2012 F:F* PM

)#t!l .erry &. O-!o, t-ere were o#ly o#e o1 two o$t!o#s: e!t-er t-ere was $robable cause a#d t-e $ol!ce could arrest so3eo#e a#d searc- t-e3, or t-ere was#0t a#d $ol!ce could#0t arrest t-e $erso# or searc- -!3. .erry &. O-!o reco,#!;ed so3e area !# betwee# - #ow $ol!ce ca# sto$ so3eo#e 1or so3et-!#, 3ore t-a# a c-at, a#d o#ce t-ey sto$ t-at $erso#, t-ey ca# searc- -!3 !1 t-ey -a&e Eust!1!able 1ear t-at t-ey #eed to searc- -!3 1or t-e!r sa1ety. ("t does#0t see3 clear w-at t-e e11ect o1 t-e 0sto$0 $art o1 t-e eBuat!o# !s. "s t-e deta!#ee 1ree to ,o< "s -e deta!#ed te3$orar!ly< " t-!#5 -e 3ust stay t-ere, because ot-erw!se !t does#0t 3a5e se#se - w-ere does t-e reaso#able#ess a#alys!s co3e !#< Per-a$s e&e# !1 -e0s 1ree to lea&e, $ol!ce #eed to Eust!1y t-e!r H$rotect!&eH searc- o1 -!3 by say!#, t-at t-e or!,!#al sto$ was based o# reaso#able sus$!c!o#.+ 1. .erry &. O-!o: "1 $ol!ce -a&e a reaso#able sus$!c!o# t-ey ca# sto$ so3eo#e a#d deta!# t-e3 br!e1ly o# t-at bas!s. !. "1 t-ey -a&e Eust!1!able co#cer# 1or t-e!r sa1ety, t-ey ca# $er1or3 a searc- 1or -!dde# wea$o#s. 2. 7lor!da &. A.': F. "ll!#o!s &. :ardlow:

.erry &. O-!o (1*68+

.uesday, October 16, 2012 10:22 /M

&acts: O# October F1, 1*6F, w-!le o# a dow#tow# beat w-!c- -e -ad bee# $atroll!#, 1or 3a#y years, Cle&ela#d Pol!ce %e$art3e#t detect!&e Mart!# Mc7adde#, a,ed 62, saw two 3e#, Ao-# :. .erry a#d R!c-ard C-!lto#, sta#d!#, o# a street cor#er at 12>6 =ucl!d /&e#ue a#d act!#, !# a way t-e o11!cer t-ou,-t was sus$!c!ous. %etect!&e Mc7adde#, w-o was well-5#ow# o# t-e Cle&ela#d $ol!ce 1orce 1or -!s s5!ll !# a$$re-e#d!#, $!c5$oc5ets, obser&ed t-e two $roceed alter#ately bac5 a#d 1ort- alo#, a# !de#t!cal route, $aus!#, to stare !# t-e sa3e store w!#dow. =ac- co3$let!o# o1 t-e route was 1ollowed by a co#1ere#ce betwee# t-e two o# a cor#er. .-e two 3e# re$eated t-!s r!tual alter#ately betwee# 1!&e a#d s!4 t!3es a$!eceU!# all, rou,-ly a do;e# tr!$s. /1ter o#e o1 t-ese tr!$s, t-ey were Eo!#ed by a t-!rd 3a# (?at;+ w-o le1t sw!1tly a1ter a br!e1 co#&ersat!o#. Sus$ect!#, t-e two 3e# o1 Hcas!#, a Eob, a st!c5-u$H, detect!&e Mc7adde# 1ollowed t-e3 a#d saw t-e3 reEo!# t-e t-!rd 3a# a cou$le o1 bloc5s away !# 1ro#t o1 a store. .-e $la!#clot-es o11!cer a$$roac-ed t-e t-ree, !de#t!1!ed -!3sel1 as a $ol!ce3a#, a#d as5ed t-e!r #a3es. .-e 3e# H3u3bled so3et-!#,H, w-ereu$o# Mc7adde# s$u# .erry arou#d, $atted dow# -!s outs!de clot-!#,, a#d 1elt a $!stol !# -!s o&ercoat $oc5et. Ce reac-ed !#s!de t-e o&ercoat $oc5et, but was u#able to re3o&e t-e ,u#. .-e o11!cer ordered t-e t-ree !#to t-e store. Ce re3o&ed .erry0s o&ercoat, too5 out a re&ol&er, a#d ordered t-e t-ree to 1ace t-e wall w!t- t-e!r -a#ds ra!sed. Ce $atted dow# t-e outer clot-!#, o1 C-!lto# a#d ?at; a#d se!;ed a re&ol&er 1ro3 C-!lto#0s outs!de o&ercoat $oc5et. Ce d!d #ot $ut -!s -a#ds u#der t-e outer ,ar3e#ts o1 ?at; (s!#ce -e d!sco&ered #ot-!#, !# -!s $at-dow# w-!c- 3!,-t -a&e bee# a wea$o#+, or u#der .erry0s or C-!lto#0s outer ,ar3e#ts u#t!l -e 1elt t-e ,u#s. .-e t-ree were ta5e# to t-e $ol!ce stat!o#. .erry a#d C-!lto# were subseBue#tly c-ar,ed w!tcarry!#, co#cealed wea$o#s. .-e de1e#se o1 t-e c-ar,ed !#d!&!duals 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e use o1 t-e se!;ed wea$o#s as e&!de#ce o# ,rou#ds t-at t-e searc- a#d subseBue#t se!;ure were a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t to t-e )#!ted States Co#st!tut!o#. .-ou,- t-e tr!al court reEected t-e $rosecut!o# t-eory t-at t-e ,u#s -ad bee# se!;ed dur!#, a searc- !#c!de#t to a law1ul arrest, t-e court de#!ed t-e 3ot!o# to su$$ress a#d ad3!tted t-e wea$o#s !#to e&!de#ce o# t-e ,rou#d t-at t-e o11!cer -ad cause to bel!e&e t-at .erry a#d C-!lto# were act!#, sus$!c!ously, t-at t-e!r !#terro,at!o# was warra#ted, a#d t-at t-e o11!cer 1or -!s ow# $rotect!o# -ad t-e r!,-t to $at dow# t-e!r outer clot-!#, -a&!#, reaso#able cause to bel!e&e t-at t-ey 3!,-t be ar3ed. .-e tr!al court 3ade a d!st!#ct!o# betwee# a# !#&est!,atory Hsto$H a#d a# arrest, a#d betwee# a H1r!s5H o1 t-e outer clot-!#, 1or wea$o#s a#d a 1ull-blow# searc- 1or e&!de#ce o1 cr!3e. .erry a#d C-!lto# were 1ou#d ,u!lty, a# !#ter3ed!ate a$$ellate court a11!r3ed t-e co#&!ct!o#, a#d t-e O-!o State Su$re3e Court d!s3!ssed t-e a$$eal o# t-e ,rou#d t-at H#o substa#t!al co#st!tut!o#al Buest!o#H was !#&ol&ed. G!estion: %!d t-e sto$ a#d 1r!s5 &!olate t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts o1 t-e sus$ects because t-ey deta!#ed a#d searc-ed t-e sus$ects w!t-out -a&!#, $robable cause< R!le: .-ere !s -e#ce1ort- a #ew rule: "1 $ol!ce are s-ort o1 $robable cause, but -a&e a reasona7le s!spicion, 7ase$ on specific an$ artic!la7le facts, t-at t-ey #eed to Hse!;eH so3eo#e by sto$$!#, -!3 1or a br!e1 !#&est!,at!o#, t-e# t-ey 3ay do t-at. O#ce t-ey do t-at, t-ey are allowed to ta5e ste$s to e#sure t-e!r ow# sa1ety, !#clud!#, a $at-dow# o1 t-e sus$ect !1 t-ere !s a =!stifie$ 7elief t-at t-e sus$ect 3ay be ar"e$ an$ $angero!s. (.-!s

leads to t-e HSto$ a#d 7r!s5H $ract!ce, w-!c- see3s to $ay #o -eed to t-e Hs$ec!1!c a#d art!culable 1actsH #or to t-e HEust!1!ed bel!e1H words o1 t-e -old!#,+. Note: $ol!ce 3ust $o!#t to s$ec!1!c a#d art!culable 1acts. @ood 1a!t- bel!e1 !s #ot e#ou,-. Note: .-e ,o&er#3e#t !#terest #eeds to be substa#t!al. .-!s !s #ot a sl!d!#, scale, alt-ou,!t 3!,-t see3 l!5e !t s-ould be. Rat-er, !t0s a t-!rd cate,ory u#der t-e $robab!l!ty o1 $robable cause, a#d u#der t-e se!;ure/searc- o1 re,ular $robable cause searc-es. Disc!ssion: /r,u3e#ts co#te#ded t-at t-ere #eeded to be a 1le4!ble 3!ddle ,rou#d betwee# 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o# a#d t-e allowa#ce o1 o11!cers to do t-e!r Eobs. .-e cou#terar,u3e#t !s t-at t-ere -as le,ally bee# #o suc- 3!ddle ,rou#d. Court #otes two !ssues - t-e $er3!ss!b!l!ty o1 t-e $ract!ce, a#d t-e ad3!ss!b!l!ty o1 t-e e&!de#ce. Court #otes t-at ad3!ss!b!l!ty !s a l!3!ted tool 1or co#troll!#, $ol!ce $ract!ce. Court #otes t-at u#Buest!o#ably, sto$$!#, so3eo#e !# t-e street 1or !#&est!,at!o# !s a se!;ure, a#d $att!#, -!3 dow# !s a searc-. .-e Buest!o# !s w-et-er !t was reaso#able 1or t-e o11!cer to do !t. .wo Buest!o#s 1. :as !t Eust!1!ed at !#ce$t!o# 2. :as !t reaso#ably related !# sco$e to t-e c!rcu3sta#ces t-at Eust!1!ed t-e !#ter1ere#ce< a. .-e reaso#able#ess !#Bu!ry ta5es !#to accou#t t-e H#ature a#d e4te#t o1 t-e ,o&er#3e#tal !#terests !#&ol&edH, !#clud!#, t-e ,e#eral !#terest !# cr!3e $re&e#t!o#, t-e o11!cer0s s$ec!1!c co#cer# 1or -!s ow# sa1ety, t-e c!t!;e#0s !#terest !# -!s ow# $r!&acy a#d d!,#!ty, a#d t-e e4te#t to w-!c- t-e $art!cular searc- !# Buest!o# !#truded u$o# t-ose !#terests. .-ere #eed #ot be $robable cause 1or arrest, t-at t-e deta!#ee !s ar3ed a#d da#,erous !s e#ou,-. Cold!#,: O11!cer was e#t!tled to searc- .erry 1or wea$o#s because t-e co#duct -e -ad obser&ed !#d!cated a st!c5 u$, w-!c- !#d!cates t-at sus$ect 3ay be ar3ed. Searc- was reaso#able !# t-at !t was $at-dow# outs!de clot-!#, a#d o11!cer s!3$ly re3o&ed t-e ,u#s w!t-out do!#, 1urt-er !#trus!&e searc-!#,. Conc!rrence: 9arlan: .-e sto$ -as to be co#st!tut!o#ally ,rou#ded. .-e sus$!c!o# t-at t-e sus$ect !s da#,erous !s #ot e#ou,- - t-e o11!cer ca# a&o!d -!3. O#ce t-e sto$ !s co#st!tut!o#ally warra#ted, t-e 1r!s5 !s ob&!ously allowed. Co#curre#ce: :-!te: / sto$ t-at o#ly !#&ol&es Buest!o#s ca##ot 1orce a#swers. / re1usal to a#swer !s #ot ,rou#ds 1or arrest. %!sse#t: %ou,las: "1 -e could#0t -a&e ,otte# warra#t o# t-ose ,rou#ds, $ol!ce s-ould#0t -a&e ,rou#ds to se!;e a#d searc-. (2ot u#reaso#able, but w-at about cases l!5e t-!s, w-ere cr!3es -a&e#0t bee# co33!tted a#d t-ere0s #o alle,at!o# o1 a#yt-!#, be!#, t-ere to searc- 1or<+ 2ote: .-ere see3s to -a&e de&elo$ed t-e doctr!#e (w-!c- " 1ou#d !# ot-er $laces #ot !# t-e syllabus+ t-at 1or &!ole#t cr!3es l!5e robbery a#d assault etc. t-e $ol!ce are Eust!1!ed !# co#duct!#, a sa1ety 1r!s5 w!t-out a#y 1urt-er art!culable sus$!c!o#. But 1or lesser cr!3es, " ,uess l!5e weed $ossess!o# or s-o$l!1t!#,, $ol!ce 3ay sto$ w!t- reaso#able sus$!c!o# o1 t-e cr!3e, but 3ay #ot 1r!s5 w!t-out 1urt-er art!culable 1acts t-at !#d!cate t-at t-ere0s a wea$o#.

7lor!da &. A' (2000+

.uesday, October 16, 2012 10:G* /M

&acts: /#o#y3ous t!$ sa!d t-at A', a 3!#or, was carry!#, a ,u#. Pol!ce 1ou#d a#d 1r!s5ed -!3, tur#!#, u$ t-e ,u#. Ce was c-ar,ed w!t- a# !lle,al wea$o# a#d ow#!#, a ,u# as a 3!#or. Ce 3o&ed to su$$ress.

G!estion: %oes a# a#o#y3ous t!$ su11!ce to create t-e Hreaso#able sus$!c!o#H #ecessary 1or a .erry sto$< R!le: a# a#o#y3ous t!$ w!t- #o corroborat!o# !s #ot su11!c!e#t to create a Hreaso#able sus$!c!o#H u#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t reaso#able#ess test. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, w-ere all t-ere was a bald assert!o# 1ro3 a# a#o#y3ous $erso# w!t- #o ot-er corroborat!o#, !t d!d#0t r!se to t-e le&el o1 reaso#able sus$!c!o#. Note: .-!s d!scuss!o# !s a#alo,ous to t-e $robable cause d!scuss!o# !# /,u!lar/S$!#ell! a#d %ra$er/@ates. .-e Court co3$ares !t to a case w-ere t-ere was a# a#o#y3ous t!$ t-at #ot o#ly t!$$ed $ol!ce about t-e cr!3e, but also $red!cted w-at t!3e t-e sus$ect would lea&e t-e -ouse a#d t-e d!rect!o# t-at t-e sus$ect would ta5e. "t see3s l!5e t-ere0s a b!t o1 a total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces s!tuat!o# -ere. Court c!tes :-!te say!#, t-at a#o#y3ous t!$s alo#e are #ot e#ou,- to Eust!1y .erry sto$. Corroborat!#, e&!de#ce 1ro3 t-e t!$ster, w-!le #ot r!s!#, to t-e le&el o1 $robable cause 1or a warra#t, ca# allow a .erry sto$. .-e Court also 3e#t!o#s t-at allow!#, suc- a# a#o#y3ous t!$ to lead to sto$ a#d 1r!s5 would create a r!s5 o1 abuse by $eo$le0s e#e3!es. Note: .-e Court says t-at t-ey are #ot reBu!red to address w-at 3!,-t -a$$e# !1 t-ere were a# a#o#y3ous bo3b t-reat t-at would reBu!re t-at t-ey c-ec5 t-!#,s out but !s #o 3ore corroborated t-a# t-e case -ere. .-e !3$l!cat!o# !s t-at $ol!ce 3!,-t be allowed to act o# suc- a t!$ e&e# w!t-out corroborat!o#. Conc!rrence: @oes t-rou,- a ser!es o1 t-!#,s t-at 3!,-t -a&e ,!&e# r!se to reaso#able sus$!c!o#, !#clud!#, a #a3ed !#1or3a#t, so3eo#e w-o t-e $ol!ce 5#ow to be rel!able 1ro3 ot-er t!$s, 2ote: .-!s d!cta 3!,-t s-ed so3e l!,-t o# cases !# w-!c- a# o11!cer sto$$ed so3eo#e !# a 1as-!o# t-at was #ot allowed, but allow!#, t-e ,uy to ,o would $rese#t a da#,er. ".e. !1 -e sto$$ed so3eo#e 1or #o reaso# a#d !t tur#ed out t-e ,uy was dru#5, w-at s-ould t-e $ol!ce3a# do< %oes t-!s d!cta su,,est t-at -e ca# -aul t-e ,uy !#<

"ll!#o!s &. :ardlow (2000+

.uesday, October 16, 2012 10: F /M

Ca# a sus$ect c-oos!#, to 1lee su11!ce to be e&!de#ce ,!&!#, r!se to reaso#able sus$!c!o# 1or a .erry sto$< &acts: :ardlow saw $ol!ce !# a dru, -ea&y #e!,-bor-ood a#d be,a# to 1lee. Ce -ad bee# -old!#, a ba,. .-ey cau,-t -!3 a#d $atted -!3 dow# 1or wea$o#s, 1!#d!#, o#e. G!estion: :as t-ere reaso#able sus$!c!o# !# t-!s case 1or $ol!ce to sto$ t-e sus$ect a#d 1r!s5 -!3< R!le: 'ocat!o#, !.e. a -!,- cr!3e area, ca# be e&!de#ce to be used !# t-e Hreaso#able sus$!c!o#H eBuat!o#. / sus$ect 1lee!#, u#$ro&o5ed ca# also ser&e as suc- e&!de#ce, as ca# ,e#erally #er&ous, e&as!&e be-a&!or. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, $ol!ce were !# a# area o1 -ea&y #arcot!cs tra11!c5!#, a#d ,!&e# t-e locat!o# a#d t-e sus$ect0s atte3$t at e&as!o#, sto$$!#, -!3 was reaso#able o# ,rou#ds o1 co33o#se#se Eud,3e#t a#d !#1ere#ces about -u3a# be-a&!or. (2ote: "t see3s t-at t-ey ca#0t $oss!bly ,et -!3 o# t-e #e!,-bor-ood alo#e, #or o# t-e ba, alo#,. O#ce -e 1led, t-at $ulled e&eryt-!#, to,et-er a#d t-e total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces test co3es !#to $lay.+ Dissent: 7lee!#, s-ould #ot be $robat!&e, because o1te# t-e $re&!ous !#teract!o#s w!t- $ol!ce w!ll 3ot!&ate e&e# !##oce#t $eo$le to 1lee. %!sse#t a,rees w!t- t-e rule, but d!sa,rees o# t-e 1acts.

Court ruled t-at !t was a Eust!1!ed .erry sto$. Court #otes t-at w-!le be!#, !# t-e area !s #ot e&!de#ce e#ou,-, !t certa!#ly -el$s. 7lee!#, also added to t-e sus$!c!o#, alt-ou,- t-e d!sse#t does#0t l!5e t-at. (" te#d to a,ree - w-at about cases w-ere $eo$le 5#ow t-at $ol!ce o&er1r!s5< .-at0s a#alo,ous to e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces created by $ol!ce, a#d yet t-ere !s #o a#t!dote to !t.+ Cold!#,: .-e ba,, t-e 1lee!#,, a#d t-e $rese#ce !# a -!,- cr!3e #e!,-bor-ood to,et-er, Eust!1!ed t-e .erry sto$ a#d e#su!#, 1r!s5.

7lor!da &. Royer (1*8F+

.uesday, October 16, 2012 10: * /M

:-at co#st!tutes a Hsto$H u#der .erry, a#d at w-at $o!#t does !t r!se abo&e a .erry sto$ a#d beco3e a HrealH sto$< #l!ralit+ $ecisionJ 7lor!da &. Royer, G60 ).S. G*1 (1*8F+, was a ).S. Su$re3e Court case deal!#, w!t- !ssues !#&ol&!#, t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. S$ec!1!cally, t-e case establ!s-es a 1!r3 l!#e !# cases w-ere $ol!ce co#duct searc- a#d se!;ure w!t-out a warra#t. .-e court ruled t-at, w-!le !t !s le,al 1or aut-or!t!es to tar,et a#d a$$roac- a $erso# based o# t-e!r be-a&!or, abse#t 3ore, t-ey ca##ot deta!# or searc- suc- !#d!&!dual w!t-out a warra#t. "# Aa#uary 1*>8, two u#derco&er o11!cers a$$roac-ed t-e $la!#t!11, Mr. Royer, at t-e M!a3! "#ter#at!o#al /!r$ort because -e 1!t a dru, cour!er $ro1!le: Ce was a casually dressed, #er&ous you#, 3a# carry!#, -ea&y lu,,a,e. /lso, -e $a!d cas- 1or -!s t!c5et a#d 1!lled out -!s ba,,a,e ta, o#ly w!t- a #a3e a#d dest!#at!o#. .-e o11!cers !de#t!1!ed t-e3sel&es a#d as5ed !1 -e would s$ea5 w!t- t-e3. Ce co#se#ted a#d, at t-e!r reBuest, $roduced -!s a!rl!#e t!c5et a#d -!s dr!&er0s l!ce#se. Ce beca3e &!s!bly #er&ous w-e# t-e o11!cers #oted t-at t-e t!c5et a#d dr!&er0s l!ce#se bore d!11ere#t #a3es, a#d t-e# t-ey told -!3 t-ey sus$ected -!3 o1 tra#s$ort!#, #arcot!cs. :!t-out retur#!#, -!s t!c5et or l!ce#se, t-ey as5ed -!3 to acco3$a#y t-e3 to a s3all roo3 o11 t-e co#course. Ce sa!d #ot-!#, !# res$o#se but we#t w!t- t-e3. :!t-out -!s co#se#t, t-ey retr!e&ed -!s lu,,a,e a#d brou,-t !t to t-e roo3. :-e# as5ed !1 -e would co#se#t to a searc- o1 -!s su!tcases, a,a!# -e d!d #ot s$ea5, but -a#ded t-e o11!cers a 5ey. :-e# t-e o11!cers o$e#ed t-e su!tcase, t-ey d!sco&ered !t co#ta!#ed 3ar!Eua#a. G!estion: :-e# $ol!ce acted o# t-e!r reaso#able sus$!c!o#, d!d t-ey ,o too 1ar !# t-e!r Hse!;ureH o1 Royer, to t-e $o!#t t-at !t was a# arrest< R!le: (1+ / $erso# -as bee# Wse!;edK w!t-!# t-e 3ea#!#, o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t o#ly !1, !# &!ew o1 all o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces surrou#d!#, t-e !#c!de#t, a reaso#able $erso# would -a&e bel!e&ed t-at -e was #ot 1ree to lea&e. (2+ :-e# so3eo#e !s deta!#ed !lle,ally, a#y co#1ess!o# t-at e#sues t-ereby !s e4cluded. ("t !s so3ew-at u#clear -ow to read t-e rest o1 t-e case - !s !t say!#, t-at Royer was $er se arrested as s-ow# by t-e s!tuat!o# !# w-!c- -e was co#1!#ed, or !s t-e Court say!#, t-at a#y Hse!;ureH t-at ,oes beyo#d w-at .erry would allow !s by de1!#!t!o# u#reaso#able a#d t-e results o1 t-e arrest are e4cluded<+ 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, Royer was e11ect!&ely arrested w-e# $ol!ce too5 -!s l!ce#se a#d $ass$ort, recla!3ed -!s lu,,a,e 1ro3 t-e a!rl!#e, a#d too5 -!3 to t-e s3all s!de roo3 a#d accused -!3 o1 s3u,,l!#, dru,s. .-ere1ore, t-e e&!de#ce t-at e#sued, !.e. -!s allow!#, t-e3 to e4a3!#e -!s lu,,a,e, 3ust be e4cluded.

Disc!ssion: .-e )S Su$re3e Court -eld t-at, alt-ou,- t-e o11!cers correctly a$$roac-ed Mr. Royer !# t-e a!r$ort, t-ey 3o&ed -!3 w!t-out -!s co#se#t to t-e s3all roo3 a#d -eld -!3 t-ere w!t-out $robable cause. .-ere1ore, -!s co#se#t to searc- t-e su!tcase resulted 1ro3 a# !lle,al custody a#d t-e 3ar!Eua#a d!sco&ered could #ot be ad3!tted !#to e&!de#ce. .-e Plural!ty e#,a,es !# a lo#, d!scuss!o# about w-at act!o# !s a#d w-at !s#0t $ro$er a#d t-e result!#, e11ect o# t-e e&!de#ce. .-e &al!d!ty o1 t-e searc- de$e#ded o# t-e &al!d!ty o1 -!s co#se#t because t-ere was #o $robable cause. Pol!ce do#0t &!olate t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t by as5!#, Buest!o#s, e&e# !1 t-ey !de#t!1y t-e3sel&es as $ol!ce. .-e co#ce$t o1 a sto$ w!t-out $robable cause e4!sts based o# .erry &. O-!o. But .erry !s l!3!ted to w-at !s reaso#able u#der t-e c!rcu3sta#ces. Iou ca#0t do a 1ull searc- o1 a $erso# or car based 3erely o# sus$!c!o#, a#d $ol!ce 3ay #ot see5 to co#1!r3 t-e!r sus$!c!o#s by $utt!#, t-e sus$ect !# co#d!t!o#s t-at rese3ble arrest. State3e#ts ,!&e# dur!#, a# !lle,al dete#t!o# are !#ad3!ss!ble e&e# !1 t-ey were &olu#tary, !1 t-ey are t-e result o1 !lle,al dete#t!o# a#d #ot !#de$e#de#t acts o1 1ree w!ll. (< .-at0s sel1 co#trad!ctory+ "1 t-e e&e#ts d!d #ot !#&ol&e a# !lle,al searc-, a#d also d!d#0t !#&ol&e a# !#&olu#tary co#1ess!o#, t-e# t-e searc- would be ad3!ss!ble. .-e o11!cers s-ould #ot -a&e as5ed t-e sus$ect to acco3$a#y t-e3 1ro3 t-e $o!#t o1 t-e !#!t!al co#se#sual e#cou#ter to t-e s3all roo3 u#t!l t-ey retur#ed -!s t!c5et a#d l!ce#se. .r!al a#d a$$ellate courts -a&e o1te# ruled t-at a reaso#able $erso# would bel!e&e t-at -e !s !# custody a#d #ot 1ree to lea&e !1 as5ed to co#se#t to a searc- or tra#s$ortat!o# w-!le $ol!ce reta!# so3et-!#, o1 &alue to t-at $erso#. Pol!ce 3ust retur# suc- !te3s be1ore as5!#, a $erso# to acco3$a#y t-e3. .-e court 3a5es !ts dec!s!o# about custody/#o#-custody based o# e&eryt-!#, $ol!ce say or doUt-e total!ty o1 c!rcu3sta#ces test. .-e o11!cers also told -!3 t-ey sus$ected -!3 o1 tra#s$ort!#, #arcot!cs, a#d t-e# co#1!#ed -!3 !# a s3all, e#closed roo3. "1 t-at were #ot e#ou,-, t-ey retr!e&ed -!s lu,,a,e w!t-out -!s co#se#t. .-us, t-e Su$re3e Court -eld t-at a reaso#able 3a# would bel!e&e -e was e!t-er u#der arrest, or !# a custod!al s!tuat!o# 1u#ct!o#ally eBu!&ale#t to arrest. S!#ce t-e o11!cers o#ly -ad reaso#able sus$!c!o#, #ot $robable cause to bel!e&e -e was tra#s$ort!#, #arcot!cs u#t!l t-ey o$e#ed t-e su!tcase a#d 1ou#d t-e 3ar!Eua#a (w-!c- t-ey ad3!tted !# court+, t-ey -ad #o le,al r!,-t to $lace Mr. Royer !# custody. O#ce -e was esse#t!ally !# !lle,al custody, e&e# t-ou,- -e res$o#ded, ar,uably &olu#tar!ly, t-e e&!de#ce obta!#ed !s t-e 1ru!t o1 a# !lle,al dete#t!o#. Bre##a#, $art!al d!sse#t: Prese#t!#, t-e3sel&es as aut-or!tat!&e a#d de3a#d!#, l!ce#se a#d t!c5et was &!olat!&e o1 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t already, e&e# be1ore later &!olat!o#s. Blac53u# d!sse#t: "t ca##ot 1a!rly be sa!d t-at -e was arrested be1ore t-e actual arrest. Ce was a$$roac-ed !# $ubl!c, a#d ta5e# to a relat!&ely !##ocuous $lace. Re-#Bu!st, O0Co##or d!sse#t: .a5!#, -!3 w-ere t-ey d!d a#d ta5!#, -!s lu,,a,e was reaso#able. :ould t-ey rat-er -!s lu,,a,e ,et to 2ew Ior5 w!t-out -!3< (:-at about 3a5!#, a ,uy 3!ss -!s 1l!,-t< "s t-at a $roble3, 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t or 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t w!se<+

1. 2. F. G. . 6.

)#!ted States &. %rayto# (2002+

.uesday, October 16, 2012 11:1F /M

&acts: %rayto# a#d Brow# were o# a bus, a#d $ol!ce ,ot o# to c-ec5 1or dru,s. .-ey were restr!cted to as5!#, $asse#,ers 1or t-e!r co#se#t, a#d %rayto# a#d Brow# co#se#ted to be searc-ed. .-e!r ba, was 1!#e, but o11!cers 1elt -ard obEects a,a!#st t-e!r bod!es. .-e obEects tur#ed out to be dru,s. G!estion: S!#ce t-e $ol!ce d!d#0t a11!r3at!&ely !#1or3 t-e de1e#da#ts t-at t-ey were 1ree to re1use t-e searc-, !s !t by de1!#!t!o# a# u#reaso#able se!;ure !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t< R!le: O11!cers Buest!o#!#, $asse#,ers o# a bus #eed #ot !#1or3 $asse#,ers t-at t-ey ca# re1use to a#swer Buest!o#s, !# order to a&o!d t-e Buest!o#!#, a#d/or searc- be!#, de1!#ed as a se!;ure. %eter3!#at!o# o1 w-et-er t-ere was a se!;ure reBu!res a total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces a#alys!s t-at 1ocuses o# w-et-er a reaso#able $erso# would -a&e 1elt 1ree to decl!#e t-e searc-. Disc!ssion: %e1e#da#t $o!#ts to t-e 1act t-at -e allowed -!3sel1 to searc- as e&!de#ce t-at -e d!d#0t 1eel -e -ad t-e r!,-t to decl!#e, because #o dru, s3u,,ler would allow a $ol!ce3a# to searc- -!3 !1 -e -ad a c-o!ce. .-e Court says t-at does#0t 3atter - !t0s a# obEect!&e, !##oce#t $erso# sta#dard, #ot w-at t-e $erso# !# t-!s case -a$$e#ed to t-!#5. .-e 1act t-at !t was a bus does#0t c-a#,e t-at t-e o11!cers d!d #ot-!#, to 3a5e $eo$le t-!#5 t-ey -ad to a#swer. /lt-ou,- t-ey d!s$layed t-e!r bad,es, t-at does#0t 3ea# t-ey were assert!#, aut-or!ty t-ey d!d#0t -a&e. Pol!ce d!d #ot sto$ $eo$le 1ro3 lea&!#,. Pol!ce test!1!ed t-at 3ost $eo$le a,reed to a#swer Buest!o#s a#d be searc-ed, but t-at too was #ot e&!de#ce t-at t-ey 1elt co3$elled to. Court c!ted Bost!c5 1or 3ost o1 t-!s case, w-!c- was &ery s!3!lar. Dissent: .-ere !s a d!11ere#ce betwee# o11!cers a$$roac-!#, so3eo#e !# a 1r!e#dly 3a##er, a#d t-ree o11!cers esse#t!ally surrou#d!#, so3eo#e a#d &!olate -!s $erso#al s$ace !# Buest!o#!#, -!3. "# t-!s case, t-e dr!&er -ad ta5e# t-e!r t!c5ets a#d le1t w-!le $ol!ce we#t t-rou,- t-e bus. .-e total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces !# t-!s case was coerc!&e a#d $asse#,ers l!5ely d!d#0t t-!#5 t-ey -ad t-e o$t!o# o1 decl!#!#,, s!#ce t-ey were#0t !#1or3ed.

Court c!tes Bost!c5 to say t-at !t was#0t. "# Bost!c5, t-e court set out t-e test Hw-et-er a reaso#able $erso# would 1eel 1ree to decl!#e t-e o11!cers reBuests or ot-erw!se ter3!#ate t-e e#cou#ter.H .-e 3ere sett!#, o1 t-e e#cou#ter o# a bus was #ot su11!c!e#t to 3a5e a reaso#able $erso# acce$t rat-er t-a# decl!#e t-e searc-. But t-e court !# Bost!c5 #oted t-at t-e o11!cer d!d #ot bra#d!s- -!s ,u#, a#d !#1or3ed t-e sus$ect t-at -e d!d #ot -a&e to co#se#t. .-e =!,-tC!rcu!t -as t-ere1ore created a $er se rule t-at o11!cers 3ust !#1or3 searc-ees t-at t-ey #eed #ot co#se#t. Su$re3e Court o&ertur#s t-at rule a#d says t-at !t0s #ot #ecessary. Rule: Co#se#ted searc-es are ad3!ss!ble, e&e# o# buses. %!sse#t: t-ere were t-ree o11!cers surrou#d!#, t-e $eo$le o# t-e bus. "t0s l!5e a $edestr!a# w!to#e o11!cer, a#d a $edestr!a# w!t- t-ree, !# a# alley. .-e bus dr!&er -ad ceded co#trol o1 t-e bus to t-e o11!cers, a#d !t0s -ard to co#ce!&e t-at a reaso#able $erso# would t-!#5 -e0s 1ree to #ot a#swer. Notes: Court says t-at s!#ce o11!cers are ar3ed, -a&!#, a -olstered wea$o# t-at was#0t bra#d!s-ed does#0t create a s-ow!#, o1 1orce. .-e &erd!ct #otes t-at t-e test !s t-e reaso#able $erso# a#d addresses w-et-er t-e 5#owled,e o1 t-e deta!#ee or t-e 1act t-at o11!cer0s d!d#0t !#1or3 -!3 o1 t-e r!,-t to re1use. .-e a#swer !s t-at bot- are 1actors, but #e!t-er !s #ecessar!ly d!s$os!t!&e - t-e test !s total!ty o1 c!rcu3sta#ces.

Bre#dl!# &. Cal!1or#!a SCO.)S 200>

.uesday, October 16, 2012 11:2G /M

"s a $asse#,er !# a car also co#s!dered to be deta!#ed so t-at t-ey ca# co#test t-e sto$ !tsel1 a#d t-us -a&e e&!de#ce t-at arose 1ro3 !t e4cluded< &acts: "# t-e early 3or#!#, -ours o1 2o&e3ber 2>, 2001, a de$uty s-er!11 a#d -!s $art#er e11ected a tra11!c sto$ o# t-e car !# w-!c- Bruce Bre#dl!# was r!d!#,. .-e car0s re,!strat!o# -ad e4$!red, but t-e ow#er -ad a$$l!ed 1or a re#ewal, a#d a &al!d te3$orary re,!strat!o# $er3!t was $ro$erly a11!4ed to t-e car. 2e&ert-eless, t-e de$uty dec!ded to !#&est!,ate 1urt-er. Ce as5ed t-e dr!&er o1 t-e car, ?are# S!3erot-, 1or -er l!ce#se, a#d #ot!ced t-at Bruce Bre#dl!#, Ho#e o1 t-e Bre#dl!# brot-ers,H was s!tt!#, !# t-e $asse#,er seat. .-e de$uty deter3!#ed t-at t-ere was a warra#t out 1or Bre#dl!#0s arrest, a#d so -e called 1or bac5u$. O#ce bac5u$ arr!&ed, Bre#dl!# a#d S!3erot- were arrested. .-e $ol!ce 1ou#d a# ora#,e syr!#,e ca$ o# Bre#dl!#0s $erso#, 3ore syr!#,es a#d a H,ree# lea1y substa#ceH o# S!3erot-0s $erso#, a#d eBu!$3e#t used to 3a#u1acture 3et-a3$-eta3!#e !# t-e car. Bre#dl!# was c-ar,ed w!t- $ossess!o# a#d 3a#u1acture o1 3et-a3$-eta3!#e. Be1ore tr!al, -e 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce 1ou#d o# -!s $erso# a#d !# t-e car as 1ru!ts o1 a# u#law1ul se!;ureUu#law1ul because, -e ar,ued, t-e $ol!ce -ad #e!t-er $robable cause #or reaso#able sus$!c!o# to 3a5e t-e or!,!#al tra11!c sto$. .-e tr!al court de#!ed t-e 3ot!o#, reaso#!#, t-at Bre#dl!# was 1!rst Hse!;edH at t-e $o!#t -e was re3o&ed 1ro3 t-e car a#d arrested. Bre#dl!# $leaded ,u!lty but reser&ed t-e r!,-t to a$$eal t-e su$$ress!o# !ssue, a#d was se#te#ced to 1our years !# $r!so#. .-e Cal!1or#!a Su$re3e Court st!ll -eld t-at t-e tr!al court was correct !# de#y!#, t-e 3ot!o# to su$$ress because, !t reaso#ed, Ha $asse#,er !s #ot se!;ed as a co#st!tut!o#al 3atter !# t-e abse#ce o1 add!t!o#al c!rcu3sta#ces t-at would !#d!cate to a reaso#able $erso# t-at -e or s-e was t-e subEect o1 t-e $eace o11!cer0s !#&est!,at!o# or s-ow o1 aut-or!ty.H S!3erot- was t-e e4clus!&e tar,et o1 t-e tra11!c sto$, a#d so Bre#dl!# was #ot se!;ed u#t!l t-e $ol!ce d!d so3et-!#, else to cast t-e!r eyes u$o# -!3. .-e dec!s!o# was at odds w!t- se&eral 1ederal c!rcu!t courts o1 a$$eal. )$o# a$$eal, t-e ).S. Su$re3e Court a,reed to re&!ew t-e dec!s!o# o1 t-e Cal!1or#!a Su$re3e Court. G!estion: :-et-er a passenger !# a &e-!cle subEect to a tra11!c sto$ !s t-ereby Hdeta!#edH 1or $ur$oses o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, t-us allow!#, t-e $asse#,er to co#test t-e le,al!ty o1 t-e tra11!c sto$ a#d su$$ress e&!de#ce ste33!#, 1ro3 t-at sto$. R!le: / tra11!c sto$ !s a se!;ure 1or 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $ur$oses, #ot o#ly as re,ards t-e dr!&er o1 t-e car, but also t-e $asse#,er, so lo#, as t-e $asse#,er d!d#0t reaso#ably t-!#5 t-at -e/s-e was 1ree to ,o . .-ere1ore, !1 t-e sto$ !s u#law1ul, e&!de#ce t-at ar!ses 1ro3 t-e sto$ 3ust be e4cluded. Note: .-e co#&erse also a$$l!es - !1 t-ere !s reaso#able sus$!c!o# lead!#, to t-e car be!#, $ulled o&er, a#d t-e $ol!ce searc- a passenger $ursua#t to a Eust!1!able 1ear 1or t-e!r sa1ety, t-e e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble. (/r!;o#a &. Ao-#so#+ Notes: :-at would !t ta5e 1or t-e rule to #ot a$$ly< / car !s sto$$ed 1or t-e $ur$ose o1 as5!#, Buest!o#s< O-, -ere0s a ,ood o#e - !1 t-e car was sto$$ed 1or a le,al c-ec5$o!#t, a#d $ol!ce see so3et-!#, !# $la!# &!ew. S!#ce t-e or!,!#al sto$ was Eust!1!ed, t-e $la!# &!ew 3!,-t create reaso#able sus$!c!o# a#d t-e e#su!#, searc- would be ad3!ss!ble. Note: .-!s does #ot, a#d we d!d #ot, address !ssues o1 sta#d!#,. But " t-!#5 "03 correct !# t-e 1ollow!#, state3e#t: "1 $ol!ce searc- /da30s -ouse !lle,ally, a#d 1!#d stu11 relat!#, to Ste&e0s

cr!3e, t-e e&!de#ce w!ll #ot be su$$ressed, because Ste&e -as #o sta#d!#, to c-alle#,e t-e Gt/3e#d3e#t searc-. /ctually, " do#0 t t-!#5 t-at !t0s true, because Ste&e -as a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !# /da30s -ouse. So !# Bre#dl!# t-e sta#d!#, was t-ere 1or t-e $asse#,ers as well, s!#ce t-ey -ad a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 #ot be!#, sto$$ed. (:-at !1 so3eo#e l!&es #e4t to a cr!3!#al, t-e cr!3!#al0s -ouse !s ra!ded !lle,ally, a#d t-e $ol!ce s3ell 3ar!Eua#a co3!#, 1ro3 t-e #e4t a$art3e#t< "s t-at t-e sa3e case<+ Court we!,-s w-et-er reaso#able $asse#,er would -a&e 1elt t-at -e was 1ree to ter3!#ate t-e e#cou#ter. Court co#cludes t-at -e would #ot. ("s t-e cou#ter&a!l!#, act!o# !3$orta#t - !.e. !1 -e -ad le1t t-e car, w-at would t-e e11ect -a&e bee# o# t-e $ol!ce0s sus$!c!o# le&el< O-, court 3a5es t-at $o!#t, a#d t-e 1oot#ote c!tes to a case w-ere so3eo#e was le,ally sto$$ed, a#d $ol!ce #oted t-at a $asse#,er loo5ed sus$!c!ous. .-ey 1r!s5ed -!3 a#d 1ou#d a ,u#. SCO.)S ruled t-at !# a#y Eust!1!ed tra11!c sto$, t-e 1!rst .erry co#d!t!o# !s 3et, a#d $ol!ce are t-e# e#t!tled to $rotect t-e3sel&es by searc-!#,. Mbut !s a# ar3ed $asse#,er really a r!s5 dur!#, a tra11!c sto$<N+ Court co#cludes, rat-er rat!o#ally, t-at !1 t-ey allow t-!s e&!de#ce, t-e# a#y t!3e $ol!ce are bored, t-ey ca# e#,a,e !# tra11!c sto$s a#d c-ec5 out t-e $asse#,ers at t-e!r le!sure. Rule: / $asse#,er !# a car !s co#s!dered deta!#ed alo#, w!t- t-e car a#d t-e dr!&er, a#d t-ere1ore, !1 t-e sto$ tur#s out to be u#warra#ted, t-e e&!de#ce obta!#ed !# t-at case w!ll be !#ad3!ss!ble. (:-at about ,ood 1a!t-< %oes t-at cou#t 1or a#yt-!#, a#y3ore<+ #otes: / $erso# !s Hse!;edH 1or $ur$oses o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t w-e# $-ys!cal 1orce or a s-ow o1 aut-or!ty ter3!#ates or restra!#s -!s 1reedo3 o1 3o&e3e#t. "1 t-e $ol!ce0s !#te#t to restra!# a# !#d!&!dual !s u#clear, or !1 a# !#d!&!dual0s sub3!ss!o# to a s-ow o1 aut-or!ty ta5es t-e 1or3 o1 $ass!&e acBu!esce#ce, a se!;ure does #ot occur u#less a reaso#able $erso# would #ot 1eel 1ree to lea&e !# l!,-t o1 all t-e c!rcu3sta#ces. "1, -owe&er, t-e $erso# -as #o des!re to lea&e 1or reaso#s u#related to t-e tra11!c sto$, t-ere !s #o se!;ure.

)#!ted States &. Place (1*8F+

.uesday, October 16, 2012 11: G /M

%oes a do, s#!11 r!se to t-e le&el o1 a searc-< :-at are t-e l!3!ts o1 a se!;ure u#der .erry< &acts: Ray3o#d A. Place 1!rst aroused t-e sus$!c!o# o1 law e#1orce3e#t o11!cers as -e was sta#d!#, !# l!#e at t-e M!a3! a!r$ort wa!t!#, to buy a t!c5et to 2ew Ior50s 'a@uard!a /!r$ort. .-e o11!cers a$$roac-ed -!3 o# -!s way to t-e ,ate a#d as5ed -!3 1or !de#t!1!cat!o#. Place also a,reed to let t-e o11!cers searc- t-e lu,,a,e -e -ad c-ec5ed, but t-ey decl!#ed to do so !# l!,-t o1 t-e 1l!,-t0s !33!#e#t de$arture. %!scre$a#c!es betwee# t-e two lu,,a,e ta,s o# Place0s two su!tcases 1urt-er aroused t-e o11!cers0 sus$!c!o#s, a#d t-ey co#1!r3ed t-at t-e addresses were 1alse. .-e M!a3! o11!cers alerted %=/ a,e#ts at 'a@uard!a to t-e!r sus$!c!o#s about Place. .-e %=/ a,e#ts wa!ted u#t!l Place -ad retr!e&ed -!s lu,,a,e a#d called a l!3ous!#e be1ore a$$roac-!#, -!3 !# 2ew Ior5. .-e %=/ a,e#ts a,a!# as5ed Place 1or -!s !de#t!1!cat!o#, w-!c-e $roduced. .-e a,e#ts d!sco&ered t-at Place -ad #o outsta#d!#, warra#ts. .-ey t-e# as5ed to searc- Place0s lu,,a,e, but Place decl!#ed to allow t-e a,e#ts to do so. .-e a,e#ts t-e# told Place t-ey were ,o!#, to ta5e t-e lu,,a,e to a 1ederal Eud,e to obta!# a warra#t to searc- t-e lu,,a,e, a#d t-at Place was 1ree to acco3$a#y t-e3 !1 -e c-ose to. /# -our a#d a -al1 later, t-e a,e#ts -ad ta5e# Place0s ba,s to ?e##edy a!r$ort a#d allowed a tra!#ed #arcot!cs detect!o#

do, to $er1or3 a Hs#!11H test. .-e do, detected t-e $rese#ce o1 #arcot!cs. .-!s was late o# a 7r!day a1ter#oo#6 t-e a,e#ts reta!#ed t-e lu,,a,e o&er t-e wee5e#d u#t!l Mo#day, w-e# t-ey obta!#ed a warra#t to searc- t-e lu,,a,e. .-ey d!sco&ered o&er a 5!lo,ra3 o1 coca!#e. Place 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e coca!#e, ar,u!#, t-at t-e warra#tless se!;ure o1 t-e lu,,a,e &!olated -!s 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts. .-e d!str!ct court d!sa,reed, reaso#!#, !#stead t-at t-e $ol!ce o#ly #eeded reaso#able sus$!c!o# to se!;e Place0s ba,s, w-!c- t-ey -ad. G!estions: (1+w-et-er t-e se!;ure o1 t-e ba,s was a 1ull se!;ure, or a lesser se!;ure a5!# to .erry 1or ba,s. (2+ w-et-er t-e do, s#!11!#, was a searc- u#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, suct-at $er1or3!#, !t w!t-out a warra#t would #ecess!tate e4clus!o#. R!le: (1).-e se!;ure o1 lu,,a,e $ursua#t to reaso#able sus$!c!o# !s l!3!ted to t-e e4te#t t-at se!;ure o1 t-e $erso# would be u#der t-ose c!rcu3sta#ces. (4) / do, s#!11!#, t-e outs!de o1 a ba, !s #ot !# !tsel1 a 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t &!olat!o#. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, !t !s clear t-at t-e $ol!ce -ad reaso#able sus$!c!o# a#d substa#t!al ,o&er#3e#t !#terest !# se!;!#, t-e lu,,a,e, because t-ere was reaso#able sus$!c!o# o1 dru, tra11!c5!#,. Cowe&er, (1+ "t was u#reaso#able o# a .erry sta#dard to ta5e t-e lu,,a,e away to a#ot-er a!r$ort, w-!c- e11ect!&ely resulted !# t-e $asse#,er -!3sel1 be!#, searc-ed, a#d t-ere1ore t-e se!;ure we#t too 1ar to be su$$orted by reaso#able sus$!c!o#. (2+ Cowe&er, !1 t-ey -ad $er1or3ed t-e do, s#!11 !# a 3ore e4$ed!e#t 1as-!o#, t-e s#!11 would #ot -a&e bee# a searcu#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. .-e Court ruled t-at t-e se!;ure o1 t-e ba,s was so3ew-at warra#ted - a .erry le&el se!;ure, but ta5!#, !t away 1ro3 t-e ,uy a#d br!#,!#, !t to a#ot-er a!r$ort 1or a# -our a#d a -al1 was too 3uc-, because w-!le -e tec-#!cally could -a&e tra&eled w!t-out -!s lu,,a,e, !t ca# e11ect!&ely restra!# -!3. .-ere1ore, t-e l!3!ts o# !#&est!,at!&e sto$s o1 t-e $erso# de1!#e t-e l!3!ts o1 w-at t-ey ca# do w!t- -!s lu,,a,e.

'esser !#trus!o#s: /d3!#!strat!&e searc-es

:ed#esday, 2o&e3ber 21, 2012 11:1G PM

.-e Courts -a&e u$-eld a ser!es o1 searc-es t-at were 3ade !# t-e co#te4t o1 ad3!#!strat!&e act!o#s. .-e or!,!#al bala#c!#, test case was Ca3ara, w-!c- was t-e source 1or .erry a#d w-!c- was a# ad3!#!strat!&e case. "# Ca"ara t-e Court ruled t-at a# ad3!#!strat!&e !#s$ector was #ot allowed to e#ter so3eo#e0s -ouse w!t-out a warra#t. .-e Court sa!d t-at w-!le t-ere were clearly ,o&er#3e#t !#terests !# t-e !#s$ector be!#, allowed !#, t-e ,o&er#3e#t !#terests -ad to be we!,-ed a,a!#st t-e $r!&acy !#terests !# t-e -o3e, a#d 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t was s$ec!1!cally wr!tte# to a&o!d !#s$ectors be!#, able to wal5 !#to $eo$le0s -ouses o# a w-!3. (#ote t-at t-!s would -a&e to be reE!,,ered 1or searc-es o1 3ore $ubl!c $laces, l!5e restaura#ts w-!c- 3!,-t -a&e !#s$ect!o# rules, etc.+

O0Co##or &. Orte,a: /$$ro&!#, searc- o1 o11!ce o# reaso#able sus$!c!o# t-at !t was #ecessary 1or ad3!#!strat!&e $ur$oses. 2ew Aersey &. .'O u$-old!#, searc- o1 $ubl!c sc-ool stude#t o# reaso#able sus$!c!o# o1 &!olat!#, sc-ool rules (!s t-!s w-ere t-e stude#t e4ce$t!o# co3es 1ro3<+. /,a!#, t-e $ur$ose !s ad3!#!strat!o# rat-er t-a# law e#1orce3e#t. Sa3so# &. Cal!1or#!a: Parolees ca# be searc-ed w!t- #o $robable cause, #o reaso#able sus$!c!o#, etc. .-ere !s also a rat!o#ale o1 Habuse o1 d!scret!o#H t-at u#derl!es t-e u#reaso#able#ess o1 so3e ,o&er#3e#t sto$s. (%elaware &. Prouse+

.-ere !s also a# e4ce$t!o# 1or Hs$ec!al #eedsH w-!c- ca# so3et!3es Eust!1y e&e# ,o&er#3e#t actors !# searc-!#, e&e# w-e# t-ere !s #o d!scret!o#, because t-e s$ec!al !#terest 3a5es t-e searc- reaso#able. .-at ca# o$erate !# two ways: o "1 t-ere !s a #e4us betwee# t-e cr!3e co#trol a#d t-e !#ter1ere#ce w!t- $r!&ate !#terests, (e.,. a roadbloc5 c-ec5!#, 1or dru#5 dr!&!#,+ !t0s reaso#able. But !1 t-ere0s #o suc- #e4us, !t0s #ot allowed ("#d!a#a$ol!s &. =d3o#d6 7er,uso# &. C-arlesto#+ o "1 t-ere !s a s$ec!al !#terest t-at !s #ot substa#t!ally related to general criminal enforcement t-e# t-e act!o# !s l!5ely to be reaso#able. ("#d!a#a$ol!s &. =d3o#d6 7er,uso# &. C-arlesto#6 "ll!#o!s &. '!dster+.

Sa3so# &. Cal!1or#!a (2006+

Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:F8 PM

2o warra#t, 2o Probable Cause, 2o Reaso#able Sus$!c!o#, Searc- o1 $erso# Ca# so3eo#e -a&e #o e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy a#yw-ere based o# status (!# t-!s case $arolee<+ &acts of the Case / $ol!ce o11!cer sto$$ed a#d searc-ed Sa3so# o# t-e street !# Sa# Bru#o, Cal!1or#!a. .-e o11!cer -ad #o warra#t a#d later ad3!tted -e -ad sto$$ed Sa3so# o#ly because -e 5#ew -!3 to be o# $arole. .-e Cal!1or#!a statute allowed all $arole o11!cers or $eace o11!cers to searc- a#y $arolee w!t-out a warra#t a#d w!t-out $robable cause. .-e o11!cer 1ou#d t-at Sa3so# was !# $ossess!o# o1 3et-a3$-eta3!#es. Sa3so# was arrested a#d c-ar,ed w!tdru, $ossess!o# !# state court. /t tr!al Sa3so# ar,ued t-e dru,s were !#ad3!ss!ble as e&!de#ce, because t-e searc- -ad &!olated -!s 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts. .-e tr!al court de#!ed t-e 3ot!o# a#d t-e state su$re3e court decl!#ed to -ear t-e case. G!estion %!d t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $ro-!b!t $ol!ce 1ro3 co#duct!#, a warra#tless searc- o1 a $erso# w-o was subEect to a $arole searc- co#d!t!o#, w-ere t-ere was #o sus$!c!o# o1 cr!3!#al wro#,do!#, a#d t-e sole reaso# 1or t-e searc- was because t-e $erso# was o# $arole< Or was t-ere #o He4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acyH 1or so3eo#e w-o -ad bee# ,ra#ted $arole, s!#ce -e could Eust as well -a&e bee# !# $r!so#< R!le: "1 t-ere !s a state law t-at $arolees ca# be searc-ed 1or #o reaso#, t-e# $arolees do#0t -a&e a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. Notes: .-e ?#!,-t case t-at t-e Court c!tes, to,et-er w!t- Sa3so#, see3s to !#d!cate t-at $ol!ce could also searc- a $arolee0s -ouse w!t-out a#y sus$!c!o# at all. ".e., t-e Court 3e#t!o#ed !# ?#!,-t t-at t-ey could but !t 3ay -a&e bee# d!cta s!#ce t-ere was reaso#able sus$!c!o# !# t-at case. But Sa3so# d!d#0t e&e# -a&e t-at, so !1 you $ut t-e two to,et-er, you 3!,-t -a&e t-e rule ,o t-at 1ar. "# a 6-to-F dec!s!o# aut-ored by Aust!ce Clare#ce .-o3as, t-e Su$re3e Court -eld t-at Sa3so# Hd!d #ot -a&e a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy t-at soc!ety would reco,#!;e as le,!t!3ate.H .-e Court was 1ollow!#, a rece#t dec!s!o# !# ?#!,-t &. Cal!1or#!a, !# w-!c- t-ey0d ruled t-at t-e $ol!ce o11!cers0 sus$!c!o# o1 a rece#t $arolee was e#ou,- to allow t-e3 to searc- -!s a$art3e#t, a#d -ad ta5e# !#to accou#t t-at -e0d bee# a $arolee. "# ?#!,-t, t-e court -ad #oted t-at t-e statute allows t-e searc-, t-at t-e $arolee was !#1or3ed o1 !t a#d s!,#ed to !t. .-e court also #oted t-at !# $r!so# t-ere are #o $r!&acy r!,-ts. .-e Court !# ?#!,-t co#cluded based o# all t-e c!rcu3sta#ces t-at searc-!#, a $arolee based o# a co3b!#at!o# o1 reaso#able sus$!c!o# a#d t-e 1act t-at -e0s a $arolee was su11!c!e#t. Parole allows co#&!cted cr!3!#als out o1 $r!so# be1ore t-e!r se#te#ce !s co3$leted. /# !#3ate w-o c-ooses to co3$lete -!s se#te#ce outs!de o1 d!rect $-ys!cal custody, -owe&er,

re3a!#s !# t-e %e$art3e#t o1 Correct!o#0s legal custody u#t!l t-e co#clus!o# o1 -!s se#te#ce, a#d t-ere1ore -as s!,#!1!ca#tly reduced $r!&acy r!,-ts. "# t-!s case, Sa3so# -ad also bee# reBu!red, as a co#d!t!o# o1 -!s $arole, to s!,# a# a,ree3e#t t-at -e would be HsubEect to searc- or se!;ure by a $arole o11!cer or ot-er $eace o11!cer..., w!t- or w!t-out a searcwarra#t a#d w!t- or w!t-out cause.H .-!s wr!tte# co#se#t to sus$!c!o#-less searc-es, alo#, w!t- -!s already reduced $r!&acy !#terests as a $arolee, co3b!#ed to 3a5e t-e searcco#st!tut!o#al. .-e state -as a# !#terest !# ,reater scrut!#y o1 $arolees Parolees -a&e a -!,-er rec!d!&!s3 rate :-!le ot-er states -a&e a -!,-er sus$!c!o# reBu!re3e#t, t-at does#0t 3ea# t-at Cal!1or#!a0s !s #ot co#st!tut!o#al. Court #otes t-at Cal!1or#!a !s #ot e#,a,!#, !# Hca$r!c!ousH searc-es because t-ey -a&e a law a,a!#st !t. )#clear w-at t-at 3ea#s - was t-!s searc- a &!olat!o# o1 t-e Cal!1or#!a law< "s !t Eust t-at t-e law carr!ed #o e4clus!o#ary re3edy< @!stices te,ens, o!ter an$ Bre+er d!sse#ted, ar,u!#, t-at $arolees -a&e a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy ,reater t-a# t-at o1 $r!so#ers, w-!c- was &!olated by t-e searc- at !ssue !# t-!s case.

:-!le t-e Court -as reco,#!;ed t-at $arole ra!ses so3e d!11!cult 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t Buest!o#s, t-ey -a&e #e&er ,!&e# a bla#5et ,ra#t o1 d!scret!o# u#tet-ered by a#y $rocedural sa1e,uard. (:-at !s e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< Ca# t-e Court Eust dec!de away a#y e4$ectat!o#< Ca# t-e le,!slature Eust le,!slate !t away<+ .-!s allowa#ce !s $rec!sely t-e ty$e t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t was des!,#ed to $rotect a,a!#st. 2ow, Ht-e l!berty o1 e&ery 3a# !s at t-e w-!3 o1 e&ery $etty o11!cerH. Court -as allowed $robat!o# o11!cers w!t- reaso#able sus$!c!o#, but t-!s !s Eust a bla#5 c-ec5. Court cla!3s t-at $r!so#ers -a&e #o e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, t-ere1ore $arolees do#0t. But !t0s clear t-at $arolees are #ot $r!so#ers. .-ere !s #o #eed 1or t-e !#st!tut!o#al $rotect!o# t-at allows $r!so#s to searc- t-e $r!so#ers. Courts ca##ot dec!de t-at t-ey -a&e #o e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy because t-e state sa!d t-ey do#0t. .-at0s c!rcular reaso#!#,. ?eywords: Parolee :arra#tless 2o Cause Couse searc-es

Couse &. 2a$ol!ta#o (%.Mass 2012+

Saturday, October 20, 2012 *:0F PM

2o warra#t, #o $robable cause, #o reaso#able sus$!c!o#. :-at aut-or!ty do o11!cers -a&e !# $art!cular!;ed sett!#,s w-ere t-e ,o&er#3e#t !#terest 3!,-t be stro#,er t-a# #or3al< :-at are t-e l!3!ts to t-at aut-or!ty, a#d -ow do we deter3!#e t-e3< &acts: %a&!d Couse was a 3e3ber o1 t-e Bradley Ma##!#, Su$$ort @rou$. .-!s was a ,rou$ o1 $eo$le w-ose 3!ss!o# was to sta#d be-!#d Ma##!#, !# t-e act!o#s result!#, 1ro3 accusat!o#s t-at -e s-ared class!1!ed !#1or3at!o# w!t- :!5!lea5s. Couse we#t to t-e a!r$ort to 1ly so3ew-ere

a#d -e -ad so3e electro#!c eBu!$3e#t w!t- -!3, !#clud!#, a co3$uter, $-o#e a#d &!deo ca3era. /t t-e a!r$ort, a,e#ts co#1!scated -!s eBu!$3e#t a#d as5ed -!3 1or -!s co3$uter $assword, w-!c- -e decl!#ed to ,!&e t-e3. O#e o1 -!s Eust!1!cat!o#s was t-at access to -!s co3$uter would ,!&e t-e3 access to -!s e3$loyer0s #etwor5. .-e a,e#ts !#ter&!ewed -!3 1or a w-!le !# a s!de roo3. /1terward, t-ey -eld o# to -!s electro#!c eBu!$3e#t, retur#!#, o#ly -!s cell$-o#e. .-ey ,a&e -!3 a# !#&e#tory sl!$ w-!c- !#d!cated w-ere t-e co3$uter was be!#, se#t. .-ey told -!3 t-at t-e de&!ces would be retur#ed w!t-!# a wee5. G> days later -e -ad#0t rece!&ed t-e3. Ce -!red a lawyer w-o se#t a letter to t-e a,e#c!es !# Buest!o#. .-e #e4t day, -e ,ot t-e eBu!$3e#t bac5. 2o !#1or3at!o# about $oss!ble co$y!#, o1 -!s data was o11ered. G!estion: (4):as t-e se!;ure o1 Couse0s electro#!c de&!ces a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t< (2+ :as t-e durat!o# o1 t-e se!;ure a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t< R!le: .-e bala#c!#, test u#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t lea#s -ea&!ly toward t-e ,o&er#3e#t w-e# !t ta5es $lace at t-e border. Cowe&er, t-ere are st!ll l!3!ts, so t-e ,o&er#3e#t #eeds to -a&e Hso3e le&el o1 sus$!c!o#H (del!berately u#s$ec!1!ed+ be1ore e#,a,!#, !# H-!,-ly !#trus!&e searc-esH. C!,-ly !#trus!&e searc-es are de1!#ed by 1!&e 1actors, la!d out below. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, t-e ,o&er#3e#t -ad a !#terest !# $ol!c!#, !ts borders, a#d t-e $r!&ate !#terest se!;ed was o#ly electro#!c eBu!$3e#t, w-!c- !s 3ore a5!# to se!;!#, a su!tcase t-a# to e4a3!#!#, so3eo#e0s al!3e#tary ca#al. .-ere1ore, t-e !#!t!al searc- does #ot &!olate t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t. Cowe&er, !t !s $oss!ble t-at t-e durat!o# 3ay $oss!bly -a&e bee# a $roble3. .-ere1ore t-e 1act 1!#der s-ould we!,- t-at. Notes: .-!s case could -a&e ,o#e t-e ot-er way, because t-e court 1a!ls to address t-e sco$e o1 t-e e4$a#ded ,o&er#3e#t !#terest at t-e border. "t0s #ot l!5ely t-at t-e e4$a#ded ,o&er#3e#t !#terest would allow t-e3 to ta5e blood tests 1or dru, use. Presu3ably t-e !#terest !s l!3!ted to border-s$ec!1!c co#cer#s. .-!s co3$uter !s #ot o#e, because e&e# !1 t-ey are co#cer#ed w!tclass!1!ed !#1or3at!o#, t-e border !s #ot a l!5ely #e4us 1or class!1!ed !#1or3at!o# e4c-a#,e. .-e Court also reaso#ed t-at rul!#, 1or Couse would 3ea# t-at $eo$le w-o s3u,,le t-e!r c-!ld $or# o# a co3$uter -a&e a# u#1a!r ad&a#ta,e o&er $eo$le w-o s3u,,le !t !# a su!tcase. Cowe&er, t-at !s s!3$ly u#reaso#able - you could 3a5e t-e sa3e ar,u3e#t about $eo$le w-o 5ee$ t-e!r dru,s !# -ouses as o$$osed to cars. Co3$uters -a&e 3ore !#1or3at!o# t-at !s 3ore $erso#al t-at w-at su!tcases co#ta!#, a#d you ca# ta!lor your su!tcase to -a&e t-e ty$es o1 t-!#,s t-at you are#0t a1ra!d o1 s-ar!#,, w-!c- you ca#0t do w!t- your e&eryday la$to$. .-e Court also does #ot address t-e !ssue t-at !t ra!sed about t-e co$y!#, o1 t-e co3$uter 1!les. "1 t-ey -a&e a stro#, ,o&er#3e#t !#terest !# se!;!#, t-e co3$uter, t-at s-ould#0t #ecessar!ly 3ea# t-at t-ey ca 3!rror t-e w-ole dr!&e. )#l!5e a su!tcase, w-!c- !s searc-ed a#d t-e# released, t-e co3$uter ca# be used 1or 3uc- broader reaso#s. .-ere1ore t-e reaso#able#ess reBu!re3e#t s-ould co#ta!# a sco$e o1 t-e searc- l!3!tat!o# as well. .-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t ,uara#tees St-e r!,-t o1 t-e $eo$le to be secure !# t-e!r $erso#s ... a#d e11ects, a,a!#st u#reaso#able searc-es a#d se!;ures, s-all #ot be &!olated, a#d #o :arra#ts s-all !ssue, but u$o# $robable cause....R ).S. CO2S.. a3e#d. "8. /lt-ou,- searc-es 3ust be reaso#able, St-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t0s bala#ce o1 reaso#able#ess !s Bual!tat!&ely d!11ere#t at t-e !#ter#at!o#al border t-a# !# t-e !#ter!or.R Couse &. 2a$ol!ta#o, C"8./. 11-108 2-%AC, 2012 :' 10F8816 (%. Mass. Mar. 28, 2012+

.-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t0s bala#c!#, test o1 !#terests lea#s -ea&!ly toward t-e ,o&er#3e#t at t-e border. See7 8nited States v. .amsey, GF1 ).S. 606, 61*, *> S.Ct. 1*>2, 2 '.=d.2d 61> (1*>>+. .-!s !s so because St-e )#!ted States, as so&ere!,#, -as t-e !#-ere#t aut-or!ty to $rotect, a#d a $ara3ou#t !#terest !# $rotect!#,, !ts terr!tor!al !#te,r!ty.R Couse &. 2a$ol!ta#o, C"8./. 11-108 2-%AC, 2012 :' 10F8816 (%. Mass. Mar. 28, 2012+ .-e Su$re3e Court, -owe&er -as reco,#!;ed certa!# l!3!tat!o#s to t-e border searc- $ower to co#duct rout!#e searc-es w!t-out so3e le&el o1 sus$!c!o#. 7!rst, custo3s o11!c!als 3ay #eed so3e le&el o1 sus$!c!o# to co#duct S-!,-ly !#trus!&e searc-esR !3$l!cat!#, t-e Sd!,#!ty a#d $r!&acy !#terestsR o1 a $erso# suc- as body ca&!ty or str!$ searc-es. See Flores9&ontano, G1 ).S. at 1 2 (-old!#, t-at t-e re3o&al, d!sasse3bly a#d reasse3bly o1 a &e-!cle0s 1uel ta#5 at t-e border d!d #ot reBu!re $art!cular!;ed sus$!c!o#+. .-e Su$re3e Court -as descr!bed str!$, body ca&!ty, or !#&olu#tary 4-ray searc-es as S#o#rout!#e border searc-esR but e4$ressly decl!#ed to su,,est Sw-at le&el o1 sus$!c!o#, !1 a#y, !s reBu!redR 1or t-ese searc-es. &ontoya de Hernande', G>F ).S. at G1 #. G. Seco#d, ot-er t-a# S-!,-ly !#trus!&e searc-es o1 t-e $erso#,R Flores9&ontano, G1 ).S. at 1 2, t-e Su$re3e Court -as le1t o$e# t-e Buest!o# Sw-et-er, a#d u#der w-at c!rcu3sta#ces, a border searc- 3!,-t be dee3ed Wu#reaso#ableK because o1 t-e $art!cularly o11e#s!&e 3a##er !# w-!c- !t was carr!ed out,R *d. at 1 , #. 2 (Buot!#, .amsey, GF1 ).S. at 618 #. 1F+, but -as #ot de1!#ed t-e $rec!se co#tours o1 a searc- carr!ed out !# suc- a 3a##er. .-!rd, t-e Su$re3e Court -as su,,ested t-e $oss!b!l!ty t-at Sso3e searc-es o1 $ro$erty are so destruct!&e as to reBu!reR so3e le&el o1 sus$!c!o#. Flores9&ontano, G1 ).S. at 1 J 6. Couse &. 2a$ol!ta#o, C"8./. 11-108 2-%AC, 2012 :' 10F8816 (%. Mass. Mar. 28, 2012+ .-e Su$re3e Court a#d so3e C!rcu!t Courts -a&e d!11ere#t!ated betwee# -!,-ly !#trus!&e searc-es a#d ot-er ty$es o1 searc-es. .-ere1ore searc-!#, t-e 0al!3e#tary ca#al0 3ay be u#warra#ted w!t-out sus$!c!o# but searc-!#, a car 3!,-t st!ll be allowed, at a border. (1+ Sw-et-er t-e searc- results !# t-e e4$osure o1 !#t!3ate body $arts or reBu!res t-e sus$ect to d!srobeR6 (2+ Sw-et-er $-ys!cal co#tact betwee# Custo3s o11!c!als a#d t-e sus$ect occurs dur!#, t-e searc-R6 (F+ Sw-et-er 1orce !s used to e11ect t-e searc-R6 (G+ Sw-et-er t-e ty$e o1 searce4$oses t-e sus$ect to $a!# or da#,erR6 ( + St-e o&erall 3a##er !# w-!c- t-e searc- !s co#ductedR6 a#d (6+ Sw-et-er t-e sus$ect0s reaso#able e4$ectat!o#s o1 $r!&acy, !1 a#y, are abro,ated by t-e searc-.R *d. at 12 (1oot#otes a#d c!tat!o#s o3!tted+. Couse &. 2a$ol!ta#o, C"8./. 11-108 2-%AC, 2012 :' 10F8816 (%. Mass. Mar. 28, 2012+ Court -olds t-at t-!s !s 3ore s!3!lar to a su!tcase searc-, s!#ce alt-ou,- !t 3!,-t !#&ol&e $erso#al t-ou,-ts a#d co33e#ts, so 3!,-t a su!tcase. "t0s #ot l!5e be!#, as5ed to d!srobe. Court -olds t-at t-e le#,t- o1 t-e se!;ure d!d !# 1act $oss!bly e4ceed t-e bou#ds o1 w-at was to be reaso#ably e4$ected at t-e a!r$ort. .-ere1ore, w-!le t-ey decl!#ed to rule o# !t, t-ey d!d#0t d!s3!ss !t e!t-er. Court t-e# u$-eld t-e lawsu!t o# t-e bas!s o1 t-e 7!rst /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts to assoc!at!o# a#d s$eec-, so t-e 3ot!o# to d!s3!ss was de#!ed. But t-e 3ot!o# to d!s3!ss o# ,rou#ds o1 7ourt/3e#d3e#t was u$-eld. :-ere does t-at lea&e us< :-at sort o1 sus$!c!o# ca# t-e $ol!ce e4erc!se at a border< %o t-ey -a&e co3$lete d!scret!o#, e&e# w-e# !t0s clear t-at t-e!r 3ot!&at!o# !s #ot to searc- 1or a#yt-!#, border related< :-at would -a$$e# !1 t-ey -ad a

warra#t a#d t-ey d!d#0t ,o to t-e $laces t-at would -a&e dru,s, but !#stead, searc-ed t-e co3$uter< 2ot rele&a#t, s!#ce warra#ts state t-e t-!#, to be searc-ed, but you ,et 3y $o!#t. ?eywords: Border searcCusto3s /d3!#!strat!&e e4ce$t!o# Bala#c!#, test @o&er#3e#t !#terest

7er,uso# &. C!ty o1 C-arlesto# (2001+

Saturday, October 20, 2012 *:GG PM =o warrant, no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion Facts of the Case After an increase in the use of cocaine by patients receiving prenatal care, the 8edical >niversity of 0outh 'arolina "8>0'$ started to cooperate with 'harleston to formulate a policy to prosecute mothers whose children tested positive for drugs at birth. 8>0' obstetrical patients were arrested after testing positive for cocaine. 7hey filed suit challenging the policy&s validity on the theory that warrantless and nonconsensual drug tests conducted for criminal investigatory purposes were unconstitutional searches. Among the *istrict 'ourt&s actions was an instruction to the ury to find for the patients unless they had consented to such searches. 7he ury found in favor of the city. %n affirming, the 'ourt of Appeals held that the searches were reasonable, reasoning that special needs may, in certain exceptional circumstances, ustify a search policy designed to serve non5law5 enforcement ends. Question %s a state hospital&s performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient&s criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment if the patient has not consented to the procedure1 Rule: (1) Government employees are restricted by the Fourth Amendment. (2) While there is a "special needs exception" that weighs into the reasonableness requirement of Fourth Amendment analysis, enforcement of drug laws even to deter pregnant women from taking drugs does not ustify an invasion of privacy such as unconsented urine tests. "#$ "arguable, but % thin! it&s there$ %n order to qualify for the "special interest exception" to the Fourth Amendment, the motivation for the search must be substantially divorced from the interest in law enforcement. Decision: , votes for Ferguson, # vote"s$ against Legal provision: Amendment :D Fourth Amendment Jes. %n a ,5# opinion delivered by Bustice Bohn 6aul 0tevens, the 'ourt held that the diagnostic tests constituted an unreasonable search if the patient has not consented to the procedure. 7he interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter pregnant women from using cocaine cannot ustify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authoriAed by a valid warrant. Gxamining the "special needs" exception to the Fourth Amendment, Bustice 0tevens wrote that a special need is "divorced from the 0tate&s general interest in law enforcement," and that under the city&s view "virtually any nonconsensual suspicionless search could be immuniAed under the special needs doctrine by defining the search solely in terms of its ultimate...purpose." 'ourt notes that while there is a "special need e"ception" in other cases, that doesn&t apply in this case where the interest was basically to turn these people over to the police. 2ecause 8>0' was a government run hospital, its employees were government actors and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. "%f they weren&t, would it have to be some medical privacy statute1$ =obody contended that there was probable cause, they contended that they were allowed to search without warrants and without suspicion because of the circumstances.

'ompares to tests for employment, promotions, etc. and says that this intrusion is much worse without consent because they are disse#inating the results to third parties. 'ourt says that the biggest determining factor was that in this case, the government&s motivating factor was basically the arrest and prosecution of pregnant drug abusers, not treatment.

?eywords: /d3!#!strat!&e searc-es S$ec!al #eed e4ce$t!o# @o&er#3e#t e3$loyee

%elaware &. Prouse (1*>8+

Saturday, October 20, 2012 *:1* PM =o warrant, no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion. 8ight the police randomly stop cars and chec! licenses and registrations and tal! to the drivers in the interests of engaging them and potentially encountering and uncovering evidence of criminal activity1 Facts of the Case A *elaware patrolman stopped William 6rouse&s car to ma!e a routine chec! of his driver&s license and vehicle registration. 7he officer had not observed any traffic violation or suspicious conduct on the part of 6rouse. After stopping the car, the officer uncovered mari uana. 7he mari uana was later used to indict 6rouse. Question *id the officer&s search of 6rouse&s automobile constitute an unreasonable search and seiAure under the Fourth Amendment1 Rule: (1)%n order to pull someone over, a cop needs to have at least reasonable suspicion. "(a$ 6ulling a car over is a seiAure, and is therefore sub ect to the reasonableness analysis of the Fourth Amendment. Legal provision: Amendment :D Fourth Amendment Jes. %n an @5to5( decision, the 'ourt held that the privacy interests of travelers outweighed the state interests in discretionary spot chec!s of automobiles. 7he 'ourt found that random chec!s made only marginal contributions to roadway safety and compliance with registration requirementsI less intrusive means could have been used to serve the same ends. ;fficers must be held to a "probable cause" standard for searches, otherwise individuals would be sub ect to "unfettered governmental intrusion" each time they entered an automobile. Good quoteD 7he Grave danger of a$use of discretionP. =oteD %t seems that what the state was doing here is trying to get the policing of the registration on the same page as the border, etc. wherein there is a sufficient interest to allow the government to search without any sort of cause at all. 7he 'ourt responded essentially by saying that it&s not the search that&s the issue, it&s the worry about abuse of discretion. %n light of that worry, they need to do something 5 anything 5 that does not allow discretion. 0o far as we&ve seen, then, the doctrine is thisD when you are at a border, there doesn&t need to be any suspicion at all, since there is such a vital government interest. When you are a parolee, anyone can search you anytime. %hen !ou are driving and not violating an! la&s' the govern#ent can do certain things' $ut not things that open the door to a$use of discretion(

?eywords: Pla!# &!ew .ra11!c sto$ Reaso#able sus$!c!o# =4clus!o# /buse o1 d!scret!o# Cere0s a Buote 1ro3 %amara (#ot !# syllabus+ t-at !s !#te#ded ,e#erally (!t e&e# a$$l!ed to .erry+ but !s also a$$l!ed to ad3!#!strat!&e searc-es: Ht-ere ca# be #o ready test 1or deter3!#!#, reaso#able#ess ot-er t-a# by bala#c!#, t-e #eed to searc- a,a!#st t-e !#&as!o# w-!c- t-e

searc- e#ta!ls.R )#der t-!s bala#c!#, t-eory, t-e Court co#t!#ued, !t !s #ecessary to co#s!der (!+ w-et-er t-e $ract!ce at !ssue -as Sa lo#, -!story o1 Eud!c!al a#d $ubl!c acce$ta#ce,R (!!+ w-et-er t-e $ract!ce !s esse#t!al to ac-!e&e Sacce$table results,R a#d (!!!+ w-et-er t-e $ract!ce !#&ol&es Sa relat!&ely l!3!ted !#&as!o# o1 P $r!&acy.H

"#d!a#a$ol!s &. =d3o#d ()S 2000+

Saturday, October 20, 2012 *:FG PM

?eywords: Roadbloc5 @o&er#3e#t !#terest Presu3$t!o# o1 u#co#st!tut!o#al!ty<

=o warrant, no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion Facts of the Case %n (99@, the 'ity of %ndianapolis began to operate vehicle chec!points in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. At each roadbloc!, one office would conduct an open5view examination of the vehicle. At the same time, another office would wal! a narcotics5detection dog around the vehicle. Gach stop was to last five minutes or less, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. 2oth Bames Gdmond and Boell 6almer were stopped at one of the narcotics chec!points. 7hey then filed a lawsuit, on their behalf and the class of motorists who had been stopped or were sub ect to being stopped, alleging that the roadbloc!s violated the Fourth Amendment and the search and seiAure provision of the %ndiana 'onstitution. 7he *istrict 'ourt denied a request for a preliminary in unction, holding that the chec!point program did not violate the Fourth Amendment. 7he 'ourt of Appeals reversed. Question Are highway chec!point programs, whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics, consistent with the Fourth Amendment1 Rule: 7he government cannot engage in even minor seiAures with no suspicion, for the sole purpose of general crime prevention. %n order to pass the reasonableness balancing test, the government must show that there&s a specific interest that directly relates to the method of enforcement. Decision: , votes for Gdmond, # vote"s$ against Legal provision: Amendment :D Fourth Amendment =o. %n a ,5# opinion delivered by Bustice 0andra *ay ;&'onnor, the 'ourt held that because the chec!point program&s primary purpose was indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the chec!points violated the Fourth Amendment. "We cannot sanction stops ustified only by the generaliAed and ever5present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime," wrote Bustice ;&'onnor. 'hief Bustice William <. 3ehnquist and Bustices Antonin 0calia and 'larence 7homas dissented, arguing that the reasonableness of the city&s roadbloc!s depended on whether they served a "significant state interest with minimal intrusion on motorists." 7here needs to be not only a strong government interest, but also a connection between the interest and the measures that are ta!en to combat it. 7herefore, policing cars in an effort to detect drugs doesn&t stand up.

2ote: "t see3s t-at t-!s too5 away t-e $ol!ce d!scret!o# w-!c- was $art o1 t-e $roble3 !# Prouse. But !t was st!ll ruled to be u#co#st!tut!o#al.

"ll!#o!s &. '!dster

Saturday, October 20, 2012 *: PM

?eywords: Pla!# s!,-t C-ec5$o!#t

S$ec!al #eed 2otes: Pro1 wo#ders w-at would -a$$e# !1 t-e roadbloc5 was to see w-et-er t-ere were w!t#esses to a dru, deal t-at -ad -a$$e#ed t-ere $re&!ously. 'oo5!#, at so3e ot-er cases a#d -ow t-at -y$o would co3e dow# - could#0t you re3a#d 1or a 1!#d!#, o# w-at t-e true 3ot!&at!o# o1 t-e $ol!ce was< "# '!dster, #obody co#tested t-at t-e !#terest was not ,e#eral !#&est!,at!o#, !t was 3ot!&ated by t-at o#e dru#5 dr!&er t-e wee5 be1ore. "1 $ol!ce say t-at t-ey0re !#&est!,at!#, ,e#eral dru, act!&!ty, t-at would be o5ay so lo#, as t-ey were !# 1act #ot try!#, to loo5 !#to e&eryo#e0s cars.
=o warrant, no probable cause, no suspicion, Facts of the Case 6olice stopped 3obert +idster at a chec!point set up to find information about a recent hit5and5run accident. +idster was arrested, and later convicted, for drun! driving. +idster successfully appealed his conviction to the %llinois Appellate 'ourt. %t relied on the >.0. 0upreme 'ourt&s decision in %ndianapolis v. Gdmond ")---$ holding that a chec!point is unconstitutional if its only purpose is to uncover "ordinary criminal wrongdoing." 7he %llinois 0upreme 'ourt affirmed. Question *oes %ndianapolis v. Gdmond, which dealt with the Fourth and (:th Amendment prohibitions of unreasonable searches and seiAures, prohibit chec!points organiAed to question motorists about a previous offense and arrest motorists for drun! driving1 Rule: 7he General Fourth Amendment reasonableness balancing test Holding: %ndianapolis v. Gdmond doesn&t apply because in this case the Fourth Amendment violation was not for the purpose of examining anything to do with the detainees. 7his is less intrusive and by definition doesn&t involve questions of suspicion. 7he purpose was to find information about something external. 7herefore, the only application is the standard government interest weighed against the private interest. Decision: , votes for %llinois, # vote"s$ against Legal provision: Amendment :D Fourth Amendment =o. %n an opinion delivered by Bustice 2reyer, the 'ourt held ,5# that the %llinois chec!point did not violate the Fourth Amendment&s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seiAures and was constitutional. %t ruled that the chec!point was reasonable because it advanced a "grave" public interest 5 "investigating a crime that had resulted in a human death" 5 and interfered minimally with Fourth Amendment liberty. 7he 'ourt distinguished %llinois&s "information5see!ing" chec!point from the "crime control" chec!point struc! down in Gdmond. Bustices 0tevens, 0outer, and Ginsburg 5 while agreeing that Gdmond does not invalidate the %llinois chec!point 5 dissented from the ma ority&s decision granting constitutional approval to the chec!point. 7hey argued that the case should have been remanded to the %llinois courts. Notes: could the 'ourt have structured this a little differently, i.e. that this was in fact analogous to the Gdmond case, but this time the interest was more particulariAed and therefore had a nexus to the roadbloc!1 7here is a concurrence that also doesn&t say this, so % guess not.

)#!ted States &. 7lores-Mo#ta#o ()S 200G+

Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:00 PM =o warrant, no probable 'ause, no reasonable suspicion What level of suspicion, if any, is necessary to engage in minor seiAures and searches at the border1 Facts of the Case When 8anuel Flores58ontano approached the >.0.58exico border, >.0. 'ustoms inspectors noticed his hand sha!ingI an inspector tapped Flores58ontano&s gas tan! with a screwdriver and noticed that the tan! sounded solidI a drug5 sniffing dog alerted to the vehicle. After a mechanic began disassembling the car&s fuel tan!, inspectors found #4 !ilograms of mari uana bric!s in the tan!. Flores58ontano was charged in federal district court in 'alifornia for importing and possessing mari uana with intent to distribute. Flores58ontano moved to suppress the mari uana finding on Fourth Amendment grounds. <e argued that the search that yielded the mari uana finding was intrusive and non5 routine and therefore required reasonable suspicion "which, he argued, was not present in his case$.

3elying on >.0. v. 8olina57araAon, a case decided by the >.0. =inth 'ircuit 'ourt of Appeals in )--) "with similar circumstances$, the district court agreed that the search was non5routine and thus required reasonable suspicion. 7he government, the court held, failed to prove that reasonable suspicion prompted its search. 7he =inth 'ircuit 'ourt of Appeals affirmed. Question %s there such a thing as a "routine" as opposed to "more intrusive" search for vehicles, that results in different Fourth Amendment requirements1 *oes the Fourth Amendment require customs officers at the international border to have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle&s gas tan! for illegal material1 Rule: 7here is no privacy interest in a gas tan!, and therefore at the border where the government&s interest is strong, they can disassemble a gas tan! in order to search it without violating the Fourth Amendment, even if they don&t have any suspicion at all. Holding: 0ee rule. 7he 'ourt seems to be weighing whether there should be different levels of search on cars the way there are for people, the way we saw in <ouse v. =apolitano. 7he 'ourt concludes that a gas tan! does not have privacy interests sufficient to separate the doctrine for gas tan! disassembly from the doctrine for other border searches without suspicion. Decision: 9 votes for >nited 0tates, - vote"s$ against Legal provision: Amendment :D Fourth Amendment =o. %n a unanimous opinion delivered by 'hief Bustice William 3ehnquist, the 'ourt held that the government had authority to inspect a vehicle&s fuel tan! at the border without suspicion. 7hough the Fourth Amendment "&protects property as well as privacy,&" interference with a vehicle owner&s gas tan! "is ustified by the Government&s paramount interest in protecting the border." 7he 'ourt re ected the argument that the requirement of suspicion for highly intrusive searches of people be carried over to cars "especially at the border$D "'omplex balancing tests...have no place in border searches of vehicles." Notes: What would it ta!e to get to the rule that the defendant wants in this case1 % don&t !now that it&s possible. 8aybe if they did lasting damage to the car1 ;therwise, we already have the "highly intrusive" search on persons and anything that is not that is o!ay without any suspicion at all. 0o if the guy comes to the border, there are only two things 5 him and his stuff. And all his stuff can be searched with no cause at all.

?eywords: Border searc-es "#trus!&e

Co#se#t Searc-es, Pla!# 8!ew, Pla!# S3ell

.-ursday, 2o&e3ber 22, 2012 2:G8 PM

Pol!ce o1te# as5 1or co#se#t to searc-, so3et!3es to a&o!d t-e $rocess o1 ,ett!#, a warra#t, but 3ore o1te# w-e# t-ey do#0t -a&e $robable cause. Re3e3ber t-e case about bus searc-es - %rayto#. "# t-at case t-e court was try!#, to 1!,ure out !1 t-e tar,ets were aware t-at t-ey were allowed to re1use to be searc-ed. :-o ca# co#se#t< "t see3s t-at a#yo#e w-o -as t-e r!,-t to co#se#t ca# co#se#t, !t does#0t #eed to be s$ec!1!cally t-e sus$ect. Cowe&er, !1 t-e sus$ect !s sta#d!#, t-ere say!#, Hdo#0t co3e !#H a#d a#ot-er $erso# w-o -as aut-or!ty !s say!#, Hco3e !#H t-e# $ol!ce ca#0t ,o !#. @eor,!a &. Ra#dol$-. /lso re3e3ber Co33o#wealt- &. Porter, !# w-!c- t-e Court sa!d t-at t-e lan$lor$sKa$"inistrators ca#0t ,!&e co#se#t u#less t-ey are e!t-er a co-te#a#t w!t- eBual r!,-ts to t-e $ro$erty, or t-ey $rese#t to $ol!ce a co#tract t-at says t-at t-e te#a#t cedes t-e3 t-at aut-or!ty. "1 so3eo#e w-o does#0t -a&e aut-or!ty co#se#ts, but $ol!ce !# ,ood 1a!t- bel!e&e t-at -e does -a&e aut-or!ty, based o# co33o# u#dersta#d!#, t-e# t-e e&!de#ce w!ll be ad3!ss!ble as a ,ood 1a!t- e4ce$t!o#. o But t-!s o#ly a$$l!es to 3!sta5es o1 1act, #ot 3!sta5es o1 law. (Co33o#wealt- &. Porter+. S!#ce !# Porter, $ol!ce bel!e&ed #ot t-at t-e la#dlord was 1r!e#dly w!t- sus$ect

a#d -ad bee# ,!&e# $er3!ss!o# to e#ter, but t-at la#dlord was e3$owered by law to allow t-e3 !#, t-e e&!de#ce was e4cluded. .o w-at ca# t-at t-!rd $arty co#se#t< @eor,!a &. Ra#dol$- !3$l!es t-at t-ey ca# o#ly co#se#t to t-at w-!c- t-ey are reaso#ably assu3ed to -a&e aut-or!ty o&er. So t-ey ca# let you !# t-e -ouse, but #ot !#to t-e !#d!&!dual0s $r!&ate drawers. Luery w-et-er t-ey ca# let you !#to t-e sus$ect0s $r!&ate bedroo3.

Sc-#ec5lot- &. Busta3o#te ()S 1*>2+

Su#day, October 21, 2012 *:10 /M

?eywords: 8olu#tar!#ess Coerc!o# Co#se#t searc.ra11!c sto$, 2o warra#t, #o $robable cause, #o reaso#able sus$!c!o#, co#se#t searc&acts: /# o11!cer sto$$ed a car because !t -ad a bur#ed out -eadl!,-t a#d l!ce#se $late l!,-t. .-e dr!&er -ad #o "% a#d t-e o11!cers as5ed !1 a#yo#e else d!d. /lcala d!d, a#d -e !de#t!1!ed t-e car as belo#,!#, to -!s brot-er. .-e $ol!ce as5ed !1 t-ey could searc- t-e car a#d -e acBu!esced, e&e# -el$!#, t-e3 to loo5 !# t-e tru#5. "# t-e searc-, t-e $ol!ce 1ou#d so3e stole# c-ec5s. .-e c-ec5s were used !# a tr!al 1or Busta3o#te, a#ot-er occu$a#t o1 t-e car, a#d -e was co#&!cted. .-e Buest!o# was w-at t-e state -ad to $ro&e !# order to s-ow t-at t-e co#se#t -ad bee# &olu#tar!ly ,!&e#. R!le: 8olu#tar!#ess !# t-e co#te4t o1 a co#se#t searc- 3ea#s t-at t-e co#se#t ca3e about w!t-out coerc!o#. .-e state #eed #ot a11!r3at!&ely $ro&e t-at t-e de1e#da#t 5#ew t-at -e -ad t-e o$t!o# o1 re1us!#,6 t-e court s-ould loo5 at t-e total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces to deter3!#e w-et-er !t was &olu#tary.

Court loo5s to t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t doctr!#e to deter3!#e t-e 3ea#!#, o1 &olu#tary !# ter3s o1 a co#1ess!o# t-at was ,!&e# (1Gt-/ t- /3e#d3e#t, " $resu3e<+ o Court -as #ot reBu!red t-e $rosecut!o# to $ro&e as $art o1 !ts !#!t!al burde# t-at !t was &olu#tary. o Court -as used a total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces a$$roac- to deter3!#!#, w-et-er so3et-!#, was &olu#tary. Court a,rees w!t- Cal!1or#!a t-at !t !s a Buest!o# o1 1act. o ?#owled,e o1 t-e r!,-t to re1use co#se#t !s !3$orta#t, but #ot d!s$os!t!&e. o Suc- searc-es ca# be use1ul w-et-er t-ere0s $robable cause or #ot, but !t0s clear t-at t-ey ca##ot be coerced acBu!esce#ce, w-et-er t-e coerc!o# !s e4$l!c!t or !3$l!c!t, d!rect or !3$l!ed. o "t !s al3ost !3$oss!ble to $ro&e t-at t-e $erso# 5#ew -e could re1use. :-at to do about t-at< ReBu!re t-e $ol!ce to let -!3 5#ow< .oo u#w!eldy. ("03 #ot co#&!#ced+. Ma5e !t so3et-!#, t-e $ol!ce -a&e to a11!r3at!&ely $ro&e, l!5e t-ey -a&e to o# so3e tr!al related r!,-ts< .-!s !s #ot t-e sa3e as tr!al. "t !s a d!11ere#t 5!#d o1 r!,-t. o .-e court says &ery l!ttle t-at 3a5es a#y se#se, but !t0s $oss!ble t-at t-!s !s t-e ,!st o1 !t: )#l!5e at tr!al, w-ere t-e r!,-t e4!sts a#d we wa#t to $ro3ote !t as a #or3, !# t-!s case, t-e r!,-t !tsel1 !s #ot be!#, rel!#Bu!s-ed - !t0s o#ly a r!,-t !#so1ar as t-e ow#er

wa#ts to 5ee$ $eo$le out. But !1 -e co#se#ts, t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !s #ot !3$l!cated at all. .-ere1ore co#se#t !s a# !deal t-at we wa#t to ac-!e&e, 1or !ts !3$orta#t e#ds w!t-out !3$l!cat!#, t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. /#d !t 1ollows t-at t-ere #eed #ot be Hwa!&erH as a #ew e#t!ty, because t-!s does#0t e4!st as a sta#d alo#e r!,-t. 2ot t-e sa3e as M!ra#da, because t-e !#terro,at!o# co#te4t !s !#-ere#tly coerc!&e. "# t-e e#d, t-e court !ssues a #arrow -old!#,: :-e# t-e $ol!ce wa#t to use t-e $roduct o1 a co#se#ted searc-, t-ey -a&e to $ro&e to t-e 1!#der o1 1act t-at co#se#t was &olu#tar!ly ,!&e#, a#d w-!le t-e co#se#ter0s aware#ess t-at -e ca# re1use !s rele&a#t, !t !s #ot d!s$os!t!&e.

Dissent: <arshall: :!t-out 5#ow!#, t-at -e could re1use, co#se#t !s 3ea#!#,less. .-ere1ore, at a 3!#!3u3, t-e Pol!ce s-ould -a&e to $ro&e t-at -e 5#ew -e could re1use. O#e way to do t-at !s to tell -!3, w-!c- !s #ot t-e b!, deal t-e Court 3ade !t see3 to be. (Cow s!3!lar !s t-!s case to %rayto#< .-e $roble3s de1!#!tely see3 to be t-e sa3e, t-ou,- %rayto# was a .erry-ty$e searc-. "1 t-e o#ly way t-at $ol!ce ca# ,et a#yw-ere !s by 1ool!#, $eo$le !#to lett!#, t-e3 searc-, -ow s-ould we allow t-e $ol!cy<+ Peo$le cr!t!c!;e t-!s case o# ,rou#ds t-at &olu#tar!#ess !s #ot t-e sa3e as lac5 o1 coerc!o#. So3eo#e ca##ot be coerced a#d st!ll t-!#5 t-at-e -as to allow !t to -a$$e# because -e does#0t real!;e d!11ere#tly. /#ot-er cr!t!c!s3 !s t-at t-ere !s #o de1!#!t!o# o1 w-at &olu#tar!#ess actually !s. /#ot-er odd but related case #ot !# t-e syllabus: )#!ted States &. =lrod - co#se#t ,!&e# but e&!de#ce su$$ressed because de1e#da#t was #ot 3e#tally co3$ete#t to ,!&e co#se#t.

@eor,!a &. Ra#dol$- ()S 2006+

Su#day, October 21, 2012 *:2* /M

&acts of the Case Pol!ce ca3e to Ra#dol$-0s -o3e 1or a do3est!c &!ole#ce call. C!s w!1e sa!d t-at -e was o# dru,s a#d t-ere was e&!de#ce !# t-e -ouse. Pol!ce as5ed -!3 !1 t-ey could searc- t-e -ouse, because o1 course t-ey d!d#0t -a&e a warra#t, a#d -e sa!d #o, but w-e# t-ey as5ed -!s w!1e, s-e o1 course co#se#ted. .-e searc- be,a# a#d t-ey u#co&ered a b!t o1 e&!de#ce. Pol!ce t-e# called t-e %/ w-o told t-e3 to w!t--old a#d to ,et a warra#t. /1ter ,ett!#, t-e warra#t, t-ey 1ou#d 3ore $ara$-er#al!a, a#d Ra#dol$- was arrested 1or dru, $ossess!o#. /t tr!al, -!s attor#ey ar,ued t-at t-e searc- was u#co#st!tut!o#al because o1 Ra#dol$-0s obEect!o#, w-!le t-e $rosecut!o# ar,ued t-at t-e co#se#t o1 -!s w!1e was su11!c!e#t. .-e tr!al court ruled 1or t-e $rosecut!o#, but t-e a$$ellate court a#d @eor,!a Su$re3e Court bots!ded w!t- Ra#dol$-, 1!#d!#, t-at a searc- !s u#co#st!tut!o#al !1 o#e res!de#t obEects, e&e# !1 a#ot-er res!de#t co#se#ts. G!estion Ca# $ol!ce searc- a -o3e w-e# o#e $-ys!cally $rese#t res!de#t co#se#ts a#d t-e ot-er $-ys!cally $rese#t res!de#t obEects< R!le: .-e ,e#eral rule t-at co#se#t ca# be ,!&e# by a#yo#e w!t- aut-or!ty does#0t e4te#d to s!tuat!o#s !# w-!c- a#ot-er $erso# w!t- aut-or!ty !s de#y!#, e#try. *egal pro,ision: /3e#d3e#t G: 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t

2o. "# a to F dec!s!o#, t-e Su$re3e Court -eld t-at w-e# two co-occu$a#ts are $rese#t a#d o#e co#se#ts to a searc- w-!le t-e ot-er re1uses, t-e searc- !s #ot co#st!tut!o#al. Aust!ce %a&!d Souter, !# t-e 3aEor!ty o$!#!o#, co3$ared t-e reaso#able#ess o1 suc- a searc- to a 3ore casual !#teract!o#. Souter wrote, H!t !s 1a!r to say t-at a caller sta#d!#, at t-e door o1 s-ared $re3!ses would -a&e #o co#1!de#ce t-at o#e occu$a#t0s !#&!tat!o# was a su11!c!e#tly ,ood reaso# to e#ter w-e# a 1ellow te#a#t stood t-ere say!#,, 0stay out.0 :!t-out so3e &ery ,ood reaso#, #o se#s!ble $erso# would ,o !#s!de u#der t-ose co#d!t!o#s.H / $ol!ce searc- !# suc- c!rcu3sta#ces, Souter wrote, would t-ere1ore #ot 3eet t-e reaso#able#ess reBu!re3e#t o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. Notes: Cur!ous w-at would -a$$e# !1 two $eo$le, #e!t-er o1 w-o3 were de1e#da#ts were d!sa,ree!#, o&er w-et-er $ol!ce could co3e !#. :-at would -a$$e# !1 $ol!ce ca3e bac5 a,a!# a1ter be!#, de#!ed e#try a#d ,ot so3eo#e else to let t-e3 !#< :-at !1 t-ey be,,ed a co-te#a#t to be allowed !#< :-at !1 t-ey 5#ew t-at t-e sus$ect 5!#d o1 d!d#0t wa#t t-e3 t-ere, but -e -ad#0t e4$l!c!tly re1used, a#d a#ot-er te#a#t let t-e3 !#< " t-!#5 t-at t-e d!scuss!o# !# Sc-#ec5lot- w-!c- d!st!#,u!s-es M!ra#da :a!&er 1ro3 Gt- /3e#d3e#t co#se#t would a$$ly -ere, a#d t-e co#se#t would be ,ood because t-!s !s a# !ssue o1 $ro$erty r!,-ts. /#ot-er case t-at 3!,-t be rele&a#t !s t-e Co11a/:-!te l!#e o1 cases, w-ere t-ere !s #o reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy because t-ere0s a Frd $artyP But t-!s !#&ol&es $ol!ce co3!#, !#to t-e -ouseP /#d t-at 3!,-t -a&e !#&ol&ed l!ste#!#, !# to so3et-!#, w!t-!# t-e -ouseP C333.

2otes: Searc- o1 a -ouse !s u#reaso#able $er se, a#d co#se#t !s a s3all e4ce$t!o# to t-at rule. (C33, wo#der -ow t-!s relates to t-e de1e#se o1 #ecess!ty w-e# t-e attac5er !s !# your -o3e.+ o .-e e4ce$t!o# e4te#ds to co#se#t w-e# a co-occu$a#t ,!&es co#se#t, !1 t-e $ol!ce erro#eously bel!e&e t-at t-e $erso# !s e3$owered to ,!&e co#se#t. ("s t-!s a goo$ faith t-!#,< Cow does !t re1lect o# 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t doctr!#e< =4clus!o# !s o#ly t-ere to deter t-e $ol!ce, but !1 !t0s do#e !# ,ood 1a!t-, e4clus!o# would#0t -el$ a#yway - t-ey d!d#0t real!;e t-ey were#0t allowed to do !t. .-!s !s #ot a ,reat !dea, because !t says t-at t-e restr!ct!o#s are #ot to $rotect 1reedo3s, rat-er t-ey0re a 1or3al rule t-at $ol!ce -a&e to 1ollow w-et-er t-!s !s related to t-e searc-es t-at t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t 3ea#t to $ro-!b!t or #ot. .-!#5 about t-!s.+ 2o#e o1 t-e cases w-ere co#se#t was ,!&e# !#clude t-e sce#ar!o w-ere t-e de1e#da#t was sta#d!#, t-ere yell!#, t-at t-ey could#0t searc- t-e -ouse. Court e#&!s!o#s sce#ar!os w-ere t-e $erso# w-o a#swers t-e door would #ot create t-e de1ault !3$ress!o# t-at t-ey belo#,ed t-ere a#d were allowed to ,!&e $er3!ss!o#, e.,. !1 so3eo#e !de#t!1!ed t-e3sel&es as la#dlord would #ot be see# to -a&e aut-or!ty to ad3!t $eo$le, w-ereas a -ousew!1e w!t- a baby o# -er -!$ would be assu3ed to be a co-te#a#t w-o ca# let t-e $erso# !#. (see t-e -o3eless s-elter case, w-ere t-e ad3!#!strator was #ot allowed to ,!&e co#se#t.+ H:-e# $eo$le l!&!#, to,et-er d!sa,ree o&er t-e use o1 t-e!r co33o# Buarters, a resolut!o# 3ust co3e t-rou,- &olu#tary acco33odat!o#, #ot by a$$eals to aut-or!ty.H O1 course, t-e $ol!ce could e#ter to allow t-e co3$la!#a#t to collect -er belo#,!#,s w!t-out t-e t-reat o1 &!ole#ce, or to $re&e#t a# attac5 1ro3 ta5!#, $lace. But t-!s !s a#ot-er !ssue. Court ad3!ts t-at !t0s so3ew-at arb!trary to say t-at !1 t-e ,uy !s t-ere a#d $rotest!#,, you ca#0t ,o !#, but !1 -e0s #ot t-ere you ca# ,o !# w!t- -!s cote#a#t0s co#se#t. But t-e 1or3al!s3 !s Eust!1!ed.

So lo#, as t-e $ol!ce -a&e #ot re3o&ed t-e $ote#t!ally obEect!#, te#a#t 1ro3 t-e e#tra#ce 1or t-e sa5e o1 a&o!d!#, t-e obEect!o#.

DissentL calia, Tho"as: .-!s !s #ot about soc!al e4$ectat!o#. @!&es e4a3$les o1 !#1!#!te $er3utat!o#s o1 t-e soc!al e4$ectat!o# -y$os. .-!s !s about t-e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, a#d w-e# you0&e !#&!ted so3eo#e to l!&e !# your -o3e, you -a&e d!3!#!s-ed t-at e4$ectat!o#. (%oes t-!s a$$ly to -o3es< :e -a&e #e&er see# t-at ?at; a$$l!es to -o3es ,e#erally, -a&e we<+ .-e Court0s rule $rotects t-e luc5 o1 t-e de1e#da#t co-ow#er w-o -a$$e#s to be at t-e door. ("# t-e sa3e &e!#, t-ou,-, could#0t $ol!ce Eust ,o -ouse to -ouse a#d searc- all t-e o#es w-ere t-e $erso# at -o3e lets t-e3 !#< :-at would t-ey #eed to s-ow to ,et e#try !# t-ose cases<+

?eywords: Co#se#t searc/$$are#t aut-or!ty Co-te#a#t Cote#a#t @ood 1a!t- 3!sta5e 2ote: .a5e# 1ro3 .reat!se: 8nited States v. &atloc says t-at a t-!rd $arty w!t- co33o# aut-or!ty 3ay allow $ol!ce !#, but co33o# aut-or!ty does#0t co3e 1ro3 $ro$erty r!,-ts, !t co3es 1ro3 actual te#a#cy a#d $r!&acy r!,-ts o# t-e area !# Buest!o# a#d t-e Hacce$ta#ce o1 t-e r!s5H by t-e de1e#da#t t-at t-e $erso# -e s-ares acco33odat!o#s w!t- 3!,-t let so3eo#e !#. 2ote: :-at about (t-!s would be a class!c -y$o case+ !1 t-e ow#er told t-e co-te#a#t t-at s-e s-ould#0t let $ol!ce !#< Matloc5 would see3 to !#d!cate t-at !t would#0t 3atter, s!#ce a cote#a#t -as -er ow# r!,-ts a#d does#0t #eed to ,et $er3!ss!o# 1ro3 t-e ot-er te#a#t. O.OC, !1 t-e de1e#da#t !s t-e ow#er o1 t-e $ro$erty or e&e# t-e o#e w-o s!,#ed t-e lease, !t0s ar,uable t-at -e could sto$ t-e cote#a#t 1ro3 allow!#, $ol!ce !#, so t-at !1 $ol!ce 5#ew t-at -e -ad, t-e e&!de#ce would be e4cluded. ('O' t-ere !s case law o# t-!s a#d !ts co#1l!ct!#,P+ :-at !1 $ol!ce were tur#ed dow# by de1e#da#t a#d t-e# as5ed a cote#a#t< :-at !1 t-ey are del!berately #ot as5!#, t-e de1e#da#t s!#ce t-ey ca# ,o d!rectly to a cote#a#t< Matloc5 a#d @eor,!a &. Ra#dol$- see3 to !#d!cate t-at t-!s would be o5ay. But, u3, really< /r,uably, Ra#dol$-0s !#&ocat!o# o1 soc!al e4$ectat!o#s would say t-at $ol!ce could#0t do suc- a t-!#,, alt-ou,- t-e -old!#, see3s #arrow.

Pla!# 8!ew
.-ursday, 2o&e3ber 22, 2012 F: 8 PM .-e $la!# &!ew rule allows $ol!ce to se!;e any e&!de#ce t-at !s (1+ !# a $lace t-at t-ey0re

allowed to be (&!a warra#t, $robable cause, !#c!de#t to arrest, etc.+ a#d (2+ "t !s !33ed!ately a$$are#t t-at t-e !te3 !s e&!de#ce (Corto# &. Cal!1or#!a+ o "# t-e Cool!d,e case, (#ot !# t-e syllabus+, t-e Court 3ade !t &ery clear t-at t-e see!#, t-e !te3 !s #ot e#ou,- - $ol!ce -a&e to -a&e t-e r!,-t to be !# t-e $lace w-ere t-e e&!de#ce !s. 2o a3ou#t o1 sus$!c!o# ca# Eust!1y a warra#tless e#try, ("1 t-!s !s true,

t-e# !t see3s t-at !1 $ol!ce -a&e a warra#t to searc- e.,. a -ouse 1or dru,s, t-e# t-ey ca#0t ,rab ,u#s t-at t-ey see !# t-e s-ed, out t-e w!#dow o1 t-e -ouse.+ See :arde# &. Cayde# - " do#0t t-!#5 t-at a#yo#e calls !t Pla!# 8!ew !# t-at dec!s!o# but !t see3s t-at !t0s t-e Pla!# 8!ew %octr!#e t-at !s be!#, used. "33ed!ately a$$are#t &s. Probable Cause: .-e Cool!d,e case, #ot !# t-e syllabus but c!ted !# C!c5s a#d Corto#, sa!d t-at !t #eeds to be !33ed!ately a$$are#t to t-e $ol!ce t-at t-ey -a&e e#cou#tered e&!de#ce. .-e#, C!c5s says t-at t-ey #eed to -a&e $robable cause to se!;e t-e $la!#ly &!ewable e&!de#ce, a#d t-e# Corto#, w-!c- ca3e last, uses t-e H!33ed!ately a$$are#tH ter3 a,a!#. o .-e two sta#dards a$$ly to two d!11ere#t as$ects o1 t-e e&!de#ce (ar,uably+. "33ed!ately a$$are#t a$$l!es to t-e #ature o1 t-e !te3 as e&!de#ce. "# Cool!d,e, $ol!ce se!;ed t-e cars a#d later wa#ted to use e&!de#ce t-at was obta!#ed by &acuu3!#, cars. "# t-at case, t-e !ssue was w-et-er t-ere was reaso# to se!;e so3et-!#, t-at wasn$t e&!de#ce, o# ,rou#ds t-at !t might yield e&!de#ce. .-e a#swer was t-at !t #eeded to be !33ed!ately a$$are#t t-at !t was e&!de#ce. o O# t-e ot-er -a#d, !# deter3!#!#, t-e le&el o1 sus$!c!o# t-at so3et-!#, !s se!;ure-wort-y, t-e sta#dard o1 sus$!c!o# !s $robable cause. Cowe&er, !t0s $oss!ble to 1ra3e t-e car !# t-at l!,-t too - t-e !33ed!ately a$$are#t sta#dard !# t-at case was we!,-!#, t-e le&el o1 sus$!c!o# re,ard!#, t-e $robat!&e #ature o1 t-e car. So !t0s #ot clear w-at t-e two ter3s 3ea#. Poss!bly t-ey 3ea# t-e sa3e t-!#,, but t-ey are Eust $-rased d!11ere#tly to d!11ere#t !#Bu!r!es.

/r!;o#a &. C!c5s ()S 1*86+

Su#day, October 21, 2012 10:00 /M =o warrant, probable causeQexigent circumstances to enter the apartment, reasonable suspicion on the stolen goods but no probable cause Facts of the Case A bullet was fired through the floor of <ic!s&s apartment which in ured a man in the apartment below. 7o investigate the shooting, police officers entered <ic!s&s apartment and found three weapons along with a stoc!ing mas!. *uring the search, which was done without a warrant, an officer noticed some expensive stereo equipment which he suspected had been stolen. 7he officer moved some of the components, recorded their serial numbers, and seiAed them upon learning from police headquarters that his suspicions were correct. Question Was the search of the stereo equipment "a search beyond the exigencies of the original entry$ reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments1 Rule: 8oving the equipment without probable cause was a search, though not a seiAure. 7he plain view doctrine applies only when the evidence is visible and inculpatory without further search. Holding: 7he 'ourt found that the search and seiAure of the stereo equipment violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 'iting the 'ourt&s holding in 'oolidge v. =ew <ampshire "(94($, Bustice 0calia upheld the "plain view" doctrine which allows police officers under some circumstances to seiAe evidence in plain view without a warrant. <owever, critical to this doctrine, argued 0calia, is the requirement that warrantless seiAures which rely on no "special operational necessities" be done with probable cause "of the new crime$. 0ince the officer who seiAed the stereo equipment had only a "reasonable suspicion" and not a "probable cause" to believe that the equipment was stolen, the officer&s actions were not reconcilable with the 'onstitution. Notes: 7his was not a seiAure, but it was a search, since the officer had moved the equipment to record the serial numbers. %f he had ust loo!ed at them, it arguably would have not have even been a search.

<oldingD A new search that is held pursuant to the "6lain Oiew" doctrine requires probable cause. %f he hadn&t moved the stereos before achieving probable cause, he would have been fine, but since he did, it was a search and formally, a search requires probable cause before it happens. "=ot sure %&m getting this. <e didn&t have a warrant. 0o even if he did have probable cause, would he have been able to enter the house without a warrant1 % don&t thin! so. 0ee 'ommonwealth v. 6orter. 0o now that they got in the house legally, they need probable cause1 % guess that&s what the plain view doctrine does 5 it gets you over the threshold without a warrant. 2ut you&re still limited by the same "probable cause" limitations that you&d have in the street.$ *issentD 7his is an unreasonable position to ta!e. 7he evidence all around pointed to criminal activity and it was unwise for the government to concede the point of probable cause 5 they should have argued that there was in fact probable cause. "2ut they didn&t so shut up, 'ourt.$ %t is not reasonable to distinguish the stereo equipment that they didn&t have to move from the equipment that they did have to move. According to the 'ourt, if any of the visible serial numbers had been on record as being stolen, the evidence would have been admissible, but since the only one on the list that was on record was the one they had to move, the evidence wasn&t admissible. "=ot sure what this *issent is doing. %s he saying there was probable cause1 'learly not. %s he saying that it wasn&t a search1 Why write another dissent to say the same thing as the main dissent1 <e seems to be trying to ma!e this a "reasonable under the circumstances" case, li!e 7erry or 2order 0earches. 7he intrusion wasn&t much more than ust loo!ing, and the suspicion was substantial. 2ut if the government conceded probable cause, is it appropriate for the *issent to raise this issue on its own1$ "Also, is their dissent a reasonable distinction1 %t brings to mind the AriAona v. Gant case, where the defendant happens to not be home when the police arrive. 7here are always going to be arbitrary distinctions if you want to have laws.$ *issent %%D 7his was not a search, so it&s moot. Although we agree that if it were, it would need probable cause.

?eywords: Pla!# &!ew Probable Cause Reaso#able sus$!c!o# SearcSe!;ure :a!t, w-at< "1 -e 5#ew t-at t-e stu11 t-at -e 1ou#d was stole#, t-e# -e could se!;e !t. :-at !1 -e -ad $robable cause to bel!e&e !t was stole#< .-e# -e could Hsearc-H !t< 2o, t-e Court says t-at -e could se!;e !t as soo# as t-ere !s $robable cause. So " ,ot t-at r!,-t. .-e 3aEor!ty dee3ed !t u#w!se Sto se#d $ol!ce a#d Eud,es !#to a #ew t-!c5et o1 7ourt/3e#d3e#t lawR by reco,#!;!#, a third category o1 $ol!ce co#duct betwee# Sa $la!#-&!ew !#s$ect!o#R reBu!r!#, #o sus$!c!o# a#d Sa W1ull-blow# searc-KR reBu!r!#, $robable cause.

Corto# &. Cal!1or#!a ()S 1**0+

Su#day, October 21, 2012 10:28 /M

&acts: /# o11!cer 1elt t-at -e -ad $robable cause to searc- Corto#0s -o3e 1or wea$o#s a#d t-e $roceeds o1 a robbery. .-e 3a,!strate o#ly ,a&e a warra#t 1or t-e $roceeds, but #ot 1or t-e wea$o#s. :-e# t-e o11!cer arr!&ed at t-e -o3e, -e d!d#0t 1!#d t-e $roceeds, but t-e wea$o#s were !# $la!# &!ew. Ce se!;ed t-e3, a#d at tr!al, Corto# 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce as t-e 1ru!t o1 a# !lle,al searc-. Cool!d,e, t-e case !# w-!c- t-e HPla!# 8!ewH doctr!#e was la!d out, -ad two reBu!re3e#ts, (1+ t-at Pla!# 8!ew alo#e !s #ot e#ou,- to allow a warra#tless searc- or se!;ure, a#d (2+ t-at t-e d!sco&ery be !#ad&erte#t. Corto#

cla!3ed t-at s!#ce t-e d!sco&ery was #ot !#ad&erte#t, !t was #ot e#t!tled to $rotect!o# by t-e HPla!# 8!ewH doctr!#e 1ro3 Cool!d,e. G!estion: "s t-e Cool!d,e rule t-at d!sco&ery o1 !te3s !# $la!# &!ew 3ust be !#ad&erte#t st!ll b!#d!#,< R!le: 2o, d!sco&ery #eed #ot be !#ad&erte#t. 9ol$ing: %!sco&ery o1 a# obEect !# HPla!# 8!ewH #eed #ot be !#ad&erte#t to allow !ts searcor se!;ure. .-ere1ore, t-!s e&!de#ce was ad3!ss!ble to s-ow t-at Corto# -ad bee# !#&ol&ed !# t-e cr!3e. R!le: "# order to 1!t w!t-!# t-e Pla!# 8!ew doctr!#e, !te3s se!;ed #eed to be (1+ &!s!ble 1ro3 a $lace w-ere t-e $ol!ce are law1ully allowed to be, a#d (2+ !33ed!ately a$$are#t e&!de#ce o1 a cr!3e. .-e d!sco&ery #eed 2O. be !#ad&erte#t, -owe&er. Disc!ssion: "# Cool!d,e, $ol!ce -ad se!;ed two cars t-at were !# $la!# &!ew o# t-e sus$ect0s dr!&eway. t-e Court -ad sa!d t-at ,u#$owder retr!e&ed 1ro3 sus$ects car w-!cwas !# $la!# &!ew dur!#, a searc- t-at was warra#ted, was !#ad3!ss!ble. .-e ,u#$owder was ta5e# 1ro3 &acuu3ed u$ dust w-!c- was t-e# a#aly;ed by a lab w-!c- 1ou#d t-at so3e ,u#$owder was t-ere. "# t-at case, w-!le t-e court 3e#t!o#ed !#ad&erte#t#ess, t-e 3a!# $roble3 w!t- t-e e&!de#ce was t-at !t was #ot H!33ed!ately a$$are#tH t-at !t was e&!de#ce - !t was Eust dust t-at t-ey -ad t-e br!,-t !dea to searc-. (Cow does t-!s 1!t w!t/r!;o#a &. C!c5s< "# C!c5s, t-e Court -ad reBu!red $robable cause to searc-. :as t-ere $robable cause !# t-e Cool!d,e dust< 2ote t-at Cool!d,e (1*>1+ $redates C!c5s.+ Court !s #ot co#cer#ed w!t- $ol!ce e4$a#d!#, t-e sco$e o1 searc-es by -o$!#, to !#&o5e t-e $la!# &!ew doctr!#e, because $ol!ce w!ll be l!3!ted to t-e $laces t-at t-e warra#t allows.

(i2ipe$ia e:presses it $ifferentl+. Corto# &. Cal!1or#!a, G*6 ).S. 128 (1**0+, was a )#!ted States Su$re3e Court case t-at de&elo$ed t-e $la!# &!ew doctr!#e u#der t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t to t-e )#!ted States Co#st!tut!o#. .-e Su$re3e Court -ad already reco,#!;ed t-e doctr!#e !# Cool!d,e &. 2ew Ca3$s-!re (1*>1+ a#d !# /r!;o#a &. C!c5s (1*8>+, but e4$a#ded !t !# Corto#. .-at e4$a#s!o# !#cluded a t-ree-$art test, reBu!r!#, t-at t-e $ol!ce o11!cer 1!#d!#, e&!de#ce !# $la!# &!ew be: 1. 2. F. law1ully $rese#t at t-e $lace w-ere t-e e&!de#ce ca# be $la!#ly &!ewed, t-e o11!cer 3ust -a&e a law1ul r!,-t o1 access to t-e obEect, a#d t-e !#cr!3!#at!#, c-aracter o1 t-e obEect 3ust be S!33ed!ately a$$are#tH Dissent: JJJ: "1 t-e $ol!ce 5#ew about !t !# ad&a#ce, t-ey s-ould -a&e ,otte# a warra#t 1or !t. .-ere1ore, we 3ust $rotect t-e r!,-ts o1 t-e $eo$le by rul!#, out t-!s e&!de#ce, e&e# t-ou,- t-e $ol!ce were t-ere law1ully, !# order to 3a5e sure t-at $ol!ce ,et a warra#t w-e# t-ey are able to. 2O. 1orc!#, t-e3 to ,et a warra#t 1or suc- cases w!ll lead to abuse.

.-e e4clus!o#ary rule

.uesday, October F0, 2012 11:G> /M

:-!le t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t says t-at $eo$le s-all be 1ree o1 u#reaso#able searc-es a#d se!;ures, t-e re3edy !s #ot $rescr!bed. Cowe&er, t-e e4clus!o#ary rule -as beco3e t-e assu3ed re3edy. /t 1!rst, !t was #ot $rescr!bed to t-e states, as !t see3s t-at !t0s #ot a# esse#t!al $art o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. 2ow, t-ou,-, !t -as bee# a$$l!ed to t-e states.

(2ote: "1 a state0s co#st!tut!o# !s 3ore restr!ct!&e t-a# t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, !t !s st!ll t-eoret!cally $oss!ble t-at t-e e4clus!o#ary rule does#0t a$$ly to t-e e4tra $rotect!o#. :e -ad a Massac-usetts case l!5e t-at - Co33o#wealt- &. )$to#, " t-!#5.+ O#e o1 t-e o#,o!#, Buest!o#s about t-e e4clus!o#ary rule !s t-at !1 !t0s !#te#ded as a deterre#ce, t-at s-ould also l!3!t !ts sco$e to s!tuat!o#s !# w-!c- !t !s l!5ely to be a deterre#t to $ol!ce 3!sco#duct. Cerr!#, bas!cally l!3!ts t-e e4clus!o#ary rule to cases w-ere t-ere !s e#ou,- H3e#s reaH t-at t-ere !s so3et-!#, to deter, a#d t-ere !s also e#ou,- cul$ab!l!ty t-at t-e cost be#e1!t a#alys!s su,,ests deterre#ce !s wort- !t des$!te t-e costs. :-at !s t-e Hdeterre#ceH rat!o#ale e4actly< "t ca# o$erate o# d!11ere#t le&els, $ote#t!ally !t ca# be deterre#ce 1or !#d!&!dual o11!cers !# !#d!&!dual s!tuat!o#s, or !t ca# be ,e#eral!;ed deterre#ce 1or $ol!ce ,e#erally.

1.

2.

"t !s &ery, &ery !3$orta#t to #ote t-at t-e e4clus!o#ary rule does#0t a$$ly to use o1 t-e e&!de#ce se!;ed 1or !3$eac-3e#t. So !1 $ol!ce -a&e !lle,al e&!de#ce t-at sus$ect was, e.,. at a co#cert, a#d sus$ect cla!3s t-at -e was#0t t-ere, t-e# $ol!ce ca# $roduce t-e e&!de#ce. Note: fin$ o!t if this applies to the ;th 5th an$ .th A"en$"ent e:cl!sionar+ r!les, or =!st so"e of the". F. .-e !3$eac-3e#t e4ce$t!o# -as !ts ow# e4ce$t!o# - !1 !t !s a co#1ess!o# t-at was coerced, !t ca##ot be used e&e# 1or !3$eac-3e#t.

:ol1 &. Colorado (1*G*+

.uesday, October F0, 2012 11: 0 /M

.-!s case -eld t-at alt-ou,- t-e Court -ad sa!d t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t e4cluded e&!de#ce obta!#ed u#der wro#,1ul c!rcu3sta#ces 1ro3 7ederal cases, !t d!d #ot a$$ly to state cases. :-!le states -ad to co3$ly w!t- t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, t-ey d!d #ot -a&e to co3$ly w!t- t-e e4clus!o#ary rule. .-!s case was o&ertur#ed by Ma$$ &. O-!o.

Ma$$ &. O-!o (1*61+

.uesday, October F0, 2012 11: 2 /M

Re&erses :ol1 a#d says t-at #ow, t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t e4clus!o#ary doctr!#e a$$l!es to t-e states as well. &acts: O# May 2F, 1* >, $ol!ce o11!cers !# a Cle&ela#d, O-!o suburb rece!&ed !#1or3at!o# t-at a sus$ect !# a bo3b!#, case, as well as so3e !lle,al bett!#, eBu!$3e#t, 3!,-t be 1ou#d !# t-e -o3e o1 %ollree Ma$$. .-ree o11!cers we#t to t-e -o3e a#d as5ed 1or $er3!ss!o# to e#ter, but Ma$$ re1used to ad3!t t-e3 w!t-out a searc- warra#t. .wo o11!cers le1t, a#d o#e re3a!#ed. .-ree -ours later, t-e two retur#ed w!t- se&eral ot-er o11!cers. Bra#d!s-!#, a $!ece o1 $a$er, t-ey bro5e !# t-e door. Ma$$ as5ed to see t-e Swarra#tR a#d too5 !t 1ro3 a# o11!cer, $utt!#, !t !# -er dress. .-e o11!cers stru,,led w!t- Ma$$ a#d too5 t-e $!ece o1 $a$er away 1ro3 -er. .-ey -a#dcu11ed -er 1or be!#, Sbell!,ere#t.R G!estion: :as t-e arrest o1 Ms. Ma$$ a#d t-e e&!de#ce se!;ed as a result e4cluded o# t-e bas!s o1 !lle,al searc-< R!le: .-e e4clus!o#ary rule a$$l!es to t-e states as well. .-e Court brus-ed as!de t-e 7!rst /3e#d3e#t !ssue a#d declared t-at Hall e&!de#ce obta!#ed by searc-es a#d se!;ures !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e Co#st!tut!o# !s, by Mt-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#tN, !#ad3!ss!ble !# a state court.H Ma$$ -ad bee# co#&!cted o# t-e bas!s o1 !lle,ally obta!#ed e&!de#ce. .-!s was a# -!stor!c -- a#d co#tro&ers!al -- dec!s!o#. "t $laced t-e reBu!re3e#t o1 e4clud!#, !lle,ally obta!#ed e&!de#ce 1ro3 court at all le&els o1 t-e ,o&er#3e#t. .-e dec!s!o#

lau#c-ed t-e Court o# a troubled course o1 deter3!#!#, -ow a#d w-e# to a$$ly t-e e4clus!o#ary rule. #rof sa+s: Ma$$ was esse#t!ally say!#, t-at !1 you do#0t e4clude e&!de#ce, you are esse#t!ally re#der!#, t-e $rotect!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t 3oot.

)#!ted States &. 'eo# (1*8F+

.uesday, October F0, 2012 11: 6 /M *oes the exclusionary rule apply to exclude evidence that was procured on an invalid warrant that the officer believed was valid1 "0ee also 8ass. v. 0heppard$ Facts of the Case 7he exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seiAed must be excluded from criminal trials. +eon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant&s tip. 7he police applied to a udge for a search warrant of +eon&s home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A udge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. +eon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A udge concluded that the affidavit for the search warrant was insufficientI it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. 7hus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at +eon&s trial. Question %s there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment violations1 Decision: , votes for >nited 0tates, # vote"s$ against Legal provision: Gxclusionary 3ule "admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment$ Jes, there is such an exception. 7he ustices held that evidence seiAed on the basis of a mista!enly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. 7he exclusionary rule, argued the ma ority, is not a right but a remedy ustified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. %n +eon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. 7he exclusionary rule is costly to societyD Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. 7he benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertainD 7he rule cannot deter police in a case li!e +eon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a udge. 7he costs of the exclusionary rule can be high, allowing defendants to go free even when they&re clearly guilty. Gspecially when the police have acted in good faith, it undermines respect for law enforcement to let guilty people go based on the police mista!es. 7he most "and only$ compelling rationales for exclusion are presented in cases where there&s !nowing or rec!less falsehood in the affidavits. 7he exclusionary rule is not designed to deal with magistrates, it&s designed to deal with police. Gxcluding the evidence is not claimed to have a deterrent effect on magistrates anyway 5 they have no sta!e in the criminal prosecution anyway. 'ourt says that holding invalidating warrants based on magistrate mista!es might deter police from magistrate5shopping and encourage them to double chec! the warrants for clerical errors, but evidence of that is speculative. 7he marginal benefits of exclusion even in good faith scenarios are outweighed by the downside. 7herefore, the exclusionary rule doesn&t apply when the officers acted in good faith. o 2ut the e"clusionar! rule still applies when they !nowingly or rec!lessly lied to get the warrant o And the e"clusionar! rule still applies when the magistrate or udge "abandon their udicial role", and simply rubber stamp the application because an officer is abandoning his own duty of good faith if the warrant is so clearly unreasonable.

Notes: =4clus!o#ary rule ca# a$$ly $ost warra#t, but !t o#ly a$$l!es w-e# t-e a11!da&!t !s 5#ow!#,ly or rec5lessly 1alse. .-!s !s because t-ere !s #o deterre#ce !1 t-e $ol!ce se!;ure was o# t-e bas!s o1 a 3!sta5e, because you ca#0t deter a 3!sta5e. /lso, t-ere !s #o e&!de#ce

t-at Eud,es a#d 3a,!strates #eed to be co#trolled by t-e e4clus!o#ary rule. S!#ce t-!s was Ma,!strate error, t-ere !s #ot-!#, to deter -ere. Notes: a 1oot#ote !# t-e dec!s!o# $o!#ts out t-at t-e warra#t was !#&al!d u#der /,u!larS$!#ell!, but 3ay $oss!bly -a&e bee# &al!d u#der "ll!#o!s &. @ates0s lesser Htotal!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#cesH reBu!re3e#t. .-e Court sa!d, -owe&er, t-at t-e Buest!o# was #ot $rese#ted to t-e3 a#d t-ey t-ere1ore would #ot rule o# !t. <assi,e 6!estion: %oes t-e 'eo# ,ood 1a!t- e4ce$t!o# a$$ly w-ere t-e o11!cer t-ou,-t t-at -e was allowed to searc- w!t-out a warra#t< .-ere was o#e case - t-e -o3eless s-elter case, Co33o#wealt- &. Porter , w-ere t-e court s$ec!1!cally sa!d t-at apparent authority o#ly a$$l!es to 3!sta5es o1 1act, #ot 3!sta5es o1 law. "s t-at clear all arou#d t-ou,-< :-at about !# 3!sta5es o1 1act or law about e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces< Ca# you deter 3!sta5e# be-a&!or< "t de$e#ds -ow you t-!#5 o1 deterre#ce, o1 course.

Cudso# &. M!c-!,a# (1** +

.uesday, October F0, 2012 12:18 PM Warrant, 6robable cause, execution problem 5 officers failed to !noc! and announce *o violations of other Fourth Amendment protections lead to invocation of the exclusionary rule1 Facts of the Case 2oo!er 7. <udson was convicted of drug and firearm possession in state court after police found cocaine and a gun in his home. 7he police had a search warrant, but failed to follow the Fourth Amendment "!noc! and announce" rule which requires police officers to wait )-5#- seconds after !noc!ing and announcing their presence before they enter the home. 7he trial udge ruled that the evidence found in the home could therefore not be used, but the 8ichigan 'ourt of Appeals reversed based on two 8ichigan 0upreme 'ourt cases that created an exception to the suppression of evidence when the evidence in question would have inevitably been found. Question *oes the general rule excluding evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment apply to the "!noc!5and5announce" rule1 Rule: 7here is no exclusionary rule pursuant to violations of a !noc! and announce requirement for two independent reasonsD "($ because a failure to !noc! and announce is not a but for cause of the discovery of evidence, and ")$ 2ecause the interests protected by the !noc! and announce rules are not related to the privacy interests that were intruded on in finding the evidence "obviously, since there was a warrant out for that evidence$. HoldingD 7he privacy interests that a citiAen has in his house and possessions are protected by the warrant requirement. Oiolation of the warrant requirement therefore demands that the evidence be suppressed. 2ut the !noc! and announce interest protects entirely different things 5 safety from avoiding force, protection of property that might be destroyed by a forcible entry. 0uppression doesn&t address that at all, so it&s too attenuated to demand that the evidence be suppressed on the basis of violations of !nic! and announce. Also, in this case the costs would be very high, since it would lead to police uncertainty about !noc! and announce standards, and would result in every failure to !noc! and announce being challenged under 3ichards v. Wisconsin. 7here are other methods for deterrence, such as 0ection (9@# suits. Legal provision: Amendment :D Fourth Amendment %n a /5: decision, the 'ourt ruled that evidence need not be excluded when police violate the "!noc!5and5 announce" rule. 7he opinion by Bustice 0calia reaffirmed the validity of both the !noc!5and5announce rule and the "exclusionary rule" for evidence obtained by police in most cases of Fourth Amendment violation. <owever, the ma ority held that the exclusionary rule could not be invo!ed for evidence obtained after a !noc!5and5announce violation, because the interests violated by the abrupt entry of the police "have nothing to do with the seiAure of the evidence." Bustice 0calia wrote that the !noc!5and5announce rule was meant to prevent violence, property5 damage, and impositions on privacy, not to prevent police from conducting a search for which they have a valid warrant. 7he 'ourt also found that the social costs of the exclusionary rule as applied to the !noc!5and5announce rule outweighed any possible "deterrence benefits," and that alternative measures such as civil suits and internal police discipline could adequately

deter violations. Bustice 0tephen 2reyer wrote a dissenting opinion, and was oined by Bustices 0tevens, 0outer, and Ginsburg. 7he dissent noted the 'ourt&s long history of upholding the exclusionary rule and doubted that the ma ority&s cited precedents supported its conclusion. 7he dissent also expressed doubt that !noc!5and5announce violations could be deterred without excluding the evidence obtained from the searches. Dissent: *isagrees over "but5for cause". According to the dissent, the way that it in fact happened is what determines whether it was a but5for cause. 7he ma ority thin!s that but5for means that the manner of entry was the but for cause. 2ut the dissent says that in fact, it happened in an illegal fashion this illegal action led directly to the evidence. Notes: 'ourt goes through a lot of the earlier doctrine about !noc! and announce. 7he !noc! and announce rule is a part of the Fourth Amendment. *oes not apply in exigent circumstances "3ichards v. Wisconsin$. %f police have reasonable suspicion that under the circumstances that there is the threat of violence or destruction of evidence, then they don&t have to !noc! and announce. 7he reasonable time to wait after !noc!ing is based on the time and li!elihood of exigent circumstances developing, not how long it should ta!e the guy to get to the door. 2ut for causation between the violation and the procurement of evidence is necessar% for the exclusionary rule, but it is not sufficient to invo!e the exclusionary rule. %n this case, of course, there was no but for causation because they had the warrant. 2ut even if there was but5for causation here, that wouldn&t be sufficient, because there is also the element of attenuation that can come into play. Gven if the original violation led to a chain of events that led to some evidence, so that the violation was the but5for cause of the evidence being obtained, if there has been a lot of time or events between the original violation and the current procurement of evidence, that "attenuation" removes the taint of violation and the evidence is admissible. 7here are several ways to get "attenuation". ;ne is as above 5 if there have been intervening means sufficient to remove the taint, or %f the interest protected would not be served by the suppression of the evidence. "'ite to a case called =ew Jor! v. <arris, where someone was arrested illegally in his home and the confession following that arrest was not excluded because the exclusionary rule doesn&t serve that specific interest of defendants.$

?eywords: ?#oc5 a#d a##ou#ce Su$$ress!o# =4clus!o#ary Rule

Cerr!#, &. )#!ted States (200*+

.uesday, October F0, 2012 12:1* PM %nvalid arrest warrant, no other probable cause or suspicion %f the warrant was invalid but the officer didn&t !now that, must the evidence be excluded1 Facts of the Case 7he 'offee 'ounty, Alabama 0heriff&s *epartment apprehended 2ennie <erring in Buly of )--:. >pon searching <erring&s vehicle, officers discovered methamphetamine in <erring&s poc!et and a gun under the seat of his truc!. <owever, the situation was complicated by the fact that the initial search had been made on a faulty arrest warrant. 7he warrant, still active in the neighboring *ale 'ounty 0heriff&s ;ffice, was supposed to have been recalled five months prior, however someone had accidentally failed to remove it from the computer system. <erring filed a motion to suppress the allegedly "illegally obtained" evidence, however the >.0. *istrict 'ourt for the 8iddle *istrict of Alabama denied <erring&s motion and sentenced him to )4 months in prison. . 7he >.0. 'ourt of Appeals for the Gleventh 'ircuit affirmed the conviction, stating that illegally obtained evidence should only be suppressed when doing so could Eresult in appreciable deterrenceF of future

police misconduct. %n the appeals hearing, both parties agreed that this was a Fourth Amendment violation %n his petition for certiorari, <erring pointed to an Ar!ansas case with nearly identical facts that had come out the other way, noting that Eas policing becomes ever more reliant on computeriAed systems, the number of illegal arrests and searches based on negligent record!eeping is poised to multiply." 7he 'ourt granted certiorari on February (9, )--@. Read the )riefs for this Case Question *oes a court violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a criminal defendant by introducing evidence obtained through a police search based on an arrest warrant that should have been recalled, but was negligently allowed to remain active, at the time of the search1 Rule: %n order for violations of the Fourth Amendment to result in exclusion, the violations must be sufficientl! deli$erate that suppression can meaningfully deter it, and sufficientl! culpa$le that the deterrence is worth the price that the system must pay for it. %n order to be sufficiently culpable, the activity police action must involve at least gross negligence, rec!lessness, or deliberate misdeeds. HoldingD Fourth Amendment violations don&t always lead to suppression. %t must be a deterrence. 7he 'ourt has refused to suppress in cases where it was good faith mista!es "leon$, in cases where there were drafting mista!es "0heppard$, and even in cases where there was deliberate falsehood so long as the warrant might have stood without it. %n this case, where it was an isolated case of negligence by an unrelated department, suppression is unli!ely to deter any such behavior. 7herefore, the evidence should not be suppressed. Herring v( *nited +tates , -ral .rgu#ent Conclusion Decision: / votes for >nited 0tates, : vote"s$ against Legal provision: =o. %n a /5: decision with 'hief Bustice Bohn G. 3oberts writing for the ma ority and oined by Bustice Antonin G. 0calia, Bustice Anthony 8. Cennedy, Bustice 'larence 7homas and Bustice 0amuel A. Alito Br., the 0upreme 'ourt affirmed the >.0. 'ourt of Appeals for the Gleventh 'ircuit. %t held that a criminal defendant&s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when police mista!es that lead to unlawful searches are merely the result of isolated negligence and "not systematic error or rec!less disregard of constitutional requirements." Gvidence obtained under these circumstances is admissible and not sub ect to the exclusionary rule. Bustice 3uth 2ader Ginsburg dissented and was oined by Bustice Bohn 6aul 0tevens, Bustice *avid <. 0outer, and Bustice 0tephen G. 2reyer. Bustice Ginsburg argued that an intact exclusionary rule provides a strong incentive for police compliance with respect to the Fourth Amendment and its erosion in this case was not warranted. Bustice 2reyer also filed a separate dissenting opinion and was oined by Bustice 0outer. <e argued that the 'ourt should move away from its reliance on analyAing the degree of police culpability when determining whether the exclusionary rule applies, but rather draw a bright line between errors made by record !eepers and those made by police officers. !rof sa%s that this is a new cost benefit anal%sis that applies to the individual police officer. $his is isolated negligence. the opinion sa%s. It is attenuated from the arrest as opposed to deliberate. intentional or reckless. It is not recurring or gross negligence. $his seems to be a new approach of looking at the culpabilit% of the officer. since Hudson seemed to think that it was 7he law after <erring seems to be that as long as there was no flagrant or deliberate violation of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule does not apply. /n order for the e"clusionar! rule to appl!' the violation #ust $e 0sufficientl! deli$erate that e"clusion can #eaningfull! deter it' and sufficientl! culpa$le that such deterrence is &orth the price paid for it $! the 1ustice s!ste#(0 6rof turns to (9@# liability and compares it to exclusionary rule. 6rof says that the qualified immunity standard of clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have !nown, is basically what seems to be the standard now.

?eywords: "#&al!d warra#t @ood 1a!t-

%eterre#ce 2ote: t-!s !s t-e 1!rst case to e4te#d t-e 'eo# rule to a case w-ere t-e $ol!ce t-e3sel&es were res$o#s!ble 1or t-e error, as o$$osed to a 3a,!strate. :ould t-!s e4te#d to cases w-ere $ol!ce 3ade ot-er errors o1 1act< .-e ob&!ous e4a3$le !s so3eo#e w!t- a$$are#t aut-or!ty ad3!tt!#, a $ol!ce o11!cer, but t-at !s closer to a 3a,!strate0s 3!sta5e !# t-e se#se t-at !t was#0t t-e $ol!ce3a#0s act!o#. C333. :e also 5#ow already 1ro3 Co33o#wealt- &. Porter t-at at least t-e Massac-usetts Su$re3e Court bel!e&es t-at 'eo# does#0t a$$ly to 3!sta5es o1 law. But does !t a$$ly to a 3!sta5e about, 1or e4a3$le, w-!c- door a sus$ect ra# !#to< C33. Ca# !t $oss!bly<

Sta#d!#, - M!##esota &. Carter (1**8+

.-ursday, 2o&e3ber 22, 2012 8:2F PM

%oes so3eo#e -a&e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts !# a -ouse t-at !s #ot -!s< &acts: Carter a#d Ao-#s were see# t-rou,- t-e bl!#ds o1 a -o3e by a# $asser-by, $utt!#, $owder !# e#&elo$es. .-e $asser-by !#1or3ed $ol!ce. / $ol!ce3a# loo5ed t-rou,- t-e bl!#ds as well, a#d co#1!r3ed t-at t-ey were $utt!#, $owder !# e#&elo$es. Ce called !# to start t-e warra#t $rocess, a#d later $ol!ce ca3e w!t- a warra#t to arrest Carter a#d Ao-#s. .-ey were 1ou#d to -a&e dru,s a#d wea$o#s, a#d t-ere was dru, $ara$-er#al!a !# t-e a$art3e#t. .-e de1e#da#ts 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce because t-e or!,!#al searc- - t-e $ol!ce o11!cer loo5!#, !#to t-e -ouse 1ro3 outs!de - was a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. ("s t-at so< =&e# !1 -e was !# a $lace $ubl!c e#ou,- t-at !t was &!ewable by $assers-by< Maybe t-e !#1or3a#t was del!berately $ee5!#,<+. .-e lower courts de#!ed t-e 3ot!o# to su$$ress w!t- &ary!#, &ers!o#s o1 t-e sa3e t-!#, - s!#ce Carter a#d Ao-#s d!d#0t l!&e !# t-e a$art3e#t, a#d -ad #o co##ect!o# to !t e4ce$t 1or t-e!r br!e1 &!s!t to asse3ble coca!#e $ac5ets, t-ey were #ot able to co#test t-e searc- o1 so3eo#e else0s -ouse. So3e o1 t-e lower courts e4$ressed !t !# ter3s o1 sta#d!#,, a#d ot-ers !# ter3s o1 e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. G!estion: :-at are t-e $r!&acy r!,-ts o1 $eo$le !# -o3es o1 ot-ers, -ow are t-ey to assert t-ose r!,-ts, a#d w-at does !t ta5e to tr!,,er t-e r!,-ts< R!le: .-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotects $eo$le, #ot $laces, so sta#d!#, !s t-e wro#, way to a#aly;e cases l!5e t-!s. .-e Buest!o# to be as5ed !s w-e# t-ere !s a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. .-e a#swer !s t-at w-e# t-e $erso# !s stay!#, o&er#!,-t or !s a ,uest, t-ere !s a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !# so3eo#e else0s -o3e, but w-e# a $erso# !s !# a -o3e br!e1ly 1or #o#-res!de#t!al or relat!o#s-!$ $ur$oses, t-ere !s #o $r!&acy e4$ectat!o#. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, Carter a#d Ao-#s were o#ly !# t-e -ouse 1or a 1ew -ours, a#d #ot as ,uests - t-ey were t-ere 1or t-e $ur$ose o1 $ac5a,!#, t-e coca!#e. .-ere1ore, t-ere was #o $r!&acy e4$ectat!o# a#d t-e e&!de#ce s-ould #ot be su$$ressed. .-ere0s a s$ectru3 o1 ,uests, a#d a# o&er#!,-t ,uest !s o# o#e e#d, w!t- a $!;;a del!&ery3a# o# t-e ot-er. .-!s !s so3ew-ere !# betwee#. Notes: " do#Kt ,et t-!s at all. .-at0s a co#clusory state3e#t - t-e $ol!ce &!olated t-e!r r!,-ts by loo5!#, !#to t-e -ouse !# t-e 1!rst $lace, -ow ca# t-ey t-e# say t-at t-ere was #o $r!&acy e4$ectat!o#< <ore notes: .-ere are ob&!ously a lot o1 Buest!o#s le1t by a &erd!ct l!5e t-!s. :-at about $ossess!o#s o# so3eo#e else0s $ro$erty< .-ere !s case law !# bot- d!rect!o#s, but !t see3s t-at !# t-e e#d Courts are u#derta5!#, a -!,-ly 1actual a#alys!s o1 -ow e4$ected t-e $r!&acy was. .-e .reat!se does#Kt say t-!s, but so3e e4a3$les 3!,-t be !1 !t was !# a bedroo3 &s. !# t-e l!&!#, roo3, !1 t-e $erso# -ad $er3!ss!o# a#d/or t-e $ro3!se to 5ee$ !t $rotected, -ow 3uc- o1 a r!,-t to access t-e $erso# -ad, etc.

Met "ore notes: .-e case !s based o# a $re&!ous dec!s!o# !# w-!c- t-e Court -ad e4$ressly re1used to allow a# He4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acyH to a#yo#e w-o was le,!t!3ately o# t-e $re3!ses. Rat-er, t-e Court a$$l!ed a test t-at a#aly;ed t-e le,!t!3ate e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. .-!s !s w-at led to t-e Buest!o# !# M!##esota &. Carter. 0here should the line be drawn/ .-ere was d!scuss!o# o1 d!11ere#t $eo$le w-o 3!,-t be !# or out - P!;;a del!&ery 3e#, /&o# lad!es, etc. )ut the court expressly re(ected an analysis based on the legality of the activity 3at least, at oral argument 5 the article is unclear#. See .reat!se sect!o# *.1 1or 3ore o# sta#d!#,. Note: "t see3s t-at t-ere are se&eral co#curre#ces, so !t0s !3$orta#t to 1!,ure out w-at t-e law !s a#d w-at !t !s#0t. .-e lower courts 3ay erro#eously a$$ly t-e law as wr!tte# !# t-e 3aEor!ty o$!#!o# - t-at $eo$le w-o do#0t -a&e last!#, substa#t!al co##ect!o#s do#0t -a&e a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. Cowe&er, t-e co#curre#ces a&o!d e4clus!o# o# 3ore #arrow ,rou#ds, a#d t-ere are 1!&e Eust!ces w-o co3$r!se a H-!dde# -old!#,H t-at al3ost all ,uests would -a&e t-e r!,-t to $r!&acy. Be My @uest: .-e C!dde# Cold!#, o1 M!##esota &. Carter, 22 Ca3l!#e '. Re&. 01, 0G (1***+ Co#t!#uedP H.-e 1!&e &otes !# 1a&or o1 ,ra#t!#, a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy 1or &!rtually all soc!al ,uests co3e 1ro3 t-e d!sse#t!#, o$!#!o# o1 Aust!ce @!#sbur,, !# w-!c- Aust!ces Ste&e#s a#d Souter Eo!#ed, t-e o$!#!o# o1 Aust!ce Breyer, co#curr!#, !# t-e Eud,3e#t, a#d Aust!ce ?e##edy0s co#curr!#, o$!#!o#.H

"#de$e#de#t Source: Murray &. )#!ted States (1*88+

.-ursday, 2o&e3ber 22, 2012 10: 8 PM

2o warra#t, $robable cause, 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t &!olat!o#, !#de$e#de#t source doctr!#e :-at -a$$e#s !1 $ol!ce &!olate t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, but t-ey later acBu!re t-e sa3e !#1or3at!o# t-at t-e &!olat!o# ,a&e t-e3 t-rou,- a# !#de$e#de#t a#d $ro$er 3et-odJ &acts: :-!le sur&e!ll!#, $et!t!o#er Murray a#d ot-ers sus$ected o1 !lle,al dru, act!&!t!es, 1ederal a,e#ts obser&ed bot- $et!t!o#ers dr!&!#, &e-!cles !#to, a#d later out o1, a ware-ouse, a#d, u$o# $et!t!o#ers0 e4!t, saw t-at t-e ware-ouse co#ta!#ed a tractor-tra!ler r!, bear!#, a lo#, co#ta!#er. Pet!t!o#ers later tur#ed o&er t-e!r &e-!cles to ot-er dr!&ers, w-o were !# tur# 1ollowed a#d ult!3ately arrested, a#d t-e &e-!cles were law1ully se!;ed a#d 1ou#d to co#ta!# 3ar!Eua#a. /1ter rece!&!#, t-!s !#1or3at!o#, se&eral a,e#ts 1orced t-e!r way !#to t-e ware-ouse alt-ou,- t-ey d!d#0t -a&e a warra#t, a#d obser&ed !# $la!# &!ew #u3erous burla$-wra$$ed bales. .-e a,e#ts le1t w!t-out d!sturb!#, t-e bales a#d d!d #ot retur# u#t!l t-ey -ad obta!#ed a warra#t to searct-e ware-ouse. "# a$$ly!#, 1or t-e warra#t, t-ey d!d #ot 3e#t!o# t-e $r!or e#try or !#clude a#y rec!tat!o#s o1 t-e!r obser&at!o#s 3ade dur!#, t-at e#try - so t-e bas!s o1 t-e warra#t was e#t!rely le,al. )$o# !ssua#ce o1 t-e warra#t, t-ey ree#tered t-e ware-ouse a#d se!;ed 2>0 bales o1 3ar!Eua#a a#d ot-er e&!de#ce o1 cr!3e. %e1e#da#ts 3o&ed to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce, s!#ce dur!#, t-e !#&est!,at!o# t-ere -ad bee# a# u#law1ul e#try. .-e %!str!ct Court de#!ed $et!t!o#ers0 $retr!al 3ot!o# to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce, reEect!#, t-e!r ar,u3e#ts t-at t-e warra#t was !#&al!d because t-e a,e#ts d!d #ot !#1or3 t-e Ma,!strate about t-e!r $r!or warra#tless e#try, a#d t-at t-e warra#t was ta!#ted by t-at e#try. Pet!t!o#ers were subseBue#tly co#&!cted o1 co#s$!racy to $ossess a#d d!str!bute !lle,al dru,s. .-e Court o1 /$$eals a11!r3ed, des$!te assu3!#, as a $rel!3!#ary 3atter 1or $ur$oses o1 !ts dec!s!o# o# t-e su$$ress!o# Buest!o# t-at t-e 1!rst e#try !#to t-e ware-ouse was u#law1ul. G!estion: :-et-er t-e u#law1ul $rocure3e#t o1 !#1or3at!o# ca# be corrected by re-obta!#3e#t o1 t-at !#1or3at!o# t-rou,- le,al 3ea#s. /lter#at!&ely e4$ressed, !1 $ol!ce ,ot t-e !#1or3at!o# o#e way w-!c- was !lle,al, a#d a#ot-er way t-at was le,al, ca# t-ey use t-e !#1or3at!o#<

R!le: .-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t does #ot reBu!re t-e su$$ress!o# o1 e&!de#ce !#!t!ally d!sco&ered dur!#, $ol!ce o11!cers0 !lle,al e#try o1 $r!&ate $re3!ses, !1 t-at e&!de#ce !s also d!sco&ered dur!#, a later searc- $ursua#t to a &al!d warra#t t-at !s w-olly !#de$e#de#t o1 t-e !#!t!al !lle,al e#try. But !1 t-e earl!er !lle,al e#try !s w-at ,a&e t-e $ol!ce t-e !3$etus to try ,ett!#, a warra#t, t-e# t-e warra#t !s !#&al!d a#d t-e e&!de#ce 3ust be su$$ressed. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, t-e /$$eals Court t-ou,-t t-at t-e record was su11!c!e#tly clear t-at t-e earl!er e#try d!d#0t $lay a role !# t-e warra#t because t-e 3a,!strate was#0t !#1or3ed o1 t-e stu11 t-ey0d see# o# t-e !lle,al e#try. But t-!s !s a Eob 1or t-e 1act 1!#der, so t-e /$$eals Court !s !#structed to re3a#d t-e case bac5 to t-e d!str!ct court to deter3!#e w-et-er !# 1act t-e $ol!ce would -a&e sou,-t a warra#t were !t #ot 1or t-e earl!er e#try. Note: " see so3e te#s!o# -ere betwee# :-re# a#d t-!s case, because !# :-re# t-e le,al!ty o1 t-e tra11!c sto$ $recluded a#y !#Bu!ry !#to t-e 3ot!&at!o# 1or t-e sto$, but !# t-!s case, alt-ou,t-e later warra#t was u#doubtedly le,al o# !ts 1ace, t-e Court !s ,o!#, to loo5 at t-e 3ot!&at!o# o1 t-e Co$s. Disc!ssion: (a+ .-e S!#de$e#de#t sourceR doctr!#e $er3!ts t-e !#troduct!o# o1 e&!de#ce !#!t!ally d!sco&ered dur!#,, or as a co#seBue#ce o1, a# u#law1ul searc-, but later obta!#ed !#de$e#de#tly 1ro3 law1ul act!&!t!es u#ta!#ted by t-e !#!t!al !lle,al!ty. S!l&ert-or#e 'u3ber Co. &.)#!ted States, 2 1 ).S. F8 , G0 S.Ct. 182, 6G '.=d. F1*. .-ere !s #o 3er!t to $et!t!o#ers0 co#te#t!o# t-at allow!#, t-e doctr!#e to a$$ly to e&!de#ce !#!t!ally d!sco&ered dur!#, a# !lle,al searc-, rat-er t-a# l!3!t!#, !t to e&!de#ce 1!rst obta!#ed dur!#, a later law1ul searc-, w!ll e#coura,e $ol!ce rout!#ely to e#ter $re3!ses w!t-out a warra#t. (b+ /lt-ou,- t-e 1ederal a,e#ts0 5#owled,e t-at 3ar!Eua#a was !# t-e ware-ouse was assuredly acBu!red at t-e t!3e o1 t-e u#law1ul e#try, !t was also acBu!red at t-e t!3e o1 e#try $ursua#t to t-e warra#t, a#d !1 t-at later acBu!s!t!o# was #ot t-e result o1 t-e earl!er e#try, t-e !#de$e#de#t source doctr!#e allows t-e ad3!ss!o# o1 test!3o#y as to t-at 5#owled,e. .-!s sa3e a#alys!s a$$l!es to t-e ta#,!ble e&!de#ce, t-e bales o1 3ar!Eua#a. )#!ted States &. S!l&estr!, >8> 7.2d >F6 (C/1, 1*86+, !s u#$ersuas!&e !#so1ar as !t d!st!#,u!s-es betwee# ta!#ted !#ta#,!ble a#d ta#,!ble e&!de#ce. .-e ult!3ate Buest!o# !s w-et-er t-e searc- $ursua#t to warra#t was !# 1act a ,e#u!#ely !#de$e#de#t source o1 t-e !#1or3at!o# a#d ta#,!ble e&!de#ce at !ssue. .-!s would #ot -a&e bee# t-e case !1 t-e a,e#ts0 dec!s!o# to see5 t-e warra#t was $ro3$ted by w-at t-ey -ad see# dur!#, t-e !#!t!al e#try or !1 !#1or3at!o# obta!#ed dur!#, t-at e#try was $rese#ted to t-e Ma,!strate a#d a11ected -!s dec!s!o# to !ssue t-e warra#t. Because t-e %!str!ct Court d!d #ot e4$l!c!tly 1!#d t-at t-e a,e#ts would -a&e sou,-t a warra#t !1 t-ey -ad #ot earl!er e#tered t-e ware-ouse, t-e cases are re3a#ded 1or a deter3!#at!o# w-et-er t-e warra#t-aut-or!;ed searco1 t-e ware-ouse was a# !#de$e#de#t source !# t-e se#se -ere!# descr!bed. G!ote 1ro3 2!4 &. :!ll!a3s: .-e $ur$ose o1 t-e e4clus!o#ary rule !s to $ut t-e state !# t-e sa3e, #ot a worse $os!t!o# t-a# t-ey would -a&e bee# w!t-out t-e &!olat!o#. Notes: .-ere are two 5!#ds o1 H!#de$e#de#t sourceH. O#e !s w-ere t-e ot-er e&!de#ce o1 t-e cr!3e !s a&a!lable. .-!s !s t-e seco#d 5!#d, w-ere !t0s t-e sa3e ta#,!ble e&!de#ce but !t was $rocured t-rou,- a#ot-er way, t-!s o#e w-!c- was le,al. %e1e#da#ts ur,ed t-at allow!#, t-e e&!de#ce would create a# !#ce#t!&e to searc-, a#d !1 t-e stu11 !s #ot t-ere, you sa&ed t-e trouble o1 a warra#t, a#d !1 !t !s, you wor5 -arder to ,et t-e warra#t. But t-e Court s-ot t-at dow#, say!#, t-at !1 you ,o !# early, you0ll -a&e to co#&!#ce t-e Eud,e t-at #ot-!#, you saw t-ere was $robat!&e !# t-e atte3$t to ,et t-e warra#t, so !1 you ca# 3uster $robable cause, t-e !#ce#t!&e !s to ,et a warra#t 1!rst. Notes: :-at would !t ta5e 1or t-e Court to a,ree t-at t-e !#1or3at!o# was !lle,ally obta!#ed a#d t-e ta!#t st!ll re3a!#ed< ?eywords: "#de$e#de#t source doctr!#e

"#e&!table d!sco&ery: 2!4 &. :!ll!a3s

.-ursday, 2o&e3ber 22, 2012 11:F6 PM

?eywords: S!4t- /3e#d3e#t R!,-t to cou#sel Su$$ress!o# "#e&!table d!sco&ery &acts: :!ll!a3s was sus$ected o1 3urder!#, a you#, ,!rl. Ce -ad a lawyer a#d -!s lawyer -ad war#ed $ol!ce t-at t-ey s-ould #ot !#terro,ate -!3 u#t!l t-ey were to,et-er w!t- t-e lawyer at t-e stat!o# -ouse !# t-e c!ty t-at t-ey were -ead!#, toward. :-!le t-ey were !# t-e car, $ol!ce ,a&e t-e 1a3ous C-r!st!a# Bur!al s$eec- - t-ey sa!d t-at t-ey were l!5ely to be dr!&!#, by t-e area w-ere t-e body was -!dde#, a#d t-!s was t-e cul$r!t0s c-a#ce to -el$ t-e3 1!#d t-e body be1ore a s#owstor3 t-reate#s to 3a5e !t !3$oss!ble to 1!#d. .-e cul$r!t !#deed -el$ed t-e3, a#d !# Brewer &. :!ll!a3s, t-e Court 1ou#d t-at t-!s was a &!olat!o# o1 -!s S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel. But t-e State wa#ted to use t-e locat!o# o1 t-e body a#d t-e deta!ls o1 t-e body !tsel1 as e&!de#ce. .-e state cla!3ed t-at t-e body would -a&e bee# d!sco&ered a#yway, s!#ce t-ere were 200 $eo$le searc-!#, #earby a#d e&e# !1 t-e cul$r!t -ad#0t ,!&e# t-e3 t-e locat!o#, t-e searc-ers would -a&e 1ou#d t-e body. Luest!o#: "1 t-e e&!de#ce co3es as a result o1 !lle,al $rocedure, but would -a&e bee# 1ou#d w!t-out t-e !lle,al $rocedure, ca# !t be used< R!le: .-e e4lus!o#ary rule 3ea#s t-at t-e $rosecut!o# ca##ot be $ut !# a better $os!t!o# t-a# t-ey were w!t-out t-e &!olat!o#. :-e# t-e e&!de#ce would -a&e bee# 1ou#d !#e&!tably, t-e# t-ey are #ot !# a better $os!t!o# because o1 t-e &!olat!o#. .-e $rosecut!o# t-ere1ore also does #ot #eed to $ro&e a lac5 o1 bad 1a!t- but t-ey do #eed to $ro&e by way o1 t-e e&!de#ce o1 t-e!r searc-!#, 3et-ods t-at !t !s clear t-at t-e e&!de#ce would -a&e bee# 1ou#d. 9ol$ing: Because o1 t-e way t-at t-e e&!de#ce descr!bes t-e searc- ta5!#, $lace, !t !s clear 1ro3 t-e record t-at t-e body would !# 1act -a&e bee# 1ou#d. S!#ce !# t-!s case, t-e body would -a&e bee# 1ou#d a#yway, t-ey are #ot !# a better $os!t!o# because o1 t-e !lle,al!ty a#d t-e e&!de#ce s-ould #ot be su$$ressed. 7or t-e sa3e reaso#, t-e 3!#dset o1 t-e $ol!ce !s #ot rele&a#t to t-!s a#alys!s. #rof sa+s: %ould -a&e 1ou#d t-e body !s #ot e#ou,-. .-!s case reBu!res t-at t-ey would -a&e 1ou#d t-e body. " ,uess t-at 3ea#s t-at t-ey ca#0t co3e !# to court a#d say, O-, that$s w-ere t-e body was< :e totally could -a&e loo5ed t-ereO "# t-at l!,-t, $ol!ce !# t-!s case -ad to s-ow t-at based o# t-e searc- t-at was already ta5!#, $lace, t-e body would -a&e bee# 1ou#d. Notes: .-e case co#trasts t-e rat!o#ale 1ro3 Murray, "#de$e#de#t Source, w-ere t-e rat!o#ale !s t-at t-e $rosecut!o# s-ould #ot be $ut !# a worse $os!t!o# because o1 so3e earl!er $ol!ce 3!sco#duct. .-!s see3s to be t-e co#&erse o1 t-at - t-at t-e de1e#da#t s-ould #ot be#e1!t 3ore t-a# -e was e#t!tled because o1 t-e $ol!ce 3!sco#duct. "t ca# be e4$ressed t-at way, or !t ca# be e4$ressed as a s!3$le e4te#s!o# o1 t-e rule - s!#ce $ol!ce would -a&e 1ou#d t-e body a#yway, t-e $rosecut!o# !s esse#t!ally be!#, $ut !# a worse $os!t!o# because o1 t-e earl!er 3!sdeed. Notes: S!3!lar to Murray, t-e Court d!scusses t-e !#ce#t!&es a#d -as a s!3!lar colloBuy. %e1e#da#t sa!d t-at t-!s w!ll allow $ol!ce to do w-ate&er t-ey wa#t a#d 1all bac5 o# !#e&!table d!sco&ery. Court sa!d to t-e co#trary - $ol!ce w!ll be 3ore l!5ely to be care1ul s!#ce t-ey are ,o!#, to 1!#d t-e e&!de#ce a#yway a#d t-!s 3!,-t cast as$ers!o#s o# t-at e&!de#ce a#d 1orce t-e3 to $ro&e t-at t-ey would -a&e 1ou#d !t.

Note: .-!s was a S!4t- /3e#d3e#t case a#d de1e#da#t wa#ted to a$$ly a d!11ere#t sta#dard to S!4t- /3e#d3e#t e4clus!o# t-a# to 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t e4clus!o#, because t-e S!4t/3e#d3e#t !s a tr!al r!,-t rat-er t-a# a# e&!de#t!ary r!,-t. But t-e Court d!d#0t buy !t.

=#tra$3e#t
Su#day, 2o&e3ber 0G, 2012 12:F8 PM

Blac2 letter entrap"ent la% =#tra$3e#t !s a co33o# law de1e#se to cr!3!#al c-ar,es, bu!lt o# court dec!s!o#s, t-at co3es !#to $lay w-e# $ol!ce !#duce so3eo#e to co33!t a cr!3e, a#d -e !s t-e# c-ar,ed w!t- t-at cr!3e. a. entencing entrap"ent: So3e Eur!sd!ct!o#s allow e#tra$3e#t de1e#ses !# se#te#c!#, as well, !# s!tuat!o#s w-ere t-e $ol!ce !#duced so3et-!#, t-at ele&ated t-e o11e#se to a -!,-er se#te#ce. b. Aiolent Cri"es entrap"ent: %!11ere#t Eur!sd!ct!o#s -a&e d!11ere#t a$$roac-es to e#tra$3e#t de1e#se o# &!ole#t or -e!#ous cr!3es. 2. .-ere are two co3$et!#, a$$roac-es !# e#tra$3e#t, a. !7=ecti,e approach, based o# t-e de1e#da#t0s cul$ab!l!ty !. .-!s !s t-e 3aEor!ty a#d 7ederal a$$roac!!. .wo $art !#Bu!ry: (1+ %!d t-e $ol!ce !#duce t-e cr!3e, a#d (2+ :as t-e de1e#da#t $red!s$osed to t-e cr!3e be1ore t-e $ol!ce ,ot to -!3< .-e seco#d !#Bu!ry see3s to be t-e 3ore !3$orta#t o#e. 1. Pro&!d!#, o$$ortu#!ty !s #ot su11!c!e#t to be co#s!dered inducement. 2. Pred!s$os!t!o# 3ea#s t-at -e was ready a#d w!ll!#, to do !t, w-e#e&er t-e o$$ortu#!ty arose. So3e 1actors t-at $lay !#to t-at are (1+ t-e c-aracter or re$utat!o# o1 t-e de1e#da#t6 (2+ w-et-er t-e su,,est!o# o1 t-e cr!3!#al act!&!ty was or!,!#ally 3ade by t-e ,o&er#3e#t6 (F+ w-et-er t-e de1e#da#t was e#,a,ed !# cr!3!#al act!&!ty 1or a $ro1!t6 (G+ w-et-er t-e de1e#da#t e&!de#ced relucta#ce to co33!t t-e o11e#se, o&erco3e by ,o&er#3e#t $ersuas!o# a#d ( + t-e #ature o1 t-e !#duce3e#t or $ersuas!o# o11ered by t-e ,o&er#3e#t. F. 2ote t-at $red!s$os!t!o# see3s a $retty -!,- bar 1or t-e state to $ro&e, a#d w-!le !t0s 3et !# )S &. Russell, Aacobso# &. )#!ted States see3s to !3$ly t-at $red!s$os!t!o# !s so3ew-at eas!er to $ro&e. But t-e case law see3s to lea&e a lot u$ !# t-e a!r re,ardless. !!!. O7=ections to this approach: "t !s based o# t-e 1!ct!o# t-at !#duced cr!3e !s #ot $ro-!b!ted. "t s-ould#0t 3atter 1ro3 t-e de1e#da#t0s $ers$ect!&e !1 t-e $ol!ce or -!s buddy !#duced t-e cr!3e. O# t-e de1e#da#t0s s!de, t-e cr!t!c!s3 !s t-at o#ce so3eo#e !s $red!s$osed, t-e $ol!ce ca# do w-ate&er t-ey wa#t to co#&!#ce -!3 to re-o11e#d, a#d -e w!ll be se#t to Ea!l. 7urt-er3ore, t-!s $laces o# tr!al a w-ole bu#c- o1 e&!de#ce o1 $ro$e#s!ty, -!story, etc. t-at would -a&e bee# !#ad3!ss!ble be1ore-a#d, rat-er t-a# d!scuss!o# o1 t-e real cr!3e !# Buest!o#. b. O7=ecti,e approach, based o# $ol!ce cul$ab!l!ty !. Based o# t-e worry t-at $ol!ce are us!#, tact!cs to !#duce cr!3es t-at 3!,-t create cr!3e !# $eo$le w-o would #ot -a&e ot-erw!se bee# co33!tt!#, !t. !!. One in6!ir+: %!d t-e $ol!ce use !#duce3e#ts t-at bore a substa#t!al r!s5 t-at a reaso#able, #o#-$red!s$osed $erso# would co33!t a cr!3e !# t-ose c!rcu3sta#ces< 1.

.reat!se #otes t-at t-!s !s so de$e#de#t o# t-e 1acts o1 t-e case a#d t-e #ature o1 t-e way t-e cr!3e !# Buest!o# !s usually sol!c!ted a#d $er1or3ed, t-at !t0s about as subEect!&e a#d &alue lade# as t-e subEect!&e a$$roac-. !!!. .-!s !s t-e 3!#or!ty a$$roac-, t-ou,- 3a#y (1*, accord!#, to o#l!#e treat!se+ states use !t. !&. /lso called t-e -y$ot-et!cal $erso# a$$roac-. &. O7=ections to this approach: Pol!ce act!#, reaso#ably s-ould be able to a$$roac- d!11ere#t $ote#t!al cr!3!#als d!11ere#tly. Pred!s$os!t!o# s-ould allow t-e $ol!ce to a$$roac- a Hwary cr!3!#alH w!t- ,reater !#duce3e#ts t-a# t-ey would so3eo#e w-o -as #e&er co33!tted a cr!3e. (:.7< :-y are t-ey try!#, to !#duce cr!3es at all< " t-ou,-t t-at t-ey0re Eust try!#, to ,et $eo$le w-o are ,u!lty be1ore-a#dP C333. Maybe t-ey s-ould #eed $robable cause be1ore us!#, !#duce3e#ts< /lso, !t w!ll d!s$ro$ort!o#ately a11ect lesser cr!3!#als s!#ce tou,-er o#es w!ll be -arder to !#duce. (Or eas!er< "#duce3e#t !s #ot a $rocedure, !t0s a tact!c.+ =#tra$3e#t !s $retty 3uc- w-at $eo$le t-!#5 !t !s. "t 3ea#s t-at t-e $ol!ce were !#&ol&ed !# t-e 3ot!&at!o# 1or t-e $er$etrator to co33!t a cr!3e. Peo$le re1er to e#coura,e3e#t as e#tra$3e#t, alt-ou,- !t does #ot r!se to t-e le&el t-at t-e courts -a&e reBu!red to 1!#d e#tra$3e#t. :-e# e#coura,e3e#t ,oes too 1ar, a#d t-e cr!3!#al des!,# Horiginates %ith the go,ern"ent a#d t-ey i"plant in the "in$ o1 t-e o1 a# innocent person t-e d!s$os!t!o# to co33!t t-e o11e#se, a#d in$!ce its co""ission !# order t-at t-ey 3ay $rosecute, t-e ,o&er#3e#t0s tact!cs are entrap"ent. (.-!s !s t-e test art!culated !# Sorrells &. )#!ted States, art!culat!#, t-e 3aEor!ty &!ew o1 e#tra$3e#t, w-!c- !s t-e subEect!&e a$$roac-.+ ObEect!&e a$$roac-, o# t-e ot-er -a#d, 1ocuses o# t-e ,o&er#3e#t0s duty to co#trol $ol!ce a#d 3a5e sure t-at t-ey0re #ot ,o!#, too 1ar !# !#duc!#, cr!3!#al be-a&!or. Co#curr!#, Aust!ce Stewart !# )#!ted States &. Russell: H.-e e#tra$3e#t de1e#se !s des!,#ed Hto $ro-!b!t u#law1ul ,o&er#3e#tal act!&!ty !# !#st!,at!#, cr!3e.H .-us, !1 a de1e#da#t was !# 1act $red!s$osed to co33!t a $art!cular cr!3e e.,. a dru, dealer w-o !s a$$roac-ed by a# !#1or3a#t, -!s best bet !s to 1ocus o# t-e ObEect!&e test a#d cla!3 t-at t-e ,o&er#3e#t we#t too 1ar !# try!#, to !#duce -!3. "1 a de1e#da#t was #ot $red!s$osed to co33!t a certa!# cr!3e, e.,. so3e ra#do3 dude w-o was as5ed by a# !#1or3a#t !1 t-ey could buy a b!t o1 -!s 3ar!Eua#a, -!s best de1e#se !s 3ore l!5ely to be u#der t-e 3aEor!ty subEect!&e a$$roac-, w-ere e&e# !1 -e a,reed !33ed!ately w!t-out ta5!#, 3ucco#&!#c!#,, -e ca# 1ocus o# -!s lac5 o1 $red!s$os!t!o#. Pro1 says !# class t-at e&!de#ce 1or $red!s$os!t!o# ca# !#clude e&!de#ce t-at !s #ot ,e#erally allowed o Pro$e#s!ty e&!de#ce o Perso#al!ty e&!de#ce Proble3s w!t- se#te#c!#, based o# e#tra$3e#t: So3et!3es t-ere are s!3!lar cr!3es t-at -a&e drast!cally d!11ere#t se#te#ces. Pol!ce 3!,-t ta5e so3eo#e w-o was sell!#, coca!#e, a#d do so3et-!#, t-at ,ets t-e ,uy to sell crac5 !#stead, w-!c- -as a lar,er se#te#ce. S$ea5er #otes t-at t-e cr!3e was o#e o1 !#te#t, a#d t-e ,o&er#3e#t o#ly -ad to $ro&e !#te#t a#d a substa#t!al ste$. "3$oss!b!l!ty !s #ot a de1e#se to suc- a c-ar,e. Pro1 #otes t-at t-e outra,eous ,o&er#3e#t co#duct sta#dard -as #ot bee# dro$$ed. "t !s t-ere, alt-ou,- !t !s -ard to $ro&e. Pro1 $o!#ts to t-e Craw1ord dec!s!o# t-at re!#&!,orated t-e co#1ro#tat!o# clause. (%!d we read t-at case yet<+

1.

.-e $lea could -a&e bee# o#e o1 two ty$es. / B $lea allows t-e Eud,e d!scret!o# to ta5e t-e $rosecut!o#0s su,,est!o# or #ot - -e ca# ta5e t-e ,u!lty $lea a#d do w-at -e wa#ts w!t!t. / C $lea does #ot allow t-at, because a C $lea 3ea#s t-at t-e de1e#da#t -as t-e o$t!o# o1 w!t-draw!#, -!s $lea.

)#!ted States &. Russell ()S 1*>F+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 0G, 2012 12: PM

&acts of the Case )#derco&er a,e#t -ad d!scuss!o#s !# w-!c- -e o11ered to $ro&!de a# !#,red!e#t used !# $roduct!o# o1 3et- to so3eo#e w-o was sus$ected o1 ru##!#, a 3et- lab. %ur!#, t-e course o1 t-e !#&est!,at!o# t-e a,e#t w!t#essed $roduct!o# o1 3et- us!#, c-e3!cals t-at -ad #ot co3e 1ro3 -!3, a#d -e -eard t-e de1e#da#ts d!scuss!#, t-e!r $re&!ous 3et-3a5!#, act!&!t!es. Ce also was ,!&e# a sa3$le o1 t-e 3et- t-ey -ad 3ade $r!or to 3eet!#, -!3. /t t-e co#clus!o# o1 a# u#derco&er dru, !#&est!,at!o#, R!c-ard Russell was arrested by :as-!#,to# $ol!ce a#d e&e#tually co#&!cted !# a d!str!ct court 1or dru, 3a#u1actur!#, cr!3es. Russell c-alle#,ed -!s co#&!ct!o# as t-e result o1 u#co#st!tut!o#al e#tra$3e#t $ract!ces, s!#ce a# u#derco&er a,e#t su$$l!ed -!3 w!t- a# esse#t!al !#,red!e#t o1 -!s dru, 3a#u1actur!#, o$erat!o#. .-ere was test!3o#y t-at t-e c-e3!cal was d!11!cult to obta!#. O# a$$eal 1ro3 a# ad&erse Court o1 /$$eals dec!s!o# w-!c- e4$a#ded t-e de1!#!t!o# o1 e#tra$3e#t to a$$ly !# cases w-ere t-e ,o&er#3e#t we#t too 1ar (ObEect!&e sta#dard<+. .-e Su$re3e Court descr!bes t-e /$$eals Court0s dec!s!o# as o$erat!#, u#der alter#ate t-eor!es, a#d says t-at t-e a$$eals court 1ou#d t-e3 sy#o#y3ous. 1. Re,ardless o1 $red!s$os!t!o#, t-e e#tra$3e#t de1e#se a$$l!es w-e#e&er t-e ,o&er#3e#t su$$l!es $art o1 t-e co#traba#d 2. 2o#-e#tra$3e#t rat!o#ale cla!3!#, t-at s!#ce t-e ,o&er#3e#t was so !#&ol&ed !# t-e cr!3!#al act!&!ty !t would be re$u,#a#t to t-e rule o1 law to allow a co#&!ct!o#. .-e Su$re3e Court ,ra#ted t-e ,o&er#3e#t cert!orar!. G!estion %oes a# u#derco&er law e#1orce3e#t o11!cer0s substa#t!al $art!c!$at!o# !# cr!3!#al co#duct co#st!tute e#tra$3e#t !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t0s due $rocess $rotect!o#s, !1 t-e cr!3!#al would -a&e bee# able to co33!t t-e cr!3e a#yway< Disc!ssion: "# a -to-G dec!s!o#, t-e Court -eld t-at law e#1orce3e#t o11!cers 3ay $art!c!$ate !# t-e $rocedural co33!ss!o# o1 certa!# cr!3es suc- as dru, 3a#u1actur!#,, so lo#, as t-ey do #ot !3$la#t cr!3!#al des!,#s !# t-e 3!#ds o1 t-e accused. "# Russell0s case, t-e !#&est!,ated dru, o$erat!o#s were !# $lace lo#, be1ore u#derco&er a,e#ts !#1!ltrated t-e3. Moreo&er, t-e !#,red!e#ts co#tr!buted by t-e a,e#ts could -a&e bee# acBu!red !#de$e#de#tly by Russell a#d -!s co-co#s$!rators. /s suc-, #o#e o1 t-e a,e#ts0 $art!c!$atory act!&!t!es a3ou#ted to e#tra$3e#t. Aer$ict: @u!lty R!le: .-!s case 3a!#ta!#s t-e Sorrell rule t-at lea#s stro#,ly toward t-e subEect!&e a$$roac-. .-ere !s a two ste$ !#Bu!ry !# deter3!#!#, e#tra$3e#t. (1+ :as t-e cr!3e !# Buest!o# !#duced by a ,o&er#3e#t a,e#t, a#d (2+ :as t-e de1e#da#t $red!s$osed to co33!t t-!s cr!3e< "1 t-e de1e#da#t would -a&e a#d !# 1act d!d co33!t t-e cr!3e o# -!s ow# w!t-out ass!sta#ce 1ro3 t-e $ol!ce, t-e# #o 3atter t-e le&el o1 $ol!ce !#&ol&e3e#t, t-ere !s #o de1e#se o1 e#tra$3e#t. 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, t-e de1e#da#t would -a&e -ad #o trouble co33!tt!#, t-e cr!3es w!t-out t-e $ol!ce ass!sta#ce. "# 1act, de1e#da#ts -ad bee# do!#, !t be1ore a#d co#t!#ued do!#, !t a1ter $ol!ce !#&ol&e3e#t. .-e c-e3!cal was #ot o&erly d!11!cult to obta!#. %e1e#da#t

would #ot be e4o#erated e&e# u#der -!s su,,ested rule t-at w-e#e&er t-e cr!3e would -a&e bee# !3$oss!ble w!t-out t-e $ol!ce, !t s-ould be e#tra$3e#t re,ardless o1 $red!s$os!t!o#, because !t was $oss!ble a#d !# 1act -ad -a$$e#ed w!t-out $ol!ce. Dissent: :e s-ould #ot be 1ocused o# t-e $red!s$os!t!o# at all. Our co#cer# s-ould be w-et-er t-!s ,o&er#3e#t be-a&!or s-ould be cou#te#a#ced. .-e subEect!&e rat!o#ale w-!cdec!des t-at t-e de1e#da#t !s Hot-erw!se !##oce#tH 3a5es #o se#se, !#as3uc- as t-e de1e#da#t !s always ,u!lty by t-e t!3e -e sta#ds tr!al a#d !1 -e -ad bee# !#duced by a $r!&ate $erso# t-ere would be #o doubt as to -!s ,u!lt. .-ere1ore, t-e rat!o#ale 3ust be to d!scoura,e t-e ,o&er#3e#t 1ro3 !#duc!#, cr!3e, w-!c- 3a5es $red!s$os!t!o# !rrele&a#t. (%oes !t t-ou,-< S-ould#0t t-!s ra!se 0,reater ,ood0 Buest!o#s, w-!c- would lead r!,-t bac5 to 0ot-erw!se !##oce#t0<+ %!sse#t add!t!o#ally says t-at Pred!s$os!t!o# 3ea#s t-at ,o&er#3e#t ca# e#tra$ co#&!cts but #ot !##oce#t $eo$le. Pred!s$os!t!o# would allow all 5!#ds o1 e&!de#ce t-at !s ot-erw!se #ot ad3!ss!ble, because t-e $red!s$os!t!o# would beco3e a Buest!o# 1or t-e Eury. Because o1 t-e abo&e, t-e test !s #ot w-et-er t-e de1e#da#t was $red!s$osed, rat-er !t e&aluates t-e e4te#t o1 t-e ,o&er#3e#t0s !#&ol&e3e#t. "1 t-e !#&ol&e3e#t 3ade t-e co#duct $oss!ble, !t would be e#tra$3e#t, but !1 t-e co#duct was $oss!ble w!t-out t-e ,o&er#3e#t, t-e# !t would #ot be e#tra$3e#t. "# t-!s case, t-e ,o&er#3e#t0s c-e3!cals were used !# all t-e t-ree cou#ts t-at de1e#da#ts were c-ar,ed w!t-. .-e c-e3!cal was o#ly a&a!lable w!t- a l!ce#se, a#d t-e ,o&er#3e#t -ad as5ed t-ose w!t- l!ce#ses #ot to su$$ly !t. .-e# t-e ,o&er#3e#t tur#s arou#d a#d su$$l!es !t to t-ese $eo$le w-o are 5#ow# cr!3!#al $roducers. H"t !s t-e ,o&er#3e#t0s Eob to $re&e#t cr!3e, #ot to $ro3ote !tH Therefore, t-!s s-ould be co#s!dered e#tra$3e#t, a#d t-e de1e#da#t s-ould $re&a!l.

Aacobso# &. )#!ted States ()S 1**2+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 0G, 2012 1: F PM Facts of the Case 2efore the 'hild 6rotection Act of (9@: rendered it illegal, Ceith Bacobson, the petitioner, purchased a magaAine including photographs of nude minors. %n (9@/, government agencies began investigating Bacobson&s interest in child pornography. ;ver the course of about ) R years, they sent him mailings from / fictitious organiAations and one non5existent pen pal all promoting sexual liberation and challenging government censorship. After Bacobson was somewhat, but not overwhelmingly responsive, a government agency attempted to sting him by selling him child pornography which he purchased. *efendant claimed that he was unsure of the contents of the magaAine but was curious about it. After he received the magaAine, he was arrested and convicted. 7he >nited 0tates 'ourt of Appeals for the Gighth 'ircuit affirmed. Question *id the prosecution against Bacobson prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that agencies of the >nited 0tates Government did not incite his violation of the 'hild 6rotection Act1 Decision: / votes for Bacobson, : vote"s$ against Rule: %n cases of encouragement or incitement, the government must prove that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before the defendant was induced by the government to commit it 5 a requirement of the sub ective approach to entrapment defenses. o "*issent refines this further, saying that according to ma ority defendant must be predisposed to commit the act, and also predisposed to commit the act even though it&s now a crime. Another example similar to this case that comes to mind is someone who soldQimbibed mari uana in Amsterdam$

HoldingD %n this case, where the sole evidence of defendant&s predisposition was a questionable magaAine that was legal at the time that he bought it, there was no evidence that the defendant was predisposed to the crime. 7herefore, the defense of entrapment was supported. Legal provision: 2ntrap#ent 7he prosecution failed to prove that the government didn&t incite the violation of the child protection act. %n a ma ority decision authored by Bustice 2yron 3. White, the 'ourt determined that, the prosecution was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bacobson was inclined to commit the criminal act of purchasing child pornography independent of government interference. *oubt stems from the fact that government agencies may have actually encouraged Bacobson to brea! the law in their effort to prosecute him. 0ince the 'ourt found that the prosecution failed, the decision of the 'ourt of Appeals and Bacobson&s conviction were reversed. +ong and involved fact pattern, in which the original suspicion level wasn&t high, the initial inducement attempts resulted in borderline success, and the eventual criminal act wasn&t even overwhelmingly culpable. "%n its Aeal to enforce the law, the government may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person&s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the government may prosecute." 'ourt says that government may offer, and if criminal accepts, he is culpable. 2ut in this case, there was a prolonged interaction, during which it&s plausible that the predisposition itself was attributable to the government. Dissent: Bacobson was offered the opportunity to buy illegal materials twice. <e too! both opportunities. "=oteD 7he first time, it wasn&t delivered and didn&t result in charges.$ Admittedly, the offers came after previous contacts. 2ut that was necessary to ma!e sure that he was interested. 'old calls would have resulted in the defendant being suspicious, and may even have resulted generally in minors getting pornographic content. o "=ote that the two rationales above are focused on the government&s conduct. 7his points toward an ob ective rationale for the entrapment defense. 7he dissent isn&t concerned with whether he was predisposed, they only care whether the government conduct is ustified.$ "2ut my note above is not completely true, since$ *issent then focuses on when the inquiry into predisposition is to be conducted. 7he ma ority focuses on the time that the initial government contact occurred. 7he dissent focuses on the time of the offer of the crime that the defendant accepted. "7his too can be seen to depend on the sub ectiveQob ective dichotomy.$ 7he early contact between the government and defendant didn&t suggest any crimes at all. 7herefore, it should not be on the table. 7he court cannot impose a requirement of predisposition before the government contacts the defendant. "why not1 0ounds reasonable to meP$ 7he 8a ority requires that not only does the government need to show that defendant was predisposed to commit an act, but also that he was predisposed to commit a crime in order to commit that act. "*unno, this still sounds reasonable to meP$

Pol!ce "#terro,at!o#s a#d Co#1ess!o#s ( t- /3e#d3e#t+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 0G, 2012 F: 6 PM

Blac2 letter la%: "1 a co#1ess!o# -as bee# !#duced by act!o#s t-at were !#-ere#tly coerc!&e (re,ardless o1 t-e actual e11ect o# t-e &olu#tar!#ess o1 t-e co#1ess!o#+, or !1 t-e co#1ess!o# was !#&olu#tary, t-e co#1ess!o# 3ust be e4cluded. .-ere are two $ote#t!al reaso#s 1or #ull!1y!#, coerced co#1ess!o#s. 7or a lo#, t!3e, t-ere was a su$$os!t!o# t-at &olu#tary co#1ess!o#s were ad3!ss!ble, a#d co#&ersely, !#&olu#tary

or coerced ad3!ss!o#s were #ot ad3!ss!ble, because !t was !ntr!st%orth+. 'ater t-e doctr!#e e&ol&ed, !#cor$orated t-e 7ourtee#t- a#d 7!1t- /3e#d3e#ts, a#d 1ocused 3ore o# t-e tec-#!Bues !#&ol&ed !# e4tract!#, t-e co#1ess!o# as a $rocedural 3atter - !1 t-ey were H!#-ere#tly coerc!&eH t-e co#1ess!o# was t-row# out, re,ardless o1 rel!ab!l!ty. "t see3s t-at #ow !t could ,o e!t-er way - a co#1ess!o# 3!,-t be e4cluded !1 !t ca3e 1ro3 H!#-ere#tly coerc!&eH act!&!ty, or !1 !t was 1or so3e reaso# less t-a# rel!able. o "# t-e u#trustwort-!#ess re,!3e, t-e e11ect o1 t-e coerc!o# o# t-e de1e#da#t was loo5ed at rat-er t-a# t-e wro#,1ul#ess o1 t-e e#1orc!#, o11!cers. .-!s rat!o#ale was loo5ed at $retty re,ular !# t-e 1*F0s a#d G0s. 2ote: "t does#0t see3 to #ecessar!ly !3$l!cate t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t $rocess reBu!re3e#ts, !t was s!3$ly a Buest!o# o1 rel!ab!l!ty. "1 o#e were to use a untrustworthiness rat!o#ale, !t would st!ll ta5e t-e 1or3 o1 a Hdue $rocessH ty$e rat!o#ale, s!#ce t-e atte3$t would be to exclude the evidence rat-er t-a# deal w!t- !t by impeaching !t. /lt-ou,- !3$eac-!#, a co#1ess!o# 3!,-t be -ard, so 3aybe t-at0s w-y. o The &ifth A"en$"ent was e&e#tually added to t-e co33o# law sou$ $ro-!b!t!#, co#1ess!o#s o# u#trustwort-!#ess ,rou#ds. .-at led to t-e 7ourtee#t/3e#d3e#t due $rocess clause be!#, added, !# state $rosecut!o#s (s!#ce t-e 7!1t/3e#d3e#t r!,-t a,a!#st sel1 !#cr!3!#at!o# -ad#0t bee# !#cor$orated yet+. .-at e&e#tually led to t-e /s-cra1t ty$e e&ocat!o# o1 coerc!o# rat!o#ales, re1erred to as due $rocess &olu#tar!#ess. o Ashcraft ,. Tennessee s-ows -ow t-e rat!o#ale was c-a#,ed to relate 3ore to t-e de1e#da#t0s tr!al r!,-ts - !.e. e&e# !1 t-e de1e#da#t was l!5ely ,u!lty, t-e co#1ess!o# would be e4cluded !1 !t was a &!olat!o# o1 t-e de1e#da#t0s r!,-ts. (.-e !#terro,at!o# !# /s-cra1t was 1ou#d to be H!#-ere#tly coerc!&eH+ Aac5so# d!sse#t !# /s-cra1t sa!d t-at t-e !#Bu!ry s-ould#0t be w-et-er a #or3al $erso# would -a&e bee# coerced, but rat-er w-et-er t-e $art!cular de1e#da#t was !# co#trol o1 -!s ow# 1ree w!ll at t-e t!3e. "# /s-cra1t, t-e de1e#da#t was !# co#trol, a#d o#ce -!s ,a3b!t to 3atc- w!ts w!t- $ol!ce 1a!led, -e 5#ew !t was t!3e to co#1ess. Aac5so# also Buest!o#ed w-at sort o1 H!#ce#t!&!;at!o#H t-e $ol!ce would be allowed to use !# 1!,-t!#, cr!3e. o .-!s led to a s-!1t, led by Aust!ce 7ra#51urter, to a H$ol!ce 3!sco#ductH rat!o#ale 1or barr!#, use o1 co#1ess!o#s. o (atts ,. In$iana a#d two co3$a#!o# cases !#&ol&ed co#1ess!o#s t-at were obta!#ed t-rou,- coerc!o#, but t-e corroborat!#, e&!de#ce s-owed t-at t-e de1e#da#ts were l!5ely ,u!lty. St!ll, t-e Court re&ersed t-e co#&!ct!o#s, because Ht-e %ue Process clause bars police procedure w-!c- &!olates t-e bas!c #ot!o#s o1 our P3ode o1 $rosecut!#, cr!3e, a#d &!t!ates a co#&!ct!o# based o# t-e 1ru!ts o1 suc- $rocedure, we a$$ly t-e %ue Process Clause to !ts -!stor!c 1u#ct!o# o1 assuring appropriate procedurePH o Rochin ,. California #oted (7ra#51urter+ t-at t-ere was a ,e#eral!;ed reBu!re3e#t t-at states !# t-e!r $rosecut!o# res$ect certa!# dece#c!es o1 c!&!l!;ed co#duct. (.-!s was t-e case w-ere t-e ,uy0s sto3ac- was $u3$ed 1or e&!de#ce a,a!#st -!3+ o Rogers ,. Rich"on$ was t-e stro#,est state3e#t o1 t-e H$ol!ce 3et-odsH rat!o#ale. :-e# t-e de1e#da#t re1used to co#1ess, $ol!ce $rete#ded t-at t-ey were ,o!#, to br!#, -!s a!l!#, w!1e dow# 1or !#terro,at!o#. %e1e#da#t !33ed!ately co#1essed. :-!le t-e tr!al court 1ou#d t-at t-!s was #ot l!5ely to 1orce a co#1ess!o# t-at !s #ot !# accorda#ce w!t- t-e trut-, t-e Su$re3e Court (7ra#51urter a,a!#+ sa!d t-at t-e reaso#

w-y co#1ess!o#s were e4cluded a#d t-e!r co#&!ct!o#s 3ust 1a!l !s #ot because o1 1alse-ood but because t-e 3et-ods used to e4tract t-e co#1ess!o#s o11e#d a# u#derly!#, $r!#c!$le !# t-e e#1orce3e#t o1 our law. Ours !s a# accusator!al rat-er t-a# !#Bu!s!tor!al syste3. .-e atte#t!o# o1 t-e tr!al Eud,e s-ould -a&e bee# 1ocused o# w-et-er t-e $ol!ce be-a&!or was a!3ed at o&erbear!#, de1e#da#t0s w!ll to res!st, rat-er t-a# w-et-er t-e coerc!o# resulted !# a co#1ess!o# t-at was u#true. *t seems that at this point the standard is whether the defendant acted of his own free will in giving the confession rather than whether the confession was true. :oes that mean that any threat is inherently not allowed/ Tric2er+K$eceit: .-e treat!se 3e#t!o#s t-at 1actual tr!c5ery, !.e. say!#, t-at Hwe 1ou#d t-e 3urder wea$o#H or s!3!lar -as bee# 1ou#d to #ot &!olate due $rocess &olu#tar!#ess, but tr!c5ery about t-e law 3!,-t be worse - !.e. t-reate#!#, t-at state3e#ts would #ot be allowed be1ore a Eury !1 t-ey were#0t 3ade to $ol!ce, t-reate#!#, t-at l!e detector e&!de#ce was ad3!ss!ble w-e# !t was#0t, t-at t-e de1e#da#t would be ,ra#ted !33u#!ty !1 -e co#1essed, etc. Suc- cases -a&e resulted !# t-e co#1ess!o#s be!#, t-row# out.

/s-cra1t &. .e##essee (1*GG+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 0G, 2012 : 0 PM

)rief Fact +u##ar!( Pet!t!o#er was Buest!o#ed 1or 3ore t-a# F6 -ours w!t-out a brea5 1or slee$ or rest by a c-a!# o1 e4$er!e#ced o11!cers, result!#, !# a co#1ess!o# a#d co#&!ct!o# o1 3urder a#d accessory be1ore t-e 1act. Facts( 8!ct!3 Del3a /s-cra1t was 1ou#d dead o# t-e s!de o1 t-e road a#d later t-at #!,-t, o11!cers tal5ed to t-e $et!t!o#er -usba#d. O# a Saturday #!#e days later, t-e $et!t!o#er was ta5e# by $ol!ce to a# o11!ce at t-e!r Ea!l w-ere t-ey sat -!3 at a table w!t- a l!,-t o&er-ead, a#d $roceeded to Buest!o# -!3 !# relays u#t!l t-e 1ollow!#, Mo#day 3or#!#,. .-e $et!t!o#er was #e&er ,!&e# t-e o$$ortu#!ty to rest dur!#, t-!s !#terro,at!o# a#d cla!3ed t-at -e was !33ed!ately subEected to su,,est!o# t-at -e s-ould co#1ess t-at -e was t-e 5!ller. .-e state -ad a d!11ere#t &ers!o# o1 t-e s$ec!1!cs, say!#, t-at t-ey were 5!#d a#d co#s!derate, a#d o#ly a1ter real!;!#, t-rou,- t-e co#1ess!o# t-at -e was ,u!lty, t-ey be,a# to $us- -!3 to co#1ess. But t-ey ad3!tted t-at t-e !#terro,at!o# lasted F8 -ours a#d t-e $ol!ce rested but %e1e#da#t was #ot allowed to rest. .-e state also 3a!#ta!#ed t-at /s-cra1t was alert a#d d!d#0t a$$ear t!red t-rou,-out t-e $roceed!#,. /s-cra1t also 3a!#ta!#ed t-at -e -ad #e&er co#1essed, but t-e state e#ded u$ ad3!tt!#, !#to e&!de#ce a state3e#t by /s-cra1t a1ter about 28 -ours o1 !#terro,at!o# t-at t-e 5!ller was so3eo#e #a3ed :are. :are, !# tur#, co#1essed a#d test!1!ed t-at -e0d bee# -!red by /s-cra1t. 'ater, /s-cra1t co#1essed as a result o1 t-!s ser!es o1 e&e#ts. .-e $et!t!o#ers were co#&!cted o1 3urder a#d accessory be1ore t-e 1act a#d t-e Su$re3e Court o1 .e##essee a11!r3ed. .-e $et!t!o#ers were ,ra#ted cert!orar! cla!3!#, t-at t-e!r co#1ess!o#s -ad bee# e4torted 1ro3 t-e3 !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t. R!le: .-e Co#st!tut!o# bars coerced co#1ess!o#s. 9ol$ing: S!#ce /s-cra1t was u#doubtedly subEect to secret !#Bu!s!tor!al $ract!ces, e&e# !1 -e -ad co#1essed, !t would be !#ad3!ss!ble. +!nopsis of Rule of La&( / co#1ess!o# obta!#ed a1ter !#terro,at!#, a subEect 1or F6 stra!,-t -ours w!t-out rest w!ll be -eld to -a&e bee# 3ade !#&olu#tar!ly, a#d t-us a de#!al o1 due $rocess o1 law u#der t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t. Rat-er t-a# deter3!#!#, w-et-er t-e co#1ess!o# was actually a $roduct o1 coerc!o# t-e #ew sta#dard !s w-et-er t-e tact!cs were inherentl+ coerci,e. .-e state w!ll not 7e a7le to sa,e a case by $ro&!#, t-at des$!te t-e esse#t!ally coerc!&e tact!cs, t-e co#1ess!o# was #ot a result o1 t-e coerc!o#.

Dissent: Pol!ce are res$o#d!#, t o a 3urder co33!tted w!t-out w!t#esses a#d try!#, to $rotect t-e $ubl!c. .-e 1ederal courts o&erste$ t-e!r bou#ds by rul!#, t-at #ot o#ly are certa!# tact!cs !#-ere#tly coerc!&e, but t-at t-e $resu3$t!o# !s #ot rebuttable. .-!s -as always bee# a 1actual deter3!#at!o# based o# t-e !#d!&!dual de1e#da#t u#der t-e !#d!&!dual c!rcu3sta#ces. 8olu#tary co#1ess!o# does#0t 3ea# t-at 3a5!#, t-!s co#1ess!o# was t-e de1e#da#t0s #u3ber o#e $la# / 1a&or!te t-!#, !# t-e world to do. "t 3ea#s t-at t-e de1e#da#t -ad t-e 1acult!es a#d t-e w!ll to 3a5e a calculated deter3!#at!o# t-at -e s-ould co#1ess. =8=RI !#terro,at!o# !s H!#-ere#tly coerc!&eH. 2ot secret t-e way t-e 3aEor!ty cla!3s. %oes t-e 3aEor!ty t-!#5 t-at t-e $ol!ce could#0t Buest!o# t-e &!ct!30s -usba#d< :-ere does t-e 3aEor!ty su,,est t-e $ol!ce s-ould -a&e ,!&e# u$ t-e !#&est!,at!o# as !#soluble< .-e Eury was#0t reBu!red to bel!e&e t-e co#1ess!o#. "t was Eust $art o1 t-e case a,a!#st /s-cra1t a#d -e was 1ree to de1e#d -!3sel1 des$!te !t. .-ere was ot-er e&!de#ce $rese#ted as well. /s-cra1t was #ot a s!3$le $erso# w-o d!d#0t 5#ow w-ere to $ut -!3sel1. Ce was !#tell!,e#t, well to do, a#d -ad a wee5 be1ore t-e arrest to co#sult w!t- -!s 1r!e#ds a#d cou#sel.

Co#1ess!o#s Z R!,-t to Cou#sel

.-ursday, %ece3ber 06, 2012 G:0> PM

"# add!t!o# to t-e coerc!o# tec-#!Bues decr!ed !# /s-cra1t, t-e Courts also started to 3o&e toward t-e !dea t-at $eo$le -a&e a r!,-t to cou#sel !# t-e!r !#teract!o#s w!t- $ol!ce. .-at r!,-t started to ,ra&!tate toward t-e r!,-t a,a!#st sel1 !#cr!3!#at!o#6 t-e e#d result would be M!ra#da (!t see3s+. But o# t-e way to M!ra#da, t-ere were two ot-er cases, Mass!a- a#d =scobedo, w-!c- ut!l!;ed t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel to t-row out co#1ess!o#s.

Mass!a- &. )#!ted States ()S 1*6G+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 0G, 2012 6:G6 PM

Posture: t-!s case arose 1ro3 a $ost-!#d!ct3e#t, $ost ba!l e&e#t. %e1e#da#t -ad already -!red a lawyer. &acts: Mass!a- a#d Colso# -ad bee# !#d!cted o# c-ar,es o1 dru, $ossess!o# o# a )S &essel a#d ot-er 1ederal #arcot!cs c-ar,es. .-ey bot- $leaded #ot ,u!lty a#d -!red lawyers. )#be5#ow#st to Mass!a-, Colsto# -ad dec!ded to coo$erate w!t- $ol!ce. Ce !#&!ted Mass!a- to c-at !# -!s car, a#d dur!#, t-e c-at, Mass!a- 3ade state3e#ts t-at s-owed -e was ,u!lty. .-e state3e#ts were be!#, broadcast to $ol!ce &!a a l!ste#!#, de&!ce. Mass!a- was co#&!cted o1 se&eral o11e#ses. Disc!ssion: .-ere !s a reBu!re3e#t !# t-e Co#st!tut!o# t-at o#ce $roceed!#,s -a&e bee# !#!t!ated a,a!#st a de1e#da#t, -e !s e#t!tled to a lawyer u#der t-e due $rocess clause o1 t-e 7ourtee#t- a#d S!4t- /3e#d3e#ts. .-!s a$$l!ed to so3eo#e w-o !s be!#, !#terro,ated !# custody, but also to so3eo#e w-o !s u#aware t-at -e !s be!#, !#terro,ated because -e !s out o# ba!l. (:-at are t-e l!3!ts o1 t-!s< Ca# you l!ste# !# o# -!s $-o#e co#&ersat!o#s w!t- a warra#t !1 you -a&e already arrested -!3, 1or t-e $ur$ose o1 ,at-er!#, e&!de#ce<+ Because t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t does #ot allow e&!de#ce t-at ca3e as a result o1 sel1 !#cr!3!#at!o#, t-e e&!de#ce t-at ca3e a1ter t-e !#d!ct3e#t was o$e#ed !s e4cluded. :-!le t-e Court a,rees t-at !t was #ecessary t-at t-e !#&est!,at!o# co#t!#ue, t-at does #ot reBu!re t-at t-e

e&!de#ce be ad3!ss!ble a,a!#st him. (2ote: "# t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t Co#te4t, !t -as a tort-l!5e sta#dard, !.e. !1 t-e !#&est!,at!o# was warra#ted t-e e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble. .-!s !s l!ttle b!t d!11ere#t !t see3s, s!#ce !t !s #ot HbadH e&!de#ce, !t Eust ca#0t be used a,a!#st -!3.+ R!le: O#ce a# !#d!ct3e#t !s !ssued a#d t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#s are !#&o5ed, t-e de1e#da#t !s e#t!tled to #ot !#cr!3!#ate -!3sel1, a#d t-ere1ore t-e de1e#da#t !s e#t!tled to re$rese#tat!o# o1 cou#sel !# all o1 -!s !#teract!o#s w!t- $ol!ce. (2ote: .-e case !#&o5ed t-e S!4t/3e#d3e#t, but !t see3s to also !3$l!cate t-e 7!1t- as well, because t-e 7!1t- !s t-e r!,-t #ot to sel1 !#cr!3!#ate as well as due $rocess, a#d t-e S!4t- !s Eust t-e r!,-t to cou#sel.+ Dissent: =4clus!o# !s a b!, deal a#d s-ould#0t be used !# t-!s bra#d s$a#5!#, #ew e4te#s!o# to t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t. "t -as #e&er bee# -eld be1ore t-at Eust because de1e#da#t -as a r!,-t to cou#sel, t-e $ol!ce -a&e to sto$ $ol!c!#, u#t!l t-ey ,et t-e o5ay 1ro3 cou#sel. .-!s esse#t!ally 3ea#s t-at #o co#1ess!o# w!ll e&er -a$$e#, because cou#sel would #e&er allow !t. .-e #ew e4clus!o#ary rule ,oes 1ar beyo#d w-at t-e r!,-t to cou#sel e&er !#cluded. .-!s case !s e&e# worse t-a# t-e re,ular case because !# t-!s case !t was#0t $ol!ce coerc!o# at all, !t was -!s 1r!e#d. "1 -!s 1r!e#d -ad dec!ded to tur# -!3 !# after t-e co#&ersat!o#, t-e# !t would -a&e bee# 1!#e, so w-y s-ould !t 3a5e a d!11ere#ce !1 !t was be1ore t-e co#&ersat!o#< :-e# $ol!ce -a&e arrested a#d released o#e 3e3ber o1 a ,a#,, a#d a#ot-er 3e3ber !s coo$erat!#, w!t- $ol!ce, 3ust t-ey t-e# sto$ allow!#, t-e coo$erat!o# so t-at t-e arrested 3e3ber #ot 1urt-er !#cr!3!#ate -!3sel1< %e1e#da#ts w-o are out o# ba!l are 5#ow# to co#t!#ue t-e!r cr!3!#al act!&!ty. S-ould t-at co#t!#uat!o# be subEect to S!4t- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#< "s t-e $ol!ce co#duct !# t-!s case t-e 5!#d o1 co#duct t-at we s-ould atte3$t to d!scoura,e< %e1e#da#ts -a&e a3$le $rotect!o#s u#der w-!c- t-e $ol!ce e#1orce3e#t starts to see3 l!5e a ,a3e. "t s-ould #ot be e4te#ded 1urt-er to t-!s $er se rule t-at t-ey 3ust always -a&e cou#sel or else t-e co#1ess!o# !s dee3ed to be coerced. 2ote: .-ere are se&eral !ssues -ere o @o&er#3e#t act!o# o /1ter t-e !#d!ct3e#t o ('ater cases d!scussed w-et-er t-e e&!de#ce was el!c!ted or !1 !t ca3e u$ !#ad&erte#tly. 2ot sure w-y so3eo#e would arra#,e a 3eet!#, w!t- a co-de1e#da#t a#d w!re u$, w!t-out !#te#d!#, to el!c!t a co#1ess!o#.+ ?eywords: S!4t- /3e#d3e#t Co#1ess!o# Brewer &. :!ll!a3s Rot-,ery 2ote: .-e court dec!ded t-!s case o# t-e bas!s o1 t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t. But !t see3s to be closer to 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t ty$e co#cer#s. 2otes: "t see3s t-at Courts !#ter$reted Mass!a- &ery #arrowly 1or a w-!le, -old!#, t-at !t o#ly a$$l!ed to $ol!ce or t-e!r a,e#ts w-o atte3$ted to ,et a co#1ess!o# t-rou,- tr!c5ery, as o$$osed to ot-er cases, e.,. w-ere t-e $ol!ce d!d#0t use tr!c5ery or t-e sus$ect &olu#tar!ly co#1essed. "t see3s t-at later cases, !.e. Brewer &. :!ll!a3s a#d Rot-,ery &. so3ebody bas!cally ec-o t-!s case re,ard!#, t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel. Brewer !s also deal!#, w!t- a $ost!#d!ct3e#t co#1ess!o# w!t-out a lawyer.

=scobedo &. "ll!#o!s ()S 1*6G+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 0G, 2012

>: * PM

Posture: $re-!#d!ct3e#t, $ost sus$!c!o#, $ost lawyer -!r!#,. .-!s case see3ed at t-e t!3e to e!t-er be e4tre3ely #arrow, or to allow 1or cou#sel at so3e $re-!#d!ct3e#t sta,e, but later t-e Court 3o&ed away 1ro3 t-e early r!,-t to cou#sel a#d re-!#ter$reted =scobedo as a $roto-M!ra#da 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t ty$e r!,-t. &acts: =scobedo0s brot-er !# law was s-ot. Ce was brou,-t !# s-ortly t-erea1ter, but was released a1ter t-e lawyer -e -ad reta!#ed 1!led a wr!t o1 -abeas cor$us. %ays later, o#e %!@erla#do was arrested a#d -e told $ol!ce t-at =scobedo was t-e 5!ller. =scobedo was arrested a#d $ol!ce as5ed -!3 Buest!o#s w-!c- -e re1used to a#swer u#t!l -!s lawyer was $rese#t. Ce was brou,-t to t-e stat!o# a#d -!s lawyer ca3e too, but $ol!ce re1used to allow t-e lawyer to see -!3. "#stead, t-ey -ad =scobedo a#d %!@erla#do co#1ro#t eac- ot-er, w-!c- resulted !# =scobedo !3$l!cat!#, -!3sel1. (2ote: t-!s !s d!11ere#t 1ro3 t-e coerc!&e tec-#!Bues because t-ere !s #o su,,est!o# #or relat!o# to !#&olu#tar!#ess -ere, at least #ot !# t-e se#se o1 coerc!&e !#&olu#tar!#ess.+ =scobedo co#tested -!s co#&!ct!o# o# t-e bas!s o1 t-e re1usal to allow -!3 cou#sel, w-!c- -e cla!3ed was a S!4t- /3e#d3e#t &!olat!o#. R!le: %e1e#da#ts are e#t!tled to cou#sel o#ce t-e $roceed!#,s a,a!#st t-e3 beco3e ad&ersar!al. .-e $roceed!#, beco3es ad&ersar!al e&e# be1ore t-e de1e#da#t !s !#d!cted, o#ce -e reBuests a#d !s de#!ed access to a lawyer. ----------------------[ See #otes-------------------------------[ 9ol$ing: "# t-!s case, alt-ou,- t-e de1e#da#t -ad#0t bee# 1or3ally c-ar,ed, t-e case was ad&ersar!al. .-!s was #o lo#,er a searc- 1or leads !# a# u#sol&ed cr!3e, !t was #ow a# atte3$t to ,et de1e#da#t to !3$l!cate -!3sel1. .-ere1ore, -e was e#t!tled to cou#sel a#d t-e sel1-!3$l!cat!#, state3e#ts t-at result 1ro3 t-e re1usal to allow -!s lawyer to tal5 to -!3 are #ot ad3!ss!ble. Disc!ssion: .-e Court -ad -eld !# @!deo# t-at e&eryo#e -as t-e r!,-t to cou#sel !s e#t!tled to a lawyer at tr!al. "1 t-!s r!,-t were #ot e4te#ded to t-e !#d!ct3e#t sta,e a#d e&e# earl!er, t-e tr!al would esse#t!ally beco3e a# a$$eal o# t-e !#d!ct3e#t a#d !#terro,at!o#s. .-e assert!o# t-at t-!s would d!sBual!1y 3a#y co#1ess!o#s cuts two ways - t-e reaso# w-y !t0s !3$orta#t to -a&e access to lawyers at t-at sta,e o1 t-e $roceed!#,s !s because t-at !s t-e t!3e t-at !#terro,at!o#s are ut!l!;ed to el!c!t co#1ess!o#s. Syste3s t-at ru# o# co#1ess!o#s are less rel!able a#d 3ore subEect to abuse. 2o syste3 ca# or s-ould sur&!&e !1 !t de$e#ds o# t-e c!t!;e#s0 abd!cat!o# o1 t-e!r r!,-ts t-rou,- t-e!r u#aware#ess. 9ol$ing (*ong ,ersion) .-ere1ore, w-e# a# !#&est!,at!o# !s #o lo#,er a ,e#eral !#Bu!ry, but -as be,u# to 1ocus o# a $art!cular sus$ect, t-e sus$ect !s !# custody, a#d t-e $ol!ce carry out a# !#terro,at!o# t-at le#ds !tsel1 to el!c!t!#, !#cr!3!#at!#, state3e#ts, t-e sus$ect -as reBuested a#d bee# de#!ed access to cou#sel, a#d t-e $ol!ce -a&e #ot e11ect!&ely war#ed -!3 o1 -!s absolute co#st!tut!o#al r!,-t to re3a!# s!le#t, t-e accused -as bee# de#!ed t-e ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t a#d #ot-!#, acBu!red by $ol!ce dur!#, t-at !#terro,at!o# 3ay be used at tr!al. Dissent ( te%art): )#l!5e Mass!a-, t-!s !s #ot a case o1 del!berate !#terro,at!o# a1ter t-e !#st!tut!o# o1 cr!3!#al $roceed!#,s. .-e ,uara#tee o1 cou#sel !s o#ly rele&a#t !# t-at co#te4t. .-e Court bases !ts #ew de1!#!t!o# o1 a cr!3!#al $roceed!#, o# r-etor!c. Dissent: ((hite): .-!s ,oes too 1ar !# a# atte3$t to reac- a $o!#t w-ere #o co#1ess!o# w!ll be ad3!ss!ble at all. .-!s reBu!re3e#t #ot o#ly 3ea#s t-at t-e de1e#da#t !s e#t!tled to cou#sel, !t 3ea#s t-at t-ere !s a# al3ost !3$e#etrable bloc5 a,a!#st co#1ess!o#s. S-ould $ol!ce cars tra&el w!t- $ubl!c de1e#ders< )#derco&er a,e#ts a#d $ol!ce !#1or3a#ts s-ould -a&e de1e#se cou#sel at t-e!r s!de. )#der t-e #ew rule, de1e#da#ts 3!,-t as well be e#t!tled to a lawyer be1ore t-ey co33!t t-e cr!3e.

.-ere0s #o e&!de#ce to reBu!re t-!s Eo!#!#, o1 t-e 7!1t- a#d S!4t- /3e#d3e#ts, w-!cleads to t-e r!,-t to #ot a#swer e&e# w-ere t-ere !s #o co3$uls!o#. Notes: Ca# !t be t-at =scobedo was a results-dr!&e# $roto-M!ra#da rat-er t-a# 1+ a #arrow -old!#, l!3!ted to !ts 1acts or 2+ a state3e#t about S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts be!#, !#&o5ed< .-!s would#0t c-a#,e 3uc- $ract!cally, e4ce$t !t would 3a5e $eo$le w-o -a&e !rrat!o#al lo&e 1or =scobedo -a$$!er ,e#erally. /s w!t- Mass!a-, t-e Court ruled o# ,rou#ds o1 t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t. Cowe&er, t-e $ract!cal rat!o#ale was re-e4$ressed !# M!ra#da as a 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t Protect!o#. "t see3s t-at M!ra#da ,oes t-e ot-er way - !t !#cor$orates t-e r!,-t to cou#sel !#to t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t rat-er t-a# t-e r!,-t a,a!#st sel1 !#cr!3!#at!o# to t-e S!4t-. Cowe&er, =scobedo l!&es o# !# Rot-,ery a#d Brewer &. :!ll!a3s. .-e treat!se says t-at t-e !scobedo Court d!d #ot a##ou#ce a broad rule. "#stead, t-e -old!#, was caut!ously l!3!ted to t-e 1acts o1 t-e $art!cular case: :e -old, t-ere1ore, t-at w-ere, as -ere, M1N t-e !#&est!,at!o# !s #o lo#,er a ,e#eral !#Bu!ry !#to a# u#sol&ed cr!3e but -as be,u# to 1ocus o# a $art!cular sus$ect, M2N t-e sus$ect -as bee# ta5e# !#to $ol!ce custody, MFN t-e $ol!ce carry out a $rocess o1 !#terro,at!o#s t-at le#ds !tsel1 to el!c!t!#, !#cr!3!#at!#, state3e#ts, MGN t-e sus$ect -as reBuested a#d bee# de#!ed a# o$$ortu#!ty to co#sult w!t- -!s lawyer, a#d M N t-e $ol!ce -a&e #ot e11ect!&ely war#ed -!3 o1 -!s absolute co#st!tut!o#al r!,-t to re3a!# s!le#t, t-e accused -as bee# de#!ed St-e /ss!sta#ce o1 Cou#selR !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t to t-e Co#st!tut!o# as S3ade obl!,atory u$o# t-e States by t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t,R P a#d t-at #o state3e#t el!c!ted by t-e $ol!ce dur!#, t-e !#terro,at!o# 3ay be used a,a!#st -!3 at a cr!3!#al tr!al. But t-!s d!d #ot tur# out to 3atter 3uc- !# t-e lo#, ter3, because =scobedo was $retty 3ucswallowed by M!ra#da a#yway. "# 1act, !# ?!rby &. "ll!#o!s, (a case about cou#sel 1or l!#eu$s+, t-e Court s$ec!1!cally says t-at =scobedo0s reBu!re3e#t o1 a lawyer $re-!#d!ct3e#t was a o#e t!3e aberrat!o# a#d =scobedo s-ould be see# to be a $roto-M!ra#da ty$e case. 2ow, t-e S!4t/3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel attac-es w!t- Eud!c!al $roceed!#,s - see Rot-,ery a#d Brewer &. :!ll!a3s.

M!ra#da R!,-ts: Co#1ess!o# %octr!#e

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 F:1F PM

"# /s-cra1t, Aac5so# d!sse#ted because e&e# a o#e -our dete#t!o# !s coerc!&e, #ot o#ly a F6 -our o#e. .-ere1ore -e ad&ocated a case by case a#alys!s o1 t-e 3ot!&at!o# 1or t-e co#1ess!o#. But w!t- M!ra#da, t-e Court we#t t-e ot-er way, rul!#, t-at s!#ce custody !s !#-ere#tly coerc!&e, /'' $eo$le ta5e# !#to custody -a&e r!,-ts a#d t-ey 3ust be !#1or3ed o1 t-e3. 2ote: Pro1 uses sl!des !# t-e 2,a .rou#, $rese#tat!o# to ,o t-rou,- Massac-usetts law re,ard!#, wa!&er o1 r!,-ts, re,ard!#, t-e r!,-t to co#1er w!t- adult, re,ard!#, w-et-er s-e was !# custody u#der t-e reaso#able Eu&e#!le sta#dard.

M!ra#da &. /r!;o#a (1*66+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 F:16 PM 7he 'ourt was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on ointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of MtheirN freedom in any significant way." %n Oignera v. =ew Jor!, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral

admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. 0imilarly, in Westover v. >nited 0tates, the petitioner was arrested by the F2%, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. +astly, in 'alifornia v. 0tewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. %n all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. %n none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. Question *oes the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self5incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment1 Decision: / votes for 8iranda, : vote"s$ against Legal provision: 0elf5%ncrimination Rule: 7he 'ourt held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self5 incrimination." Notes: 7he 'ourt noted that "the modern practice of in5custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmar! of an unconstitutional inquisition." 7he 'ourt specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations. 'ourt expresses distaste for the %nquisitorial vs. adversarial approach. 'ourt loo!s at general trends in police interrogation 5 notably, not even based on the practices of the specific departments in the case. 'ourt gives guidance on the types of procedural safeguards that will be considered effective, including the basic language of the "8iranda Warning". 'ourt notes that even if the suspect !nows his rights, the police must 8irandiAe and if they don&t, the evidence is excluded. %ndividuals are entitled to attorneys at this stage even if they can&t afford them, and the police must tell them that they have that right. %f the interrogation continues without a lawyer, the state will have a heavy burden of proving that the defendant !nowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self incrimination. o 0ilence does not imply a waiver o +ater cases seem to belie this, since 2erghuis says that since he spo!e, he essentially waived his right to a lawyer and to silence. 6rof wonders in class whether it is possible to legislate away 8iranda. o 7he *ic!erson case ma!es it clear that at the very least, 0ection #/-(, which restored the voluntariness based on the circumstances test and used 8iranda type procedures as indicative of a lac! of voluntariness, did not suffice. 0o what would suffice1 o 7he 8iranda case itself tal!s a lot about police custody being "inherently coercive", which seems to ma!e it a direct Fifth Amendment right. o At the same time, later cases, and even a bit in the 8iranda decision, call it a prophylactic measure.

\/$$ly!#, a#d e4$la!#!#, M!ra#da\

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 F:F PM

2arrow!#, M!ra#da %ur!#, .-e Bur,er Court Iears State3e#ts $receded by de1ect!&e war#!#,s a#d ruled !#ad3!ss!ble ca# st!ll be used as e&!de#ce 1or !3$eac-3e#t o1 de1e#da#t0s test!3o#y. (Carr!s &. 2ew Ior5 )S 1*>1+ 2. State3e#ts t-at co3e e&e# a1ter de1e#da#t -as de3a#ded a lawyer ca# be used 1or !3$eac-3e#t $ur$oses. (Ore,o# &. Cass )S 1*> + 1.

Boo5 #otes t-at t-!s !s !3$orta#t, because !t ,!&es $ol!ce a# !#ce#t!&e to 5ee$ ,o!#, a1ter de1e#da#t as5s 1or lawyer - t-ey -a&e #ot-!#, to lose, a#d e&eryt-!#, to ,a!#. (!.e. be1ore t-e war#!#,, t-ey -a&e a# !#ce#t!&e to war# so t-at !1 t-ere0s a co#1ess!o# !t w!ll be ad3!ss!ble. /1ter t-e de1e#da#t as5s 1or a lawyer, t-ey are #ot ,ett!#, a co#1ess!o# re,ardless, so t-ey 3!,-t as well ,o 1or !3$eac-3e#t e&!de#ce. b. Brewer &. :!ll!a3s see3s to !3$ly t-at a sus$ect ca# wa!&e -!s r!,-t to a lawyer w!t-out -!s lawyer $rese#t e&e# a1ter -e !#&o5ed t-e r!,-t to a lawyer e4$ressly. F. "1 $ol!ce cease as5!#, Buest!o#s %hen s!spect asserts Cright to silenceC, t-ey ca# st!ll (so3et!3es - e4actly w-e# !s u#clear+ start as5!#, Buest!o#s a,a!# later a7o!t another cri"e. (M!c-!,a# &. Mosely )S 1*> + But t-ey #eed to ,!&e a 1res- war#!#, eac- t!3e t-ey start as5!#, Buest!o#s. a. But w-e# s!spect asserts right to Co!nsel, police "a+ not tr+ again. =dwards &. /r!;o#a (1*81+ !. 7or a lo#, t!3e, =dwards was !#ter$reted broadly, e&e# !#clud!#, Buest!o#!#, about u#related o11e#ses - !1 -e0d as5ed 1or cou#sel, -e could#0t be Buest!o#ed 1urt-er. 1. "ro#!cally, t-!s doesn$t a$$ly !# t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to a# attor#ey. "# "ll!#o!s &. Per5!#s, t-e Court ruled t-at a $r!so#er w-o could#0t be Buest!o#ed about t-e cr!3e -e was !3$r!so#ed 1or u#der t-e S!4t/3e#d3e#t, -e could st!ll be Buest!o#ed w!t-out a# attor#ey about other crimes. !!. =&e# !1 s!spect has cons!lte$ %ith attorne+ in the interi", $ol!ce 3ay #ot try a,a!#. M!##!c5 &. M!##esota (1**0+ !!!. But w-e# t-ere !s a 1; $a+ 7rea2 7et%een episo$es of <iran$a c!sto$+, t-e $ol!ce ca# try a,a!#. Maryla#d &. S-at;er (2010+ b. So !s t-ere a#y !#sta#ce !# w-!c- t-e sus$ect ca# be a$$roac-ed a,a!# a#d as5ed to co#se#t to !#terro,at!o#< See Mo#teEo &. 'ou!s!a#a (200*+ G. Sus$ect0s assert!o# o1 r!,-t 3ust be u#a3b!,uous, des$!te w-at M!ra#da actually says. "# Ber,-u!s, s!le#ce alo#e was #ot co#s!dered a# !#&ocat!o# o1 t-e r!,-t to s!le#ce. a. O1 course, all t-e !#-betwee# !#&ocat!o#s are . .-e 3ost 1reBue#tly l!t!,ated Buest!o# !s Hw-at !s $ol!ce custodyH< a. Roa$si$e 6!estioning o1 a 3otor!st a1ter a tra11!c sto$ !s #ot co#s!dered custod!al !#terro,at!o#. (Ber5e3er &. McCarty )S 1*8G+. 2ote t-at t-!s $robably also a$$l!es to .erry sto$s - t-ey are #ot custod!al !#terro,at!o#s. b. =&e# in the police station, !t 3ay not be co#s!dered c!sto$ial interrogation !1 t-e $erso# ca3e !# o# -!s ow# or ,ol!ntaril+ agrees to acco3$a#y $ol!ce t-ere. (Ore,o# &. Mat-!aso# 1*>> a#d Cal!1or#!a &. Be-eler 1*8F, bot- )S+ c. .-e Court -as sa!d t-at !t0s a# obEect!&e test: Cow would reaso#able $eo$le !# t-at s!tuat!o# $erce!&e to be, custody-w!se< But t-ere0s so3e d!11!culty a$$ly!#, t-at test. !. O7=ecti,e 7+ %hat stan$ar$J A%B &. 2ort- Carol!#a: / stude#t !# sc-ool !#terro,ated !# a closed-door co#1ere#ce roo3 was obEect!&ely co#s!dered !# custody, s!#ce $ol!ce s-ould -a&e ta5e# !#to accou#t -!s a,e. 1. But w-at ot-er t-!#,s s-ould $ol!ce -a&e to ta5e !#to accou#t< .-ere are s!3!lar Buest!o#s re,ard!#, torts a#d cr!3!#al l!ab!l!ty - t-e reaso#able tee#< Reaso#able 3e#tal $at!e#t< d. Define H"#terro,at!o#H< !. Non36!estioning tactics: Rho$e Islan$ ,. Innis (1*80+: "#terro,at!o# 3ea#s (1+ as5!#, Buest!o#s or (2+ a#y words or act!o#s o# t-e $art o1 $ol!ce t-at are l!5ely to el!c!t a#swers.

a.

Non3Coerci,e at"osphere: Illinois ,. #er2ins: (1**0+ "1 t-e Sus$ect does#0t 5#ow -e0s tal5!#, to a# o11!cer, t-ere !s #o coerc!&e at3os$-ere. (Cow does t-!s relate to cases l!5e Mass!a-<+ e. :-at co#st!tutes a wa!&er o1 t-e r!,-t to re3a!# s!le#t< Must t-e $ol!ce as5 t-e sus$ect !1 -e wa#ts to tal5 to t-e3, a1ter read!#, -!3 -!s r!,-ts< !. Bergh!is ,. Tho"p2ins: .-ere are two $arts to t-e Buest!o#, wa!&!#, t-e r!,-t to re3a!# s!le#t, a#d t-e r!,-t to cou#sel. 6. Cow stro#, !s M!ra#da $rotect!o#< Co#st!tut!o#al law, or Eud,e 3ade $ro$-ylact!c< See 2ew Ior5 &. Luarles. :-at !s t-e re3edy< =4clus!o#< "s t-e re3edy o1 a co#st!tut!o#al #ature< See also %!c5erso# &. )#!ted States, -old!#, t-at Co#,ress 1a!led to o&errule (or subst!tute 1or+ M!ra#da !# a Co#st!tut!o#al 1as-!o# by re-!#st!tut!#, t-e total!ty o1 c!rcu3sta#ces test 1or coerc!o# !# co#1ess!o#s. >. =4clus!o# based o# M!ra#da 1a!lures: a. Ore,o# &. =lstad (1*8 +: :-e# $ol!ce 1a!l to war#, a#d obta!# co#1ess!o#6 a#d t-e# war# a#d re-obta!# co#1ess!o#, t-e seco#d co#1ess!o# !s &al!d. !. Court !#d!cates t-at M!ra#da !s #ot esse#t!ally a co#st!tut!o#al r!,-t a#d !s t-ere1ore #ot $rotected by H1ru!t o1 t-e $o!so#ous treeH doctr!#e. b. But t-e# %!c5erso# &. )#!ted States sa!d t-at Co#,ress could #ot le,!slate away M!ra#da, so !t0s clear t-at !t0s 3ore t-a# Eust Eud,e 3ade law, rat-er !t0s Hour dec!s!o#s !#ter$ret!#, a#d a$$ly!#, t-e Co#st!tut!o#.H !. Court d!d #ot e4$ressly o&errule =lstad, so M!ra#da see3s to be so3ew-ere !# betwee# Co#st!tut!o# a#d Aud,e 3ade law. .-e Court sa!d t-at =lstad s!3$ly a$$l!es a d!11ere#t sta#dard to t-e 7ourt- a#d 7!1t- /3e#d3e#ts. c. )S &. Pata#e: d. M!ssour! &. Se!bert

!!.

A%B &. 2ort- Carol!#a (2011+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 :10 PM Facts of the Case A =orth 'arolina boy identified as B.*.2. was (#5year5old special education student in )--/ when the police showed up at his school to question him about a string of neighborhood burglaries. 7he police had learned that the boy was in possession of a digital camera that had been reported stolen. 7he boy was escorted to a school conference room, where he was interrogated in the presence of school officials. B.*.2.&s parents were not contacted, and he was not given any warnings about his rights under the (9,, decision in (iranda v. #ri)ona, such as the right to remain silent or to have access to a lawyer. B.*.2. confessed to the crimes, but later sought to have his confession suppressed on the basis that he was never read his 8iranda rights. <e argued that because he was effectively in police custody when he incriminated himself, he was entitled to 8iranda protections. %n *ecember )--9, the =orth 'arolina 0upreme 'ourt held that it could not consider the boy&s age or special education status in determining whether he was in custody, and because he was not in custody, he was not entitled to 8iranda warnings. Question 0hould courts consider the age of a uvenile suspect in deciding whether he or she is in custody for (iranda purposes1

3uleD %n determining whether a child is considered in custody, the police "and the reviewing 'ourt$ should ta!e the child&s age into account to see if a reasonable person of his age would thin! that he was in custody.

Holding: 3emanded for determination of facts, whether such a person in such circumstances is reasonably thought to be in custody.
Legal provision: 8iranda 3ights Jes. A divided 0upreme 'ourt reversed the lower court order in an opinion by Bustice 0onia 0otomayor. 7he 0upreme 'ourt sent the case bac! to the state court to determine whether the youth was in custody when he was interrogated. "(9,,$. "%t is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. 0eeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, we hold that a child&s age properly informs the (iranda custody analysis," 0otomayor wrote for the ma ority. Bustice 0amuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion oined by 'hief Bustice Bohn 3oberts and Associate Bustices Antonin 0calia and 'larence 7homas. "7he 'ourt&s decision in this case may seem on first consideration to be modest and sensible, but in truth it is neither, Alito writes. "%t is fundamentally inconsistent with one of the main ustifications for the (iranda ruleD the perceived need for a clear rule that can be easily applied in all cases. And today&s holding is not needed to protect the constitutional rights of minors who are questioned by the police." *issent also notes that in tort, etc. the "reasonableness" requirement is determined by a ury. %n cases li!e this, the reasonableness will have to be determined by police officers on the spot. Notes: 7he ma ority points out that it would be ridiculous to analyAe what the average adult would thin! if he were ta!en out of his social studies class to the principal&s office. "7he coercive effect of the schoolhouse is un!nowable."

R-ode "sla#d &. "##!s (1*80+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 :18 PM Facts of the Case After a picture identification by the victim of a robbery, 7homas B. %nnis was arrested by police in 6rovidence, 3hode %sland. %nnis was unarmed when arrested. %nnis was advised of his 8iranda rights and subsequently requested to spea! with a lawyer. While escorting %nnis to the station in a police car, three officers began discussing the shotgun involved in the robbery. ;ne of the officers commented that there was a school for handicapped children in the area and that if one of the students found the weapon he might in ure himself. %nnis then interrupted and told the officers to turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was located. Question *id the police "interrogation" en route to the station violate %nnis&s 8iranda rights1 Rule: %nterrogation means either questioning, or words or actions which are li!ely to elicit an incriminating response. Decision: , votes for 3hode %sland, # vote"s$ against Legal provision: 8iranda Warnings =o. %n a ,5to5# decision, the 'ourt held that the 8iranda safeguards came into play "whenever a person in custody is sub ected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent," noting that the term "interrogation" under 8iranda included "any words or actions on the part of the police "other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody$ that the police should !now are reasonably li!ely to elicit an incriminating response from the sub ect." 7he 'ourt then found that the officers& conversation did not qualify as words or actions that they should have !nown were reasonably li!ely to elicit such a response from %nnis. "6rof notes that this rule applies also from the perspective of the defendant.$ Notes: 'ourt loo!s at facts and says that police didn&t !now that suspect had a soft spot for handicapped children, etc. +oo!s li!e if you want to be formal, the analysis of interrogation can be expressed in two stepsI i. %s this questioning1 %f it&s not, then ii. %s this something that a reasonable officer in the current circumstances would expect might elicit a confession1 Dissent / (8arshall, 2rennan$ interprets the facts differently and concludes that this was a classic "appeal to the conscience of the suspect" technique.

Dissent // "0tevens$ says that he would interpret interrogation more broadly so that anything that would normally be understood by the average listener as calling for a response would be considered interrogation. Note: 7here doesn&t seem to be anything in any of the tests that discusses whether the police were lying, or whether they were clearly intending to elicit a confession.

.-ere !s a certa!# !ro#y !# M!ra#da be!#, $ut !# $lace to a&o!d HMutt a#d Ae11H rout!#es a#d t-e# $ol!ce us!#, s!3!lar rout!#es albe!t w!t-out d!rect Buest!o#!#,, a#d courts u$-old!#, t-at.

"ll!#o!s &. Per5!#s (1**0+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 :G2 PM Facts of the Case While being held in ail on another crime unrelated to the murder, 6er!ins freely confessed to committing a murder to an undercover police officer who was posing as another inmate. <e had previously confessed to another inmate, who went to police. 6olice set up a fa!e inmate, who suggested that they escape and turned the conversation toward murder. 6er!ins confessed and provided a lot of detail about the murder. Question *id the undercover police officer violate the accused&s 8iranda rights as protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments1 Rule: %n order to implicate 8iranda concerns, there needs to be the perception of police presence. %f the inmate doesn&t !now that the police officer is an officer, he can&t be affected by coercion. +econdar! ruleD 7he 0ixth Amendment right to counsel for a particular crime only !ic!s in when you have been indicted for that crime, but so long as you are in ail for something else, a confession without coercion will not be thrown out on grounds of no counsel. "%s that dangerous1 0hould police be able to not indict you for crime b because so long as you&re only there for crime a, they can try to fool you into confessing1 7he tactic might wor! but it would be pretty narrow since it would basically only apply to cellmate confessions, since police interrogations would li!ely fail 8iranda. ;r would they1$ Decision: @ votes for %llinois, ( vote"s$ against Legal provision: 8iranda Warnings 7he 'ourt held that conversations between suspects and undercover officers are not afforded 8iranda protection since they are not done in a "police5dominated atmosphere" where compulsion to confess is present. "%t is the premise of 8iranda that the danger of coercion results from the interaction of custody and official interrogation," argued Bustice Cennedy. 7here was no danger of coercion in this case. Notes: 'ourt cites to <offa, which says that cooperating witnesses are allowed. *istinguishes 8assiah, because since the suspect was incarcerated on unrelated charges, he was not entitled to the 0ixth Amendment protection on the murder charge. 7he only chance was the Fifth Amendment 8iranda rights, but, as the court said, this was not coercive conditions. Dissent: 8iranda deals with all interrogation while in custody, not specifically coercive tactics. 7he psychological conditions of incarceration lead to see! relief in tal!ing to others, so this is also the general ailhouse coercion rationale.

Cowes &. 7!eld (2012+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 1*, 2012 11: 0 /M osture: *efendant was in ail on another charge, not yet charged with the crime he would now confess to. *oes the fact that the interrogation was under isolation and interrogation in ail mean that he was in custody for 8iranda purposes1 Facts of the Case A ury found 3andall Fields guilty of two counts of third5degree criminal sexual conduct for the sexual abuse of a thirteen5year5old child. Fields was in ail on a disorderly charge when +enawee 'ounty, 8ichigan deputies questioned him about allegations of sex with a minor. 7he sex case was unrelated to the one Fields was in ail for at the time.

Fields filed an appeal of right in the 8ichigan 'ourt of Appeals claiming that his statements were inadmissible because he had not been given his (iranda warnings before questioning. 7he state court reasoned that because Fields was free to return to the ail and was questioned on a matter unrelated to his incarceration, there was no obligation to provide him warnings under (iranda. Fields then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under )@ >.0.'. ? ))/: claiming that his Fifth Amendment right against self5incrimination was violated, and the >.0. *istrict 'ourt agreed. 7he >nited 0tates 'ourt of Appeals for the 0ixth 'ircuit affirmed. Question *oes federal law automatically require (iranda warnings before questioning ail or prison inmates about issues unrelated to the cases for which they were incarcerated1 Rule: 7here is no per se rule that isolation and interrogation must comprise custody for 8iranda purposes. While usually, someone who is in ail with two cops in a room has been brought into custody by that point, this case shows that it&s not always dispositive. 7he analysis must be case by case based on what a reasonable person would thin!. Holding: %n this case, because the prisoner had been told he was free to leave, and he wasn&t in an unfamiliar place, etc. the circumstances show that he was not in custody for 8iranda purposes. Decision: , votes for <owes, # vote"s$ against Legal provision: 8iranda warnings Bustice 0amuel A. Alito, Br. delivered the opinion of the 'ourt reversing the lower court&s decision. 7he 'ourt stated that there was not yet any clearly established rule regarding what constituted 8iranda custody. 8ere imprisonment and private questioning about events in the outside world were not sufficient to create a custodial situation for 8iranda purposes. Furthermore, the prisoner in this case was not in custody under 8iranda because he was told at the outset of the interrogation that he could leave and go bac! to his cell whenever he wanted and because he was not physically restrained. Bustice 3uth 2ader Ginsburg wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which Bustice 0tephen 2reyer and Bustice 0onia 0otomayor oined. Bustice Ginsburg agreed that what constituted custody was not clearly established in Fields& favor. <owever, the ustice disagreed with the 'ourt&s determination that Fields was not in custody because Fields was sub ected to incommunicado interrogation in a police5dominated atmosphere, was placed in an inherently stressful situation against his will, and had his freedom of action curtailed in a significant way. Notes: Alito relied on the fact that this guy had not been arrested, he was ust brought to a different room of the place where he already was confined. "'ounterargumentD <e was not in fact arrested, but general incarceration is closer to arrest because he can&t leave. %n this case, he was in an unfamiliar circumstance, being questioned by personnel he didn&t encounter regularly.$ Alito further asserts that he had no motivation to tal! in hopes of prompt release. "'ounterargumentD Bust because he lived downstairs in a cage, doesn&t mean he didn&t want to get there.$ Alito further asserts based on pretty much nothing that prisoners are li!ely more aware of the role that investigating officers have and won&t thin! that these officers can affect their sentences.

Ber,-u!s &. .-o3$5!#s (2010+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 : PM Facts of the Case A 8ichigan state court convicted Oan 'hester 7homp!ins of first5degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and several firearms related charges. >pon his arrest, 7homp!ins had been read his rights, and sat in silence for a long time "almost # hours$. +ater, he confessed. After exhausting his remedies in 8ichigan state court, 7homp!ins petitioned for habeas corpus relief in a 8ichigan federal district court. 7he district court denied the petition. ;n appeal, 7homp!ins argued that his confession was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that he was denied effective counsel at trial. 7homp!ins&s argument was that since he had not said anything for such a long time, he had essentially invo!ed his privilege to remain silent. 7he 0ixth 'ircuit held that the 8ichigan 0upreme 'ourt&s finding that 7homp!ins waived his Fifth Amendment right was unreasonable because 7homp!ins refused to sign an ac!nowledgement that he had been informed of his (iranda rights and rarely made eye contact with the officer throughout the three hour interview. 7he 0ixth 'ircuit also held that the 8ichigan 0upreme 'ourt improperly determined that

7homp!ins was not pre udiced by his counsel&s failure to request a limiting instruction related to his separately tried co5defendant&s testimony. Question *id the 0ixth 'ircuit improperly expand the (iranda rule when it held that defendant&s Fifth Amendment rights were violated1 Rule , long and detailedD art one: %n order for the evidence to be admissible, two things must be true. "($ *efendant must not have invoked his right to remain silent, and ")$ *efendant must have waived his right to remain silent. %n order to invo!e his right to remain silent "in situations where he understands his rights, see part two$, *efendant must do so unambiguously. ;therwise, his later confession is seen to come of his own volition after proper warnings. art t&o: %n order to waive his right to remain silent, *efendant must be "a$ acting voluntarily, and "b$ aware of the nature of the right being abandoned, and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. *efendant&s awareness of rights and subsequent actions that indicate waiver are sufficient to establish an implied waiver. Legal provision: 8iranda warnings 7he 0upreme 'ourt reversed the 0ixth 'ircuit, holding that the state court&s decision to re ect 8r. 7homp!ins& (iranda claim was correct. With Bustice Anthony 8. Cennedy writing for the ma ority, the 'ourt reasoned that 8r. 7homp!ins failed to invo!e his (iranda rights to remain silent and to counsel because he failed to do so "unambiguously." 8oreover, the 'ourt reasoned that 8r. 7homp!ins waived his (iranda right to remain silent when he "!nowingly and voluntarily" made a statement to the police. Dissent: Bustice 0onia 0otamayor, oined by Bustices Bohn 6aul 0tevens, 3uth 2ader Ginsburg, and 0tephen G. 2reyer, dissented. 0he reprimanded the ma ority for retreating from the broad protections afforded by (iranda, stating that now a criminal suspect waives his rights simply by uttering a "few one5word responses." *efendant had refused to sign waiver. 3equirement for waiver should be more unambiguous. 'ourt should presume that defendant did not waive his rights. A few one word answers should not suffice to show that his rights were waived. *avis was another case that said that an affirmative request was necessary to invo!e right to an attorney. 2ut this is the right to silence, and should be different. Notes: 7he 'ourt goes through the facts to show that he spo!e Gnglish, understood his rights, read part of the rights aloud, etc. Goes on to point out that he was not coerced. 'ourt mentions questions "officer as!ing him if he prayed for forgiveness for shooting victim$ that would seem to be pretty coercive under the dicta from 8iranda.

Class #otes: .-!s s$ea5s about w-at co3$r!ses !#&ocat!o# o1 M!ra#da R!,-ts.

Maryla#d &. S-at;er (2010+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 6:G2 PM Facts of the Case %n August )--#, a detective from the <agerstown, 8* 6olice *epartment interviewed 8ichael 2lain 0hatAer 0r. regarding allegations that he had sexually abused his three5year old child. At the time, 8r. 0hatAer was incarcerated on an unrelated offense involving sexual abuse of another child. After 8r. 0hatAer invo!ed his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent, the interview was terminated. 7he investigation was subsequently closed, only to be reopened in Banuary )--, on the prompting of 8r. 0hatAer&s wife, when she recogniAed her child could ma!e more specific allegations about 8r. 0hatAer&s alleged sexual abuse. 7hereafter in 8arch )--,, another detective from the <agerstown 6olice *epartment, who was aware that 8r. 0hatAer had been under investigation, but was not aware that 8r. 0hatAer had previously invo!ed his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent, interviewed

him. At this interview, 8r. 0hatAer was advised of his Fifth Amendment rights, which he waived, and then confessed to specific instances of sexual abuse involving his child. 6rior to trial, 8r. 0hatAer moved to suppress the confessions he made in the 8arch )--, interview arguing that his )--# invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights was still applicable. >nder 'dwards v. #ri)ona, once a suspect requests a lawyer, subsequents interrogations are not admissible. 7he motion was denied and a 8aryland trial court convicted him of sexual child abuse. ;n appeal, the 'ourt of Appeals of 8aryland reversed, holding that the protections of 'dwards applies for an inmate who has been continually incarcerated and had previously invo!ed his Fifth Amendment rights, until either counsel is made available or the inmate initiates further conversation with police. 7herefore, under the circumstances, 8r. 0hatAer&s confession was inadmissible. Question *oes 'dwards v. #ri)ona prohibit the re5interrogation of a suspect, who has invo!ed his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent, after a substantial amount of time has elapsed between the invocation of rights and the subsequent interrogation1 Rule: =o. After two wee!s have passed from the original interrogation, police are free to try again. Legal provision: 8iranda warnings =o. 7he 0upreme 'ourt reversed the 'ourt of Appeals of 8aryland, holding that because 8r. 0hatAer experienced a brea! in (iranda custody lasting more than two wee!s between the first and second attempts at interrogation, 'dwards does not mandate suppression of his )--, statements. Bustice Antonin G. 0calia writing for the ma ority reasoned that when a suspect has been released from custody and returned to normal life before the police later attempt interrogation, there is little reason to believe that the suspect&s change of heart was coerced. 7he 'ourt then stated that the appropriate period of time for a person to be re5acclimated to normal life was (: days. <ere, even though 8r. 0hatAer was released bac! into the general prison population, he entered bac! into his normal life and was free of the pressures of investigative custodyI thus, the 'dwards presumption was no longer warranted. Notes: 'ourt characteriAes 'dwards as a 'ourt made rule, rather than a 'onstitutional one. Concurrences: 3ho#as says that two wee!s is not necessarily a good rule 5 why specifically two wee!s. +tevens says that the ruling in this case is correct, but doesn&t agree with the new two wee! rule. 7elling someone he has the right to counsel, and then coming bac! and trying to interrogate him again, ma!es him thin! that he doesn&t have the right to counsel.

Mo#teEo &. 'ou!s!a#a (200*+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 6: F PM Facts of the Case %n 8arch )--/, Besse 8onte o was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of +ewis Ferrari. At his trial, the prosecution submitted as evidence a letter of apology he wrote to the victim&s wife. 8onte o wrote the letter at the suggestion of a detective who accompanied him in a search for the murder weapon. 2efore the search, 8r. 8onte o was read his 8iranda rights and waived them. +ater, at a hearing, the udge ordered that he be assigned a public defender. Following that, 8onte o consented to help the police search for the murder weapon, and he also wrote an explanation for his participation in the search. <owever, no one in the search party !new, including 8r. 8onte o, that he had been appointed a specific attorney the same morning. 8r. 8onte o contended under these circumstances that the 0ixth Amendment barred the introduction of this evidence since his attorney was not present when he wrote and submitted the letter of apology. 7here was precedent, the "ackson case, which said that once an attorney had been appointed, all communications must be with the attorney. 7he 0upreme 'ourt of +ouisiana held that the letter of apology 8r. 8onte o wrote was valid evidence. %t found that 8r. 8onte o waived his 0ixth Amendment right to counsel. %t explained that when counsel was appointed 8r. 8onte o remained mute and did not ac!nowledge it. 7he court reasoned that something beyond "mute acquiescence" is required to trigger the protections of the 0ixth Amendment. Question After the appointment of an attorney, does a defendant need to ta!e additional steps to accept the appointment in order to secure the protections afforded by the 0ixth Amendment1

Rule: Jes, defendant needs to assert the right to an attorney under Gdwards, which was a Fifth Amendment case. Bac!son, however, is overturned and there is no longer a prophylactic protection under the 0ixth Amendment once defendant as!s for 'ounsel. Holding: 3emanded for defendant to attempt to prove that he had in fact asserted his right to a lawyer under Gdwards. Legal provision: 0ixth Amendment =ot necessarily. 7he 0upreme 'ourt overruled its prior decision in 8ichigan v. Bac!son which held that evidence obtained through interrogation after the defendant has invo!ed his right to counsel was inadmissible. With Bustice Antonin G. 0calia writing for the ma ority and oined by 'hief Bustice Bohn G. 3oberts, and Bustices Anthony 8. Cennedy, 'larence 7homas, and 0amuel A. Alito, the 'ourt reasoned that the Bac!son framewor! was unwor!able in urisdictions that appoint counsel regardless of a defendant&s request. %nstead, the 'ourt stated that the protections afforded under 8iranda, Gdwards, and 8innic! were sufficient to protect a defendant&s 0ixth Amendment rights from police badgering that might elicit culpable evidence. Bustice Alito, oined by Bustice Cennedy, also filed a concurring opinion. Bustice Bohn 6aul 0tevens dissented and was oined by Bustices *avid <. 0outer and 3uth 2ader Ginsburg, and in part by Bustice 0tephen G. 2reyer. <e argued that the ma ority correctly concluded that the +ouisiana 0upreme 'ourt misapplied the 'ourt&s holding in Bac!son, but disagreed that the 'ourt should have overruled its precedent entirely. 3ather, Bustice 0tevens criticiAed the 'ourt for misinterpreting the rationale of Bac!son and undervaluing the role of stare decisis in its decision ma!ing. Bustice 2reyer also wrote a dissenting opinion, highlighting the consistency of his reasoning with respect to stare decisis in several other cases.

I"portant note rea$ this first or at the latest, secon$: "t !s u#clear (at least to 3e+ w-at t-e e11ect o1 Mo#teEo !s $ract!cally, s!#ce al3ost all t-e t!3e, o#ce a lawyer -as bee# a$$o!#ted, !dwards w!ll a$$ly. Mo#teEo -!3sel1, t-e court su,,ests, could -a&e brou,-t a !dwards cla!3. But are t-ere ot-er cases w-ere t-e deat- o1 Aac5so# a#d rel!a#ce o# =dwards would 3atter< :ell" !dwards !s a 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t, so e4clus!o# o# !dwards ,rou#ds 3!,-t be #arrower. /lso, S-at;er allows $ol!ce to try a,a!# e&ery two wee5s, so !1 -e0s rely!#, o# t-e 7!1t/3e#d3e#t 1or suc- &!olat!o#s, t-e !dwards $rotect!o# would#0t a$$ly.

2otes: &ery co#1us!#,. .-ere are d!11ere#t l!#es at $lay -ere. =dwards says t-at o#ce so3eo#e as5s 1or cou#sel, -e ca# #o lo#,er be !#terro,ated. .-!s !s a 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#. Aac5so# says t-at o#ce a# !#d!,e#t de1e#da#t -as reBuested a#d bee# ass!,#ed a lawyer, t-e lawyer 3ust be $rese#t 1or 1urt-er !#terro,at!o#s. .-!s !s a S!4t- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o# a#d a$$l!es o#ly $ost-arra!,#3e#t. (or was - !t was o&ertur#ed !# t-!s &erd!ct.+ o .-e lower court - 'ou!s!a#a Su$re3e Court - -ad sa!d t-at Aac5so# d!d#0t a$$ly, because Mo#teEo -ad #ot as5ed 1or a lawyer, a#d -ad #ot 1or3ally acce$ted t-e lawyer0s re$rese#tat!o#. o .-e Su$re3e Court co#cedes t-at !# Aac5so#, t-ey d!d #ot a#t!c!$ate cases w-ere t-e Court a$$o!#ted lawyers sua s$o#te. 2ow t-ere are two o$t!o#s - loo5 at t-e 1acts to see !1 -e was !# 1act re$rese#ted by t-!s lawyer, or Say -e0s SO', because !t was#0t -!s c-o!ce to acce$t, so -e !s dee3ed to #ot -a&e a lawyer. 2e!t-er o$t!o# !s $art!cularly ,ood - !t0s odd to say t-at so3e de1e#da#ts w!ll s!3$ly be SO' but $ract!cally s$ea5!#,, t-ere0s #ot l!5ely to be e&!de#ce t-at t-e ,uy acce$ted t-e lawyer. But Mo#teEo wa#ts t-e3 to say t-at o#ce t-e lawyer -as bee# a$$o!#ted, t-at0s e#ou,- to say #o 3ore !#terro,at!o# - w-!c- !s #ot related at all to t-e rat!o#ale, w-!c- ca3e to Jac son 1ro3 !dwards w-!c- was a 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t $ro$-ylact!c 1or $eo$le w-o -ad e4$ressly as5ed 1or a lawyer. "t would be s!lly to e4te#d !t to t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t w-ere -e -ad#0t as5ed 1or a lawyer.

Because t-e court does#0t l!5e a#y o1 t-e $oss!ble results 1ro3 t-e Aac5so# case, !.e. c-ec5!#, t-e 1acts to see !1 -e was re$rese#ted by a lawyer, say!#, t-at -e0s SO', or say!#, t-at s!#ce -e was ,!&e# a lawyer, -e ca#0t be s$o5e# to w!t-out t-e lawyer6 t-e court o&ertur#s Aac5so#. But !t see3s t-at o#ce so3eo#e as5s 1or a lawyer u#der t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t, -e would st!ll be e#t!tled to t-e =dwards $rotect!o#, so "03 #ot sure w-at0s -a$$e#!#, -ere. "t see3s to 3e t-at t-e result !s a b!t r!d!culous. Because t-e court d!d #ot wa#t to ,!&e a 1or3al Aac5so# $rotect!o# to states w-ere de1e#da#t -ad to reBuest a lawyer, w-!le de#y!#, !t !# cases w-ere t-e Court ass!,#ed o#e sua s$o#te, t-e Su$re3e Court o&ertur#s Aac5so#. But t-e e11ect !s t-at =dwards #ow $rotects de1e#da#ts !# states w-ere $eo$le 3ust as5 1or attor#eys, a#d =dwards eBually well does#0t $rotect de1e#da#ts w-o -a&e#0t as5ed 1or attor#eys because t-e Eud,e ,ra#ted o#e sua s$o#te. So !t0s 1u#ct!o#ally t-e sa3e t-!#, as 5ee$!#, Aac5so#.

2ew Ior5 &. Luarles (1*8G+

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 11, 2012 >:G* PM Facts of the Case After receiving the description of Suarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermar!et, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Suarles stopped and was fris!ed by the officer. >pon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer as!ed Suarles where his gun was. Suarles responded. 7he officer then formally arrested Suarles and read him his 8iranda rights. Question 0hould the 'ourt suppress Suarles&s statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had failed at the time to read Suarles his 8iranda rights1 Rule: When an officer as!s a question without 8iranda warning in the interests of pu$lic safet!, and the question results in a confession that is not coerced, the confession is admissible. %n short, there is a public safety exception to the 8iranda requirement. Decision: / votes for =ew Jor!, : vote"s$ against Legal provision: 8iranda Warnings =o. 7he 'ourt held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue 8iranda warnings to suspects. 0ince the police officer&s request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not in ure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Suarles, his failure to read the 8iranda warning did not violate the 'onstitution. Notes: 'ourt refers to 8iranda as a "prophylactic". -4Connor concurrence5Dissent: 7his may be what %&ve been loo!ing for all along. 0he says that the question is not whether the police should as! the question. 7he question is who shall bear the cost of securing the public safety when such questions are as!ed and answered. 8iranda found the resolution of that to be with the state. 6olice can as! all they want, but then the resulting confession is inadmissible. <owever, ;&'onnor sees no reason to exclude the gun, which is non5testimonial evidence. "Why is this different from Fourth Amendment cases, where there is a whole bunch of perverse incentives, and yet no one raises this very logical solution1$ 7his dissent is also similar to the dissent in 8aryland v. Garrison. %f we loo! at the allocation of ris!, it is not so hard to imagine that it&s better for the ris! to fall on the policemen. 7hey search people all the time, they don&t lose anything from dropping the case, while the defendant definitely loses by being prosecuted, and they also will thereby not be incentiviAed to stretch the limits of their searching power. %t is li!ely to be a huge help in cases of search incident to arrest. %t is li!ely to be a huge help in cases of stop and fris!, where the search is supposedly for weapons to ensure that the policeman is safe. Well now he&s safe 5 let him bear the burden of ascertaining that, rather than the ten percent of blac! males who are carrying weed. 3ight now there is a 'ircuit 0plit over police created exigent circumstances 5 at least as of )--9. 0ome 'ircuits analyAe whether the exigent circumstances arose as a result of a :th Amendment violation, others inquire into the sub ective intent of the police officer 5 was he loo!ing to circumvent the Fourth Amendment1

3egarding the issue of why this argument is made on 8iranda rights but not on Fourth Amendment rights, possibly the argument is that 8iranda has two rationales 5 it&s a prophylactic and it&s also based on the inherently coercive rationale. %f it&s inherently coercive, then no matter the policeman&s ustification the admission is coerced and is therefore not admissible. %n the Fourth Amendment, though, there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment when there is an exigent circumstances rationale, so there can&t be exclusion. Suestion which % thin! is a good support for ;&'onnorD what happens if the cop is so worried about public safety that he pulls a gun and forces the guy to tell him where it is1 7ruth is, % guess that would fail because it&s classic coercion and the exception here could only apply to 8iranda&s prophylactic. "'ha!iraD %s 8iranda because custody is inherently coercive, or because of a prophylactic1$ 0o maybe not such a good proof. Suestion about the case generallyD the evidence which was excluded included the pre5miranda statements and also the post waiver statements. %s this a case about police circumventing miranda by getting a confession and then getting another one, or is it a case about the original statement1 8issouri v. 0eibert was only decided much later, and that&s the case which didn&t allow the double questioning.

7"9 .C"S Mora# &. Burb!#e 7"9 .C"S

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 12, 2012 1:G1 PM

&acts: Burb!#e was arrested o# a bur,lary c-ar,e. 'ater, w-!le -e was !# custody, $ol!ce be,a# to rece!&e e&!de#ce su,,est!#, t-at -e -ad 5!lled so3eo#e earl!er t-at year. Pol!ce 1ro3 t-e tow# w-ere t-e 3urder -ad -a$$e#ed ca3e to Buest!o# Burb!#e about t-e 3urder. /t t-at sa3e t!3e, Burb!#e0s s!ster obta!#ed le,al re$rese#tat!o# 1or Burb!#e o# t-e bur,lary c-ar,e. C!s lawyer called t-e P% w-o sa!d t-at -e would #ot be Buest!o#ed u#t!l t-e 3or#!#, w-e# s-e could be $rese#t, but Burb!#e -!3sel1 d!d#0t 5#ow about t-e lawyer or about t-e co#&ersat!o#. 2or was t-e attor#ey told t-at -e was also u#der !#&est!,at!o# 1or t-e 3urder or t-at $ol!ce -ad co3e to Buest!o# -!3. .-erea1ter, $ol!ce M!ra#d!;ed a#d Buest!o#ed -!3 t-ree t!3es. Ce s!,#ed wa!&ers a#d co#1essed t-ree t!3es. 'ater, -e a$$ealed -!s !#e&!table co#&!ct!o# o# t-e ,rou#ds t-at t-e lawyer s-ould #ot -a&e bee# tur#ed away6 rat-er -e s-ould -a&e bee# !#1or3ed t-at -e -ad a lawyer be1ore t-e !#terro,at!o#. 7urt-er3ore, $ol!ce -ad &!olated -!s r!,-ts by ly!#, to t-e lawyer a#d say!#, t-at -e would#0t be !#terro,ated u#t!l t-e 3or#!#,. %oes t-e 1a!lure to !#1or3 sus$ect t-at a lawyer -as bee# reta!#ed 1or -!3 co#st!tute a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t suc- t-at t-e result!#, wa!&er !s !#&al!d a#d t-e co#1ess!o# 3ust be o&ertur#ed< Seco#d, does Buest!o#!#, o1 t-e sus$ect a1ter -!s s!ster -ad obta!#ed a lawyer 1or -!3 w!t-out -!s 5#owled,e &!olate t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t, a#d does t-e result!#, co#1ess!o# #eed to be e4cluded< R!le 1. =&e#ts -a$$e#!#, outs!de o1 a $r!so#er0s 5#owled,e ca##ot a11ect t-e &olu#tar!#ess o1 -!s dec!s!o#s. S!#ce -e d!d#0t 5#ow t-at a lawyer -ad bee# a$$o!#ted 1or -!3, t-ere !s #o reaso# w-y -!s wa!&er ou,-t to be 1lawed, co3!#, as !t d!d a1ter -!s r!,-ts were read to -!3. M!ra#da w!ll #ot be e4te#ded to !#sta#ces w-ere $ol!ce are #ot 1ort-r!,-t w!t- de1e#da#ts a#d do #ot res$ect r!,-ts o1 a# attorney because t-at !s #ot w-o t-e r!,-t !s 3ea#t to $rotect. R!le 4. .-e co#duct o1 t-e $ol!ce d!d #ot &!olate res$o#de#t0s S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel. .-at r!,-t !#!t!ally attac-es o#ly a1ter t-e 1!rst 1or3al c-ar,!#, $rocedure, w-ereas t-e c-alle#,ed $ol!ce co#duct -ere occurred $r!or to res$o#de#t0s arra!,#3e#t.

)#!ted States &. Pata#e (200G+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 12, 2012 1:2 PM Facts of the Case 0amuel 6atane was arrested at his home for calling his ex5girlfriend in violation of a restraining order. *uring the arrest, police offers began reading 6atane his 8iranda rights. 6atane told the officers that he !new his rights. 7he officers then stopped reading them, at which point 6atane told police that he had a gun in his house. 7hey searched the house with his permission and found the gun. As an ex5felon, 6atane was not permitted to possess a gun and was prosecuted for possession. *uring the trial on gun possession charges, 6atane argued that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seiAures and the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself because there was not probable cause to arrest him and because the gun had been found as a result of an un58irandiAed confession. 7he district court initially ruled that there was not probable cause for his arrest and that it was therefore unconstitutional. A (-th 'ircuit 'ourt of Appeals panel disagreed, holding that 6atane&s ex5girlfriend had given police probable cause for the arrest. <owever, the panel held that gun could not be used as evidence because it had been found as the result of an un58irandiAed "and therefore unconstitutional$ confession. 7he government appealed, arguing that physical evidence found as the result of un5 8irandiAed testimony could be used in court, despite the fact that the testimony itself was inadmissable. Question 'an physical evidence found as a result of un58irandiAed but voluntary testimony be used in court1 RuleD 6hysical evidence that comes from a confession that has not been 8irandiAed is admissible, so long as the confession has not been obtained by coercion or an inherent violation of due process. Decision: / votes for >nited 0tates, : vote"s$ against Legal provision: 8iranda Warnings Jes. %n a decision without a ma ority opinion, three ustices wrote that the 8iranda warnings were merely "prophylactic" intended to prevent violations of the 'onstitution, and that because 6atane&s un58irandiAed testimony was not admitted at trial the 'onstitution "specifically the Fifth Amendment&s protection against self5incrimination$ had not been violated. 6hysical evidence obtained from un58irandiAed statements, as long as those statement were not forced by police, were constitutionally admissible. 7wo other ustices also held that the physical evidence was constitutionally admissible, but did so with the understanding that the 8iranda warnings must be accommodated to other ob ectives of the criminal ustice system. 7hey did not discuss whether the 8iranda warnings were, in themselves, constitutionally required. 6enned! concurrence: 6ossibly most important, since he is the only ustice who switches sides between 6atane and 0eibert. Note: 7here is strong tension between 6atane and *ic!erson. 6atane came after *ic!erson, and said that the 8iranda rights are merely prophylactic, and claimed that it didn&t contradict *ic!erson, which had said essentially that 8iranda is constitutional law. ;r is there tension1 8iranda can be constitutional but ust extend to the confession itself, can&t it1 Well, no. 2ecause the 'onstitution protects against coerced confessions and 8iranda has to either be saying that the confession was coerced, in which case 8iranda is ust defining a word in the 'onstitution "and all evidence arising from that confession would be a violation of due process$I or 8iranda has to be saying that the confession itself might not have been coerced but that we the Court institute a requirement on police to build a fence around the 'onstitution, in which case 'ongress should be able to legislate against it. >nless due process does not demand that the ensuing physical evidence be excludedI rather it&s a "fruit of the poisonous tree" deterrence rationale that the 'ourt chooses when to use. Note //: 8ost counterargument for this case will come from 8issouri v. 0eibert, since in that case, the 'ourt said that deliberate manipulation of 8iranda in order to obtain admissible evidence results in exclusion of the evidence. %n a way, almost all evidence that ensues from a 8iranda violation can be said to be the result of deliberate manipulation.

M!ssour! &. Se!bert (200G+

2ote: .-!s case a#d Pata#e were dec!ded by t-e sa3e Court. .-e &otes were bot- -G a#d ?e##edy &oted to ad3!t t-e e&!de#ce !# Pata#e a#d to e4clude t-e e&!de#ce !# Se!bert. .-ere1ore, !t 3a5es a certa!# a3ou#t o1 se#se to loo5 at -!s o$!#!o#s to deter3!#e -ow -e sees t-e3 1!tt!#, to,et-er.

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 12, 2012 1:FF PM Facts of the Case 6atrice 0eibert was convicted of second degree murder for the death of (4 5year5old *onald 3ector, who died in a fire set in the mobile home where he lived with 0eibert. 0everal days after the fire, 0eibert was interogated by a police officer. 7he officer initially withheld her 8iranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first. ;nce she had confessed, the officer too! a short brea! from questioning, then read her her 8iranda rights and resumed questioning her after she waived those rights. <e prompted her to restate the confession that she had made earlier. 2ased on this second, 8irandiAed confession, 0eibert was convicted. 0he appealed, charging that the officer&s intentional use of an un58irandiAed interrogation to get the initial confession made the later confession, though it occurred after she had waived her 8iranda rights, inadmissable. 7he prosecution cited ;regon v. Glstad to argue that an initial, un58irandiAed confession did not ma!e a defendant incapable of voluntarily waiving her 8iranda rights and confessing later. 7he 0upreme 'ourt of 8issouri agreed with 0eibert, overturning the conviction. Question *oes the rule from ;regon v. Glstad that a defendant who has made an un5 8irandiAed confession may later waive her 8iranda rights to ma!e a second confession "admissible in court$ still apply when the initial confession is the result of an intentional decision by a police officer to withhold her 8iranda warnings1 Rule: =o. When police deliberately violate 8iranda in order to get a confession that will set the stage for a later, post58iranda confession, both confessions are inadmissible. 7he plurality standard weighs whether the 8iranda warning delivered midstream suffices to accomplish the ob ect of 8iranda. "0ee also concurrence&s suggested rule$. Decision: / votes for 0eibert, : vote"s$ against Legal provision: 8iranda Warnings =o. %n a decision with no ma ority, a four5 ustice plurality found that the post58iranda confession is only admissible 5 even if the two5stage interview was unintentional, as it was in Glstad 5 if the 8iranda warning and accompanying brea! are sufficient to give the suspect the reasonable belief that she has the right not to spea! with the police. Bustice Anthony Cennedy, in a concurring opinion that provided the fifth vote, found that evaluating the warning and accompanying brea! was only necessary if the police used the two5 stage interrogation intentionally. Bustice Cennedy wrote, "7he admissibility of postwarning statements should continue to be governed by Glstad&s principles unless the deliberate two5step strategy is employed. 7hen, the postwarning statements must be excluded unless curative measures are ta!en before they were made." Concurrence' )re!er: 7here should be a simple rule 5 'ourts should apply the "Fruits of a poisonous tree" doctrine to the initial confession unless the interrogation was made as a good5faith mista!e. ";bvious problemD we are going to have a hell of a time determining what a good5faith mista!e is when it all ta!es place in the officer&s head.$ Concurrence' 6enned!: 7his is perhaps the most important in comparing 0eibert and 6atane, since Cennedy was the only Bustice who voted to admit in 6atane and to exclude in 0eibert. Cennedy proposes a rule in which the evidence would be allowed as long as there was no deliberate two5step process, and excluded whenever there has been a deliberate two step process. "Cennedy doesn&t li!e the plurality rule above, since it&s too fuAAy, and 8iranda&s strength comes from it&s clarity.$ Dissent: Glstad said that a good faith failure to inform a suspect of his rights while police conversed with him in his living room does not require exclusion of later confession after being 8irandiAed. 7his case is exactly the same, except for the intent of the police officer. 7he intent of the police officer doesn&t relate at all to the effectiveness of the later 8iranda warning, which the plurality loo!s to in determining whether to admit the evidence. 7herefore, the only thing that should be analyAed is the coerciveness of the interrogation.

Note: The r!le of pl!ralit+ opinions see"s to 7e that the narro%est conc!rrence is the 7in$ing la%. Note: :-at are t-e l!3!ts to t-!s -old!#,< .-ere !s ,o!#, to be a te#s!o# betwee# t-!s case a#d Pata#e, s!#ce Pata#e says t-at $-ys!cal e&!de#ce t-at was 1ou#d as t-e result o1 M!ra#da &!olat!o#s !s #ot e4cluded. But Pata#e !s a u#!Bue case !# w-!c- t-e act!o#s o1 t-e defendant led

to t-e M!ra#da &!olat!o#. "1 t-ere !s #o suc- act!o#, t-e# ar,uably e&ery s!#,le t!3e $ol!ce &!olate M!ra#da, t-ey are do!#, !t del!berately to 3a#!$ulate t-e de1e#da#t !#to e4$os!#, $-ys!cal e&!de#ce. Cow w!ll t-e $lural!ty rule !# Se!bert a$$ly to $-ys!cal e&!de#ce< Cow about t-e co#curre#ces0 rules< (2ote: we d!scussed t-e rat!o#ale !# t-e co#te4t o1 !3$eac-3e#t - o#ce so3eo#e !#&o5ed M!ra#da r!,-ts, $ol!ce are st!ll !#ce#t!&!;ed to Buest!o# -er because t-ey ca# use t-e result!#, e&!de#ce 1or !3$eac-3e#t. .-at would also be a co#cer# -ere: a1ter M!ra#da !s !#&o5ed, $ol!ce w!ll 5ee$ Buest!o#!#, because t-ey0re #ot ,ett!#, a co#1ess!o#, so t-ey 3!,-t as well ,et $-ys!cal e&!de#ce. HStrate,!sts ded!cated to dra!#!#, t-e substa#ce out o1 M!ra#da ca##ot acco3$l!s- by tra!#!#, w-at %!c5erso# -eld Co#,ress could #ot do by statuteH. Note II: Could t-!s case -a&e bee# dec!ded o# ,rou#ds o1 stra!,-t1orward coerc!&e#ess< "1 t-e $lural!ty bel!e&es t-at t-e M!ra#da war#!#,s d!d#0t su11!ce 1or t-e de1e#da#t to u#dersta#d -!s r!,-ts, t-e# !s#0t t-at $er se coerc!o#, o#ce -e0s already co#1essed< " would !3a,!#e t-at 3a#y cases t-at ra!se Se!bert !ssues would also ra!se $ure coerc!o# !ssues.

.-e Stre#,t- o1 M!ra#da

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 1*, 2012 12:06 PM

"s M!ra#da a Co#st!tut!o#al rule, or !s !t Eust a Court !3$osed re!#1orce3e#t o1 t-e 7!1t/3e#d3e#t< .-!s !3$l!cates a lot o1 Buest!o#s about M!ra#da. 1. %oes M!ra#da reBu!re war#!#,s, or does !t Eust say t-at co#1ess!o#s t-at were u#war#ed 3ay #ot be ad3!tted !#to Court< .-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t bars coerced co#1ess!o#s on trial but does !t bar ot-er coerc!o# or co#1ess!o#s !# ot-er co#te4ts< a. .-e !dea !s t-at a $r!or co#1ess!o# used as e&!de#ce !s as ,ood as a co#1ess!o# o# tr!al. :-at about e&!de#ce t-at arose as a result o1 t-at< !. Pata#e says t-at !t0s allowed but Se!bert says t-at $ol!ce ca#0t del!berately &!olate M!ra#da to ,et !t, a#d !1 t-ey do, t-e# !t (co#1ess!o#s at least+ w!ll be e4cluded. !!. :-at !s u#!Bue about co#1ess!o#s< "s !t t-e !#co#tro&ert!ble#ess< "s !t t-e Hsel1-#essH< .-e assoc!at!o# w!t- !#Bu!s!tor!al-#ess< 1. Presu3ably t-ere would be #o e4clus!o# !1

%!c5erso# &. )#!ted States (2000+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 1*, 2012 12:0> PM Facts of the Case *uring questioning about a robbery he was connected to, 'harles *ic!erson made statements to authorities admitting that he was the getaway driver in a series of ban! robberies. *ic!erson was then placed under arrest. 7he timing of his statement is disputed. 7he F2% and local detectives testified that *ic!erson was advised of his 8iranda rights, established in 8iranda v. AriAona, and waived them before he made his statement. *ic!erson said he was not read his 8iranda warnings until after he gave his statement. After his indictment for ban! robbery, *ic!erson filed a motion to suppress the statement that he made on the ground that he had not received 8iranda warnings before being interrogated. 7he government argued that even if the 8iranda warnings were not read, the statement was voluntary and therefore admissible under (@ >0' 0ection #/-(, which provides that "a confession shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given." 7he *istrict 'ourt granted *ic!erson&s motion, finding that he had not been read his 8iranda rights or signed a waiver until after he made his statement, but the court did not address section #/-(. %n reversing, the 'ourt of Appeals ac!nowledged that *ic!erson had not received 8iranda warnings, but held that section #/-( was satisfied because his statement was voluntary. 7he

court held that "'ongress enacted section #/-( with the express purpose of legislatively overruling 8iranda and restoring voluntariness as the test for admitting confessions in federal court." Question 8ay 'ongress legislatively overrule 8iranda v. AriAona and its warnings that govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation1 Rule: 7he rule that 'ongress wrote was not sufficiently protective of defendants& rights to satisfy the Fifth Amendment. 7herefore, 8iranda is still required. Decision: 4 votes for *ic!erson, ) vote"s$ against Legal provision: 8iranda Warnings =o. %n a 45) opinion delivered by 'hief Bustice William <. 3ehnquist, the 'ourt held that 8iranda governs the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts. "8iranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture," wrote 3ehnquist. "8iranda announced a constitutional rule that 'ongress may not supersede legislatively. We decline to overrule 8iranda ourselves," concluded the 'hief Bustice. *issenting, Bustice Antonin 0calia, oined by Bustice 'larence 7homas, blasted the 'ourt&s ruling, writing that the ma ority opinion gave needless protection to "foolish "but not compelled$ confessions." Note: 'ongress does have the right to supersede udicial rules other than those which are deemed required by the 'onstitution.

Note: /t t-e outset, 3aEor!ty says t-at M!ra#da ca##ot be o&erruled by Co#,ress, a $os!t!o# w-!c- M!ra#da !tsel1 e4$ressly decl!#ed to ta5e. Cowe&er, 3ore Bual!1!ed la#,ua,e later o# see3s to 5ee$ t-e door o$e# a crac5 1or laws by Co#,ress to su$ersede M!ra#da. Note: Co3$are t-e -old!#, !# %!c5erso# w!t- t-e -old!#, !# Pata#e. Ca# t-e $recede#t t-at d!scusses M!ra#da as a $ro$-ylact!c co-e4!st w!t- %!c5erso#< M!c-!,a# &. .uc5er: :!t#ess d!sco&ered t-rou,- M!ra#da &!olat!o# allowed because M!ra#da !s Pro$-ylact!c. Ore,o# &. =lstad: a $recursor to Pata#e a#d Se!bert, ,ood-1a!t- 1a!lure to M!ra#d!;e d!scuss!o# w!t- sus$ect !# -o3e d!d #ot bar sa!d sus$ect0s later co#1ess!o#, because M!ra#da !s $ro$-ylact!c/$rocedural sa1e,uard. 2I &. Luarles also. OTO9, t-e Court a$$l!ed M!ra#da to state courts, w-!c- !s o#ly $oss!ble !1 !t0s a co#st!tut!o#al reBu!re3e#t. Notes: Co#,ress -ad $assed a law t-at was des!,#ed to o&ertur# M!ra#da. Sect!o# F 01 starts w!t- a rule t-at t-e Eud,e deter3!#es &olu#tar!#ess at t-e outset. .-e tr!al Eud,e t-e# co#s!ders t-e t!3e betwee# t-e arrest a#d arra!,#3e#t, etc. /ccord!#, to t-e rule, t-e Eud,e bas!cally 3a5es a t-res-old 1!#d!#, t-at t-e r!,-ts o1 t-e de1e#da#t were obser&ed, but o#ly as a $art o1 t-e deter3!#at!o# t-at t-e co#1ess!o# was &olu#tary. "1 t-ey were#0t, t-ou,-, t-ere !s #o per se e4clus!o#ary rule, rat-er t-e Eud,e would dec!de !1 t-ere was !# 1act coerc!o# be1ore e4clud!#, . .-e 3a!# !#Bu!ry !# ter3s o1 allow!#, t-e co#1ess!o# !#to court would be w-et-er !t was &olu#tary or #ot. .-e Court was#0t buy!#, !t. Pro1 as5s w-et-er t-ere !s a#y law t-at t-e le,!slature could $ass t-at would 3eet t-e reBu!re3e#ts o1 M!ra#da< .-e M!ra#da dec!s!o# !3$l!ed t-at you could, actually, sa!d !t stra!,-t out. But !# t-!s case, t-e law a$$are#tly d!d#0t -a&e e#ou,- $rotect!o#.

Brewer &. :!ll!a3s (1*>>+ (.-e C-r!st!a# Bur!al Case+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 1*, 2012 1:F6 PM

Posture: Post arrest a#d arra!,#3e#t, $ost a$$o!#t3e#t o1 lawyer. &acts: Brewer &. :!ll!a3s, GF0 ).S. F8> (1*>>+, !s a dec!s!o# by t-e )#!ted States Su$re3e Court t-at clar!1!es w-at co#st!tutes Hwa!&erH o1 t-e r!,-t to cou#sel 1or t-e $ur$oses o1 t-e S!4t/3e#d3e#t. )#der M!ra#da &. /r!;o#a, $ol!ce are 1orb!dde# 1ro3 !#terro,at!#, a sus$ect o#ce -e -as asserted -!s r!,-t to cou#sel u#der t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t. Cere, -owe&er, t-e de1e#da#t

-ad bee# !#d!cted !# court, a#d t-us -!s S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel -ad auto3at!cally attac-ed. /t !ssue was w-et-er a &olu#tary ad3!ss!o# o1 !#cr!3!#at!#, 1acts !# res$o#se to $ol!ce state3e#ts co#st!tuted a wa!&er o1 t-!s r!,-t to cou#sel. O# t-e a1ter#oo# o1 %ece3ber 2G, 1*68, a 10-year-old ,!rl #a3ed Pa3ela Powers we#t w!t- -er 1a3!ly to t-e IMC/ !# %es Mo!#es, "owa, to watc- a wrestl!#, tour#a3e#t !# w-!c- -er brot-er was $art!c!$at!#,. :-e# s-e 1a!led to retur# 1ro3 a tr!$ to t-e was-roo3, a searc- 1or -er be,a#. .-e searc- was u#success1ul. Robert :!ll!a3s was see# carry!#, so3e clot-!#, a#d a lar,e bu#dle wra$$ed !# a bla#5et. Ce obta!#ed -el$ 1ro3 a 1G-year-old boy !# o$e#!#, t-e street door o1 t-e IMC/ a#d t-e door to -!s auto3ob!le $ar5ed outs!de. :-e# :!ll!a3s $laced t-e bu#dle !# t-e 1ro#t seat o1 -!s car t-e boy Hsaw two le,s !# !t a#d t-ey were s5!##y a#d w-!te.H Be1ore a#yo#e could see w-at was !# t-e bu#dle :!ll!a3s dro&e away. / warra#t was t-e# !ssued !# %es Mo!#es 1or -!s arrest o# a c-ar,e o1 abduct!o#. O# t-e 3or#!#, o1 %ece3ber 26, a %es Mo!#es lawyer #a3ed Ce#ry Mc?#!,-t ad&!sed :!ll!a3s to tur# -!3sel1 !# to t-e %a&e#$ort $ol!ce. :!ll!a3s surre#dered t-at 3or#!#, to t-e $ol!ce !# %a&e#$ort, w-o boo5ed -!3 o# t-e c-ar,e s$ec!1!ed !# t-e arrest warra#t a#d ,a&e -!3 t-e war#!#,s reBu!red by M!ra#da &. /r!;o#a, F8G ).S. GF6. Mc?#!,-t ad&!sed :!ll!a3s t-at %es Mo!#es $ol!ce o11!cers would be dr!&!#, to %a&e#$ort to $!c5 -!3 u$, t-at t-e o11!cers would #ot !#terro,ate -!3 or 3!streat -!3, a#d t-at :!ll!a3s was #ot to tal5 to t-e o11!cers about Pa3ela Powers u#t!l a1ter co#sult!#, w!t- Mc?#!,-t u$o# -!s retur# to %es Mo!#es. "t was a,reed betwee# Mc?#!,-t a#d t-e %es Mo!#es $ol!ce o11!c!als t-at %etect!&e 'ea3!#, a#d a 1ellow o11!cer would dr!&e to %a&e#$ort to $!c5 u$ :!ll!a3s, t-at t-ey would br!#, -!3 d!rectly bac5 to %es Mo!#es a#d t-at t-ey would #ot Buest!o# -!3 dur!#, t-e tr!$. "# t-e 3ea#t!3e, :!ll!a3s was arra!,#ed be1ore a Eud,e !# %a&e#$ort o# t-e outsta#d!#, arrest warra#t. :!ll!a3s co#1erred w!t- a lawyer #a3ed ?elly, w-o ad&!sed -!3 #ot to 3a5e a#y state3e#ts u#t!l co#sult!#, w!t- Mc?#!,-t bac5 !# %es Mo!#es. %etect!&e 'ea3!#, a#d -!s 1ellow o11!cer re$eated t-e M!ra#da war#!#,s w-e# t-ey ca3e to ,et :!ll!a3s, a#d told :!ll!a3s: HM:Ne bot- 5#ow t-at you0re be!#, re$rese#ted -ere by Mr. ?elly a#d you0re be!#, re$rese#ted by Mr. Mc?#!,-t !# %es Mo!#es, a#d... " wa#t you to re3e3ber t-!s because we0ll be &!s!t!#, betwee# -ere a#d %es Mo!#es.H ?elly re!terated to %etect!&e 'ea3!#, t-at :!ll!a3s was #ot to be Buest!o#ed about t-e d!sa$$eara#ce o1 Pa3ela Powers u#t!l a1ter -e -ad co#sulted w!t- Mc?#!,-t bac5 !# %es Mo!#es. 2ot lo#, a1ter lea&!#, %a&e#$ort a#d reac-!#, t-e !#terstate -!,-way, %etect!&e 'ea3!#, del!&ered w-at -as bee# re1erred to !# t-e br!e1s a#d oral ar,u3e#ts as t-e HC-r!st!a# bur!al s$eec-.H /ddress!#, :!ll!a3s as HRe&ere#d,H t-e detect!&e sa!d: H" wa#t to ,!&e you so3et-!#, to t-!#5 about w-!le we0re tra&el!#, dow# t-e road.... 2u3ber o#e, " wa#t you to obser&e t-e weat-er co#d!t!o#s, !t0s ra!#!#,, !t0s sleet!#,, !t0s 1ree;!#,, dr!&!#, !s &ery treac-erous, &!s!b!l!ty !s $oor, !t0s ,o!#, to be dar5 early t-!s e&e#!#,. .-ey are $red!ct!#, se&eral !#c-es o1 s#ow 1or to#!,-t, a#d " 1eel t-at you yoursel1 are t-e o#ly $erso# t-at 5#ows w-ere t-!s l!ttle ,!rl0s body !s, t-at you yoursel1 -a&e o#ly bee# t-ere o#ce, a#d !1 you ,et a s#ow o# to$ o1 !t you yoursel1 3ay be u#able to 1!#d !t. /#d, s!#ce we w!ll be ,o!#, r!,-t $ast t-e area o# t-e way

!#to %es Mo!#es, " 1eel t-at we could sto$ a#d locate t-e body, t-at t-e $are#ts o1 t-!s l!ttle ,!rl s-ould be e#t!tled to a C-r!st!a# bur!al 1or t-e l!ttle ,!rl w-o was s#atc-ed away 1ro3 t-e3 o# C-r!st3as M=N&e a#d 3urdered. /#d " 1eel we s-ould sto$ a#d locate !t o# t-e way !# rat-er t-a# wa!t!#, u#t!l 3or#!#, a#d try!#, to co3e bac5 out a1ter a s#ow stor3 a#d $oss!bly #ot be!#, able to 1!#d !t at all.H :!ll!a3s as5ed %etect!&e 'ea3!#, w-y -e t-ou,-t t-e!r route to %es Mo!#es would be ta5!#, t-e3 $ast t-e ,!rl0s body, a#d 'ea3!#, res$o#ded t-at -e 5#ew t-e body was !# t-e area o1 M!tc-ell&!lle, a tow# t-ey would be $ass!#, o# t-e way to %es Mo!#es. 'ea3!#, t-e# stated: H" do #ot wa#t you to a#swer 3e. " do#0t wa#t to d!scuss !t a#y 1urt-er. Aust t-!#5 about !t as we0re r!d!#, dow# t-e road.H :!ll!a3s d!rected t-e o11!cers to a ser&!ce stat!o# w-ere -e sa!d -e -ad le1t t-e s-oes6 a searc1or t-e3 $ro&ed u#success1ul. :!ll!a3s as5ed w-et-er t-e $ol!ce -ad 1ou#d t-e bla#5et, a#d d!rected t-e o11!cers to a rest area w-ere -e sa!d -e -ad d!s$osed o1 t-e bla#5et. 2ot-!#, was 1ou#d. .-e car co#t!#ued towards %es Mo!#es, a#d as !t a$$roac-ed M!tc-ell&!lle, :!ll!a3s sa!d t-at -e would s-ow t-e o11!cers w-ere t-e body was. Ce t-e# d!rected t-e $ol!ce to t-e body o1 Pa3ela Powers. :!ll!a3s was !#d!cted 1or 1!rst-de,ree 3urder.C!s cou#sel 3o&ed to su$$ress all e&!de#ce relat!#, to or result!#, 1ro3 a#y state3e#ts :!ll!a3s -ad 3ade dur!#, t-e auto3ob!le r!de 1ro3 %a&e#$ort to %es Mo!#es. /1ter a# e&!de#t!ary -ear!#, t-e tr!al Eud,e de#!ed t-e 3ot!o#. Ce 1ou#d t-at Ha# a,ree3e#t was 3ade betwee# de1e#se cou#sel a#d t-e $ol!ce o11!c!als to t-e e11ect t-at t-e %e1e#da#t was #ot to be Buest!o#ed o# t-e retur# tr!$ to %es Mo!#es,H a#d t-at t-e e&!de#ce !# Buest!o# -ad bee# el!c!ted 1ro3 :!ll!a3s dur!#, Ha cr!t!cal sta,e !# t-e $roceed!#,s reBu!r!#, t-e $rese#ce o1 cou#sel o# -!s reBuest.H .-e Eud,e ruled, -owe&er, t-at :!ll!a3s -ad Hwa!&ed -!s r!,-t to -a&e a# attor#ey $rese#t dur!#, t-e ,!&!#, o1 suc!#1or3at!o#.H .-e Su$re3e Court ,ra#ted cert!orar! to co#s!der t-e co#st!tut!o#al !ssues $rese#ted. R!le: O#ce Eud!c!al $roceed!#,s be,!#, t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t d!ctates t-at t-e de1e#da#t -as t-e r!,-t to cou#sel. .-e r!,-t attac-es auto3at!cally, a#d t-e $rosecut!o# -as t-e burde# o1 $ro&!#,, !1 t-ey c-oose, t-at t-e de1e#da#t wa!&ed -!s r!,-t. 9ol$ing: O#ce Eud!c!al $roceed!#,s be,!# (-ere, t-e arra!,#3e#t !# %a&e#$ort, "owa+, t-e S!4t/3e#d3e#t d!ctates t-at a sus$ect -as t-e r!,-t to cou#sel. .-!s r!,-t attac-es auto3at!cally, a#d t-e $rosecut!o# -as t-e burde# o1 s-ow!#, t-e de1e#da#t wa!&ed t-!s r!,-t. Cere, t-e o11!cer e4$lo!ted t-e sus$ectKs dee$ rel!,!ous co#&!ct!o#s to obta!# a# !#cr!3!#at!#, state3e#t !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e sus$ect0s S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel. .-e %a&e#$ort Eud,e -ad arra!,#ed :!ll!a3s o# -!s outsta#d!#, arrest warra#t, t-us Eud!c!al $roceed!#,s were u#derway. %es$!te :!ll!a3s0s !#s!ste#ce o# -!s r!,-t to cou#sel, t-e o11!cer obta!#ed !#cr!3!#at!#, state3e#ts w!t-out !#1or3!#, :!ll!a3s o1 -!s r!,-t to -a&e cou#sel $rese#t a#d -!s ab!l!ty to wa!&e t-at r!,-t. Notes: .-e dec!s!o# !3$l!es t-at !1 t-e de1e#da#t were to !#&o5e -!s r!,-t to cou#sel, -e 3ay st!ll wa!&e !t e4$ressly e&e# w!t-out -!s lawyer $rese#t. ?eywords: S!4t- /3e#d3e#t Mass!aR!,-t to Cou#sel

2otes: "s t-!s a r!,-t to cou#sel case or a M!ra#da case< .-e Court tal5s about t-e !#te#t to el!c!t !#1or3at!o# !# t-e o11!cer0s s$eec- about C-r!st!a# Bur!al, but Mass!a- was about t-e r!,-t to cou#sel. (But st!ll, t-e r!,-t to cou#sel !# w-at s!tuat!o#< "1 so3eo#e s$o#ta#eously co#1esses a1ter arra!,#3e#t, t-at0s a wa!&er o1 t-e r!,-t to cou#sel, o#e would t-!#5. So 3aybe t-at0s w-y t-e !#terro,at!o# was s!,#!1!ca#t<+

?u-l3a# &. :!lso# (1*86+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 1*, 2012 2:00 PM

&acts: %e1e#da#t :!lso# robbed a ,ara,e a#d 5!lled t-e d!s$atc-er. Ce cla!3ed -e w!t#essed t-e 3urder but de#!ed !#&ol&e3e#t a#d was Ea!led. Pol!ce !#structed a# !#1or3a#t to s-are a cell w!t- t-e de1e#da#t a#d #ot to Buest!o# -!3, but to S5ee$ -!s ears o$e#.R /1ter be!#, told t-at -!s 1a3!ly was u$set because t-ey t-ou,-t -e -ad 5!lled t-e 3a#, t-e de1e#da#t told t-e !#1or3er o1 -!s !#&ol&e3e#t !# t-e 3urder. .-e de1e#da#t was tr!ed a#d co#&!cted o1 3urder, w!t- t-e tr!al court de#y!#, -!s 3ot!o# to su$$ress t-e state3e#ts. .-e de1e#da#t sou,-t -abeas rel!e1 a#d was de#!ed by t-e %!str!ct Court, a dec!s!o# t-at was a11!r3ed by t-e Court o1 /$$eals. .-e# )#!ted States &. Ce#ry, GG> ).S. 26G (1*80+ was dec!ded, a#d t-e de1e#da#t sou,-t retroact!&e a$$l!cat!o# o1 !ts rule to -!s s!tuat!o#. .-!s -abeas rel!e1 was de#!ed at t-e %!str!ct Court le&el, but success1ul !# t-e Court o1 /$$eals. .-e $rosecut!o# was t-e# ,ra#ted cert!orar!. Luest!o#: %oes $ol!ce $la#t!#, a# !#1or3a#t !# a cell co#st!tute !#terro,at!o# w!t-out a lawyer, w-!c- !s barred by Mass!a-/Brewer etc. o#ce ad&ersar!al $roceed!#,s are u#der way< R!le: 2ot so 3uc- a rule as a# a$$l!cat!o# o1 t-e !#terro,at!o# rule. "# t-!s case, t-e court ruled t-at s!#ce t-e !#1or3a#t -ad #ot do#e a#yt-!#,, !t could #ot be a# !#terro,at!o#, s!3$ly because -e was arou#d to -ear w-e# a# outs!de st!3ulus resulted !# t-e co#1ess!o#. R=/SO2"2@: &assiah l!#e o1 cases: Pr!3ary co#cer# o1 &assiah l!#e o1 cases !s secret !#terro,at!o# by !#&est!,atory tec-#!Bues t-at are t-e eBu!&ale#t o1 d!rect $ol!ce !#terro,at!o# C!tes )S &. Ce#ry, a case !# w-!c- t-e !#1or3a#t -ad cult!&ated t-e de1e#da#t0s trust a#d !# 1act act!&ely as5ed -!3 Buest!o#s. "# t-at case, t-e Court -eld t-at !t was !#terro,at!o# w!t-out a lawyer, w-!c- was $ro-!b!ted u#der Mass!a-. C!tes Ma!#e &. Moulto# w-!c- says t-at $ol!ce ca# l!ste# !# o# co#&ersat!o#s !# Mass!aty$e setu$ s!tuat!o#s, but t-at !1 t-ey do, t-e e&!de#ce !s e4cluded6 su$$orts t-e #ot!o# t-at t-!s !s !#terro,at!o# w!t-out a lawyer t-at $ol!ce are co#cer#ed w!t-. % 3ust s-ow t-at t-e $ol!ce a#d t-e!r !#1or3a#t too5 so3e act!o# beyo#d 3erely $ass!&ely l!ste#!#, 2o 6t- /3dt. &!olat!o#: Ct. /$$. was !#correct !# 1!#d!#, t-at t-e $ol!ceKs act!o#s -ere &!olated %Ks 6t- /3dt. r!,-t to cou#sel 'ee at #o t!3e as5ed a#y Buest!o#s but o#ly l!ste#ed to %Ks s$o#ta#eous a#d u#sol!c!ted state3e#ts COMM=2.S: Rule: Pol!ce a#d t-e!r !#1or3a#t 3ust ta5e so3e act!o# beyo#d 3erely l!ste#!#, t-at was des!,#ed del!berately to el!c!t !#cr!3!#at!#, state3e#ts St!ll lea&es o$e# al3ost e&ery case !# w-!c- t-e 1acts are e&e# sl!,-tly d!11ere#t. :-at would -a&e -a$$e#ed !1 !#1or3a#t -ad e4$ressed more sy3$at-y to cult!&ate t-e de1e#da#t be1ore t-e co#1ess!o#< :ould t-at cou#t as el!c!t!#, !#1or3at!o#< Notes: Ob&!ous -y$os: :-at would a# !#1or3a#t -a&e to do to &!olate Mass!a-<

"de#t!1!cat!o# $rocedures
.uesday, 2o&e3ber 1F, 2012 8: G /M

M!sta5e# !de#t!1!cat!o#s were dealt w!t- !# o#e 1ell swoo$ !# 1*6>, !# )#!ted States &. :ade. "t see3ed to reBu!re t-e $rese#ce o1 cou#sel at all $retr!al !de#t!1!cat!o#s. /lt-ou,- t-e !de#t!1!cat!o# !# t-ose cases too5 $lace a1ter de1e#da#t was !#d!cted, t-e Court0s rat!o#ale was#0t $red!cated o# t-at 1act. .-e Court ruled t-at s!#ce !de#t!1!cat!o#s are r!$e 1or u#1a!r#ess, t-ere s-ould always be cou#sel t-ere to ,uard a,a!#st t-at. o .-e#, !# ?!rby &. "ll!#o!s (1*>2+ t-e Court l!3!ted !t to $ost-!#d!ct3e#t !de#t!1!cat!o#s. .-!s led to $ol!ce wa!t!#, to !#d!ct u#t!l a1ter t-e !de#t!1!cat!o# o Unite$ tates ,. Ash: .-e cou#sel at !de#t!1!cat!o# rule $oesnBt appl+ to pict!re i$entification. o But e&e# a1ter /s- a#d ?!rby, a de1e#da#t ca# st!ll c-alle#,e t-e !de#t!1!cat!o# $rocess by s-ow!#, t-at t-e c!rcu3sta#ces ,a&e r!se to so substa#t!al a l!5el!-ood 1or 3!s!de#t!1!cat!o# as to &!olate due $rocess. (%oes t-!s wor5 e&e# w-ere -e !s #ot co#test!#, t-e !de#t!1!cat!o#, l!5e w-e# -e0s !de#t!1!ed a#d t-ey later 1!#d t-e ,u# !# -!s -ouse<+ But t-at0s a -ard case to 3a5e. Ma#so# &. Brat-wa!te: u##ecessar!ly su,,est!&e !de#t!1!cat!o# !s #ot e#ou,- to reBu!re su$$ress!o#, !1 t-e total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces su,,ests t-at t-e !de#t!1!cat!o# $ossessed certa!# 1eatures o1 rel!ab!l!ty. Perry &. 2ew Ca3$s-!re: "t !s o#ly $ol!ce orc-estrated $rocedures t-at are o$e# to due $rocess c-alle#,es, but $r!&ate $rocedures are #ot.

)#!ted States &. :ade ()S 1*6>+

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 1F, 2012 *:0 /M

&acts: So3eo#e robbed a ba#5. :ade a#d two ot-ers were arrested 1or t-e robbery. Cou#sel was a$$o!#ted to re$rese#t :ade. 'ater, :ade was brou,-t out to $art!c!$ate !# a l!#eu$ o1 !# 1ro#t o1 so3e ba#5 e3$loyees. C!s lawyer was #ot #ot!1!ed. .-e two ba#5 e3$loyees bot- !de#t!1!ed -!3 as t-e robber. 'ater, at tr!al, t-e e3$loyees !de#t!1!ed -!3 a,a!#. :ade 3o&ed to str!5e bot- t-e courtroo3 !de#t!1!cat!o# a#d t-e or!,!#al l!#eu$ !de#t!1!cat!o# 1ro3 e&!de#ce, o# t- a#d 6t- /3e#d3e#t ,rou#ds. Aer$ict: Re3a#ded 1or retr!al w!t-out t-!s !de#t!1!cat!o# e&!de#ce. ()s!#, t-e :o#, Su# test w-et-er t-e ot-er e&!de#ce to be used co3es 1ro3 e4$lo!tat!o# o1 t-e !lle,al!ty, or !1 !t was su11!c!e#tly d!st!#,u!s-able to be absol&ed o1 t-e ta!#t.+ R!le: Because o1 t-e da#,ers o1 3!s!de#t!1!cat!o#, cou#sel 3ust always be #ot!1!ed o1 t-e !3$e#d!#, l!#eu$ a#d -a&e t-e r!,-t to be $rese#t 1or !de#t!1!cat!o# $rocedures u#less de1e#da#t wa!&es t-at r!,-t. 9ol$ing: Rationale: M!s!de#t!1!cat!o# $rese#ts ,reat da#,er o1 re#der!#, t-e tr!al u#1a!r, $art!cularly t-rou,- su,,est!o#. )#l!5e ot-er 1or3s o1 e&!de#ce de&elo$3e#t (1ore#s!cs, etc.+, w-!c- ca# be addressed $ost 1acto by t-e attor#ey, !# !de#t!1!cat!o# cases, o#ce t-e w!t#ess !de#t!1!es t-e sus$ect o#ce, t-ere !s #ot-!#, t-at t-e attor#ey ca# do to address t-e !3$ro$r!et!es. O#ce t-e w!t#esses -a&e !de#t!1!ed t-e ,uy o#ce, t-ey are #ot ,o!#, to c-a#,e t-e!r test!3o#y. /#d t-!s test!3o#y, w-!c- esse#t!ally too5 e11ect be1ore t-e tr!al w!ll #ot be susce$t!ble to cross e4a3!#at!o# at t-e t!3e o1 t-e 1!rst !de#t!1!cat!o#. /#d a sus$ect 3!,-t #ot real!;e t-at t-ere are abuses o1 $rocess, a#d e&e# !1 -e does, -e wo#0t wa#t to test!1y, es$ec!ally !1 -e -as $r!or co#&!ct!o#s. 7urt-er3ore, t-e d!sa,ree3e#t at tr!al w!ll be betwee# t-e $ol!ce a#d a sus$ect - w-o w!ll bel!e&e t-e sus$ect<

Notes: .-e court ,!&es e4a3$les o1 t-e su,,est!o# t-at was !#-ere#t !# t-e $rocedures !# @!lbert (co3$a#!o# case+ a#d :ade. "# @!lbert, t-ere were -u#dreds o1 w!t#esses !# o#e roo3, a#d o#ce o#e !de#t!1!ed -!3, clearly t-e ot-ers 3!,-t 1ollow. "# :ade, w!t#esses saw -!3 wal5!#, w!t- $ol!ce be1ore -e was brou,-t !# as $art o1 t-e l!#eu$. %ec!s!o# does #ot address w-et-er re$lace3e#t cou#sel would be adeBuate. Dissent: Courtroo3 !de#t!1!cat!o#s w!t-out $r!or !de#t!1!cat!o# carry 3ore su,,est!o# t-a# t-e $rocedures !# t-!s case a#d #o o#e su,,ests t-at t-ey be d!sallowed. .-e Court lea&es o$e# w-et-er t-e le,!slatures ca# !#st!tute $rocedures t-at would do away w!t- t-e trouble o1 su,,est!o#. So w-y does#0t t-e court Eust ado$t so3e< .-e rule s-ould #ot a$$ly !# cases w-ere t-e attor#ey ca# 1!#d out t-e deta!ls later, sucas w-e# t-ere0s &!deo. .-e Court0s rule w!ll decrease t-e accuracy a#d use1ul#ess o1 !de#t!1!cat!o#s, s!#ce #ow t-e attor#eys w!ll d!ctate -ow t-ey are do#e. .-ey w!ll e#,a,e !# cross-e4a3!#at!o# a#d ,e#erally $ut a 3o#5ey wre#c- !# e&eryt-!#,.

?!rby &. "ll!#o!s (1*>2+

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 1F, 2012 *:2* /M

&acts: / 1ellow #a3ed S-ard re$orted a robbery. 'ater, $ol!ce !#de$e#de#tly sto$$ed ?!rby a#d as5ed -!3 1or "%. ?!rby $ulled out a wallet t-at -ad S-ard0s t-!#,s !# !t. Ce was arrested. 'ater, t-ey co3$ared records a#d 1ou#d t-at S-ard -ad re$orted t-e robbery. .-ey brou,-t S-ard !#to t-e stat!o#, a#d as soo# as -e saw t-e sus$ects -e !de#t!1!ed t-e3 as t-e robbers. 2o r!,-ts -ad bee# read, #or -ad a#yo#e -!red a lawyer. R!le: .-e r!,-t to cou#sel o#ly attac-es w-e# ad&ersar!al Eud!c!al $roceed!#,s be,!#. /d&ersar!al Eud!c!al $roceed!#,s be,!#, 1or $ur$oses o1 r!,-t to cou#sel at !de#t!1!cat!o#, at t-e t!3e o1 1or3al c-ar,e, $rel!3!#ary -ear!#,, !#d!ct3e#t, !#1or3at!o#, or arra!,#3e#t. 9ol$ing: Notes: Court d!st!#,u!s-es =scobedo say!#, t-at o&er t-ere !t was a t- /3e#d3e#t !ssue, a#d t-at =scobedo -ad a#yway bee# l!3!ted to !ts 1acts, a#d !t was #ot s!3!lar to t-!s case. Dissent: Ma5es t-e ob&!ous $o!#t t-at !t !s r!d!culous to d!11ere#t!ate betwee# t-!s case a#d :ade, s!3$ly based o# t-e 1act t-at :ade -ad bee# !#d!cted. .-!s was Eust as susce$t!ble to t-e Hsu,,est!o#H !ssues !# :ade.

%ue $rocess !# !de#t!1!cat!o#

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 1F, 2012 *: 1 /M

=&e# w-ere a :ade/@!lbert ar,u3e#t about t-e r!,-t to cou#sel !s #ot a&a!lable, Sto&all &. %e##o s-ows t-at de1e#da#t ca# 3a5e a :ue ,rocess ar,u3e#t !1 t-e $rocedure Hwas so u##ecessar!ly su,,est!&e a#d co#duc!&e to !rre$arable 3!sta5e# !de#t!1!cat!o# t-at -e was de#!ed due $rocess o1 law.H Sto&all was sus$ected o1 attac5!#, Mrs. Be-re#dt a#d s-e was !# cr!t!cal co#d!t!o# about to ,o !#to sur,ery !# t-e -os$!tal. Sto&all was brou,-t to -er roo3 -a#dcu11ed a3o#, $ol!ce o11!cers. Ce was t-e o#ly blac5 $erso# !# t-e roo3. Mrs. Be-re#dt !de#t!1!ed -!3 a1ter be!#, as5ed !1 -e was t-e 3a#. .-e Court ruled t-at u#der t-e c!rcu3sta#ces !t was reaso#able 1or t-at !de#t!1!cat!o# $rocedure to ,o 1orward, because #o o#e 5#ew !1 t-e &!ct!3 would l!&e a#d s-e could #ot &!s!t t-e Ea!l. .-ere1ore, t-ey d!d t-e best t-at t-ey could.

Note: .-e !#Bu!ry see3s to be 1!rst w-et-er !t was u##ecessary, a#d t-e# !#to w-et-er !t was u#rel!able, or at least u#Eust!1!ed u#der t-e c!rcu3sta#ces. " ,uess !t0s w-at t-ey call a #o#b!1urcated test6 !# t-e se#se t-at !1 !t0s 3oderately rel!able, t-at 3!,-t Eust!1y e3$loy!#, !t de$e#d!#, o# t-e #ecess!ty, w-ereas !1 !t0s #ot rel!able at all, !t could #e&er be Eust!1!ed. "t also see3s to be a# !3$oss!bly -!,- bar to reac-.

Ma#so# &. Brat-wa!te (1*>>+

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 1F, 2012 *: > /M

&acts: @lo&er, a blac5 u#derco&er $ol!ce o11!cer, -ad $urc-ased -ero!# 1ro3 a dealer. Ce descr!bed t-e dealer to a#ot-er o11!cer. .-e ot-er o11!cer se#t @lo&er a s!#,le $!cture o1 t-e de1e#da#t, a#d @lo&er !de#t!1!ed !t w-!le -e was alo#e !# -!s o11!ce. Ce t-e# test!1!ed at t-e tr!al t-at t-ere was #o doubt t-at de1e#da#t was t-e sa3e $erso#. 2ot-!#, !# t-e record addressed w-y ot-er !de#t!1!cat!o# $rocedures l!5e a# array o1 $!ctures or a real l!#eu$ were#0t used. .-e $ol!ce co#ceded t-at t-e $rocedure was u##ecessary a#d su,,est!&e. G!estion: S-ould t-e Court 1ollow t-e Sto&all rule a#d e4clude t-e e&!de#ce as u##ecessary a#d su,,est!&e, or !s t-ere roo3 1or $rocedures t-at -a&e Hcerta!# 1eatures o1 rel!ab!l!tyH based o# t-e total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces< R!le: Rel!ab!l!ty !s t-e l!#c-$!# !# deter3!#!#, t-e ad3!ss!b!l!ty o1 !de#t!1!cat!o# test!3o#y. .-e 1actors !#clude (1+ t-e o$$ortu#!ty o1 t-e w!t#ess to &!ew t-e cr!3!#al at t-e t!3e o1 t-e cr!3e, (2+ .-e w!t#ess0s de,ree o1 atte#t!o#, (F+ t-e accuracy o1 -!s $r!or descr!$t!o# o1 cr!3!#al(G+ t-e le&el o1 certa!#ty de3o#strated at t-e co#1ro#tat!o# ( + t-e t!3e betwee# t-e cr!3e a#d t-e co#1ro#tat!o# 9ol$ing: 1. @lo&er test!1!ed t-at -e stood at t-e door 1or two to t-ree 3!#utes w!t-!# two 1eet o1 sus$ect. 2. @lo&er was a tra!#ed $ol!ce o11!cer w-o set out to ,et t-!s 3a#, so -e $a!d atte#t!o#. F. .-e descr!$t!o# was ,!&e# to a#ot-er o11!cer !33ed!ately a#d was accurate. G. @lo&er was certa!# t-at -e was correct about t-e !de#t!1!cat!o#. . .-e descr!$t!o# was ,!&e# to a#ot-er o11!cer 3!#utes later, a#d t-e !de#t!1!cat!o# too5 $lace o#ly a cou$le days later. .-ere1ore, !# t-e total!ty o1 c!rcu3sta#ces test, t-!s e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble. Note: .-e court ,a&e t-ree !#terests to we!,- 1or t-e u##ecessary a#d su,,est!&e restr!ct!o#. .-e e&!de#ce ca# be u#rel!able .o deter $ol!ce 1ro3 do!#, t-ese t-!#,s .-e e11ect o# ad3!#!strat!o# o1 Eust!ce. Dissent:

Perry &. 2ew Ca3$s-!re (2012+

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 1F, 2012 10:16 /M Facts of the Case 2arion 6erry is in prison for brea!ing into a car in )--@. =ubia 2landon told =ashua, =.<., police that she observed 6erry from her apartment window ta!ing things out of a par!ed car. When as!ed who the perpetrator was, she pointed at 6erry, who had been apprehended and was standing with a police officer. +ater, she could not pic! him out of a photo lineup or describe him to police. A second witness identified 6erry from the photo lineup. 6erry filed a motion to suppress the photo identification because it was "unnecessarily suggestive" that he was a criminal. 7he =ew <ampshire 0upreme 'ourt upheld his conviction. Question *o the *ue 6rocess protections against unreliable identification evidence apply to all identifications made under suggestive circumstances1

Rule: =o. 7he rule against unnecessary and suggestive identifications only applies in cases of police misconduct. Holding: 0ince in this case, the police didn&t orchestrate anything, they ust as!ed the witness who had done it, the restrictions of 0tovall that are discussed in 2rathwaite are not relevant. Legal provision: *ue 6rocess =o. With Bustice 3uth 2ader Ginsburg writing for the ma ority, the 0upreme 'ourt held that the due process clause does not require a preliminary udicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitnessK identification unless the identification was procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances, arranged or compelled b% law enforcement. 7he 'ourt further stated that the 'onstitution does not protect a defendant against a conviction based on questionable evidence by not prohibiting introduction of the evidence, but by allowing a defendant to persuade the ury that the evidence should not be believed. 7herefore, *ue 6rocess will only prohibit the introduction of evidence when inclusion of the evidence is so extremely unfair that its inclusion would violate fundamental concepts of ustice. 7he 'ourt also re ected 6erry&s argument that eyewitnesses are uniquely unreliable, and emphasiAed that the fallibility of eyewitness identification does not warrant a due process ruling requiring a trial court to screen evidence for reliability, unless there was improper state conduct. Bustice 'larence 7homas filed a concurring opinion. Bustice 7homas wrote separately because he would not have extended 0tovall v. *enno, and subsequent related case law, which premised substantive due process rights on notions of fundamental fairness. %nstead he believed that the *ue 6rocess 'lause is not a general guarantee against unfairness but rather only a guarantee of process before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property. Dissent' +oto#a!orD it is not merely the act of suggestion, which creates a due process problem, but rather the effect of an act of suggestion on the reliability of a resulting identification. 0he maintained that the court&s ruling would draw a distinction between intentionally suggestive conduct and inadvertently suggestive conduct, either of which could lead to the same unfair result. Notes: *oes this shift from a reliability issue to a police responsibility issue1 7here are always reliability issues from suggestion, as the dissent notes in Wade 5 courtroom identifications haven&t been challenged. %s the new paradigm rooted in deterrence of police misconduct only1

State &. Ce#derso# (2A 2011+

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 1F, 2012 1:16 PM

Please 1!ll !# deta!ls. "# t-!s case, t-e 2ew Aersey Su$re3e Court !#st!tuted #ew reBu!re3e#ts 1or !de#t!1!cat!o# $rocedures, because t-e e3$!r!cal e&!de#ce su,,ested t-at t-e test!3o#y was #ot as accurate as $eo$le assu3e. Pe#rod says !# class t-at t-!s !s t-e 3ost ad&a#ced dec!s!o# o# t-e !ssues o1 eyew!t#ess !de#t!1!cat!o#. .-e Court as5ed 1or test!3o#y o# t-e !ssue o1 eyew!t#ess !de#t!1!cat!o#. Pe#rod says t-at Eury !#struct!o#s to 3!t!,ate t-e e11ects o1 wro#,1ul !de#t!1!cat!o# 3!,-t #ot wor5, but -e does#0t 5#ow e#ou,- about !t to $ass Eud,3e#t. Ce s-ows sl!de o1 t-e t-!#,s t-at a11ect rel!ab!l!ty o1 w!t#esses 3e3ory. 2otes t-at $ost test co#1!de#ce -as a s3all correlat!o# w!t- accuracy, but $re-test co#1!de#ce -as #o correlat!o# w!t- accuracy. Pe#rod says t-at attor#eys 1a!l to real!;e t-at w-e# so3eo#e !s 2O. !de#t!1!ed, !t0s d!a,#ost!c o1 !##oce#ce. So w-e# t-ere are 1!&e w!t#esses a#d two ca#0t !de#t!1y t-e $er$etrator, a#d t-ree ca#, t-e two t-at ca#0t 3a5e !t $robable t-at t-e ot-ers are 3!sta5e#. .-!#,s t-at $ol!ce s-ould be do!#, t-at t-ey are #ot: o 2ot recall!#, 1!ller !de#t!1!cat!o#s o 2ot recall!#, #o#-"%s by ot-er w!t#esses o 2ot record!#, w!t#ess co#1!de#ce

S!#ce so 3a#y $eo$le $lead out, a#d !##oce#t $eo$le are less l!5ely to $lead out, by t-e t!3e a case ,oes to tr!al, al3ost -al1 o1 t-e de1e#da#ts 3!,-t be !##oce#t. /1ter a 3aEor 3!s!de#t!1!cat!o# case !# t-e )?, a rule was su,,ested t-at a case could #e&er arr!&e at a ,u!lty &erd!ct u#less t-ere was so3e corroborat!#, e&!de#ce !# add!t!o# to t-e eyew!t#ess !de#t!1!cat!o#. o .-e rule was #ot ado$ted, but $ro1 su,,ests t-at based o# study do#e !# Sacra3e#to, about 6T o1 cases would be lost !1 t-at rule were ado$ted. o ("1 t-!s !s true, t-e# w-at $erce#ta,e o1 t-!s 3!s!de#t!1!cat!o# cases -ad corroborat!#, e&!de#ce<+ o (/lso, !t would clear cr!3!#al doc5ets !# a -urry, s!#ce u$ to -al1 t-e cases t-at ,o to tr!al are $eo$le w-o are !##oce#t a#d would be ruled out at t-e e&!de#ce sta,e u#der t-!s rule.+

)#!ted States &. Ao#es (1st C!r. 2012+

.-ursday, %ece3ber 1F, 2012 :G> PM

2O. t-e @PS caseO &acts: / de1e#da#t -ad bee# 1ou#d ,u!lty based !# lar,e $art o# a w!t#ess !de#t!1!cat!o#. Ce cla!3ed t-at !t was u##ecessar!ly su,,est!&e a#d co#duc!&e to !rre$arable 3!sta5e# !de#t!1!cat!o# t-at !t s-ould -a&e bee# e4cluded. Ce also cla!3ed t-at -e s-ould -a&e bee# e#t!tled to -a&e %r. Pe#rod test!1y about !de#t!1!cat!o# s-ortco3!#,s. .-e tr!al Eud,e d!d#0t allow t-e e4$ert test!3o#y, but !#structed t-e Eury based o# so3e o1 Pe#rod0s $r!#c!$les. Luest!o#: d!d t-e ad3!ss!o# o1 a s!#,le-$-oto !de#t!1!cat!o# &!olate t-e de1e#da#t0s r!,-t to due $rocess< %!d t-e Eud,e0s re1usal to allow %r. Pe#rod to test!1y &!olate t-e de1e#da#t0s r!,-ts< R!le: =&!de#ce t-at !s u##ecessar!ly su,,est!&e ca# st!ll be allowed !# !1 t-e ,o&er#3e#t $ro&es t-at !t !s rel!able. / Eud,e -as d!scret!o# w-et-er to allow a# e4$ert w!t#ess l!5e %r. Pe#rod or to e3$loy -!s !deas !# Eury !#struct!o#s !#stead. 9ol$ing: !# t-!s case, t-e lower court -ad 1ou#d as a 3atter o1 1act t-at t-e !#1or3at!o# was rel!able a#d correctly a$$l!ed t-e law. 7urt-er3ore, t-e lower court !#cor$orated t-e $r!#c!$les o1 %r. Pe#rod !#to Eury !#struct!o#s, so t-ere was #o cla!3 o1 !#Eust!ce based o# t-e 1a!lure to ad3!t -!3 as a w!t#ess. 2ote: "#ter$rets t-e Brat-wa!te rule as :-e# t-e "% $rocedure was su,,est!&e, t-e ,o&er#3e#t -as t-e burde# o1 $ro&!#, t-at !t !s st!ll rel!able. .-e# adds t-e 1!&e 1actors we!,-!#, rel!ab!l!ty. .-e burde# o1 $roo1, t-ou,-, !s #ot e4$l!c!tly !# Brat-wa!te.

.-e r!,-t to cou#sel, tra#scr!$ts a#d ot-er a!ds

.uesday, 2o&e3ber 20, 2012 10:2G PM

.-e r!,-t to cou#sel, tra#scr!$ts a#d ot-er a!ds - $o&erty, eBual!ty, a#d t-e ad&ersar!al syste3

Powell &. /laba3a: .-e r!,-t to be -eard !s t-e sa3e as t-e r!,-t to be -eard by cou#sel, e3$loyed by a#d a$$ear!#, 1or -!3. (.-!s was t-e case !# w-!c- t-e blac5 5!ds !# /laba3a were accused o1 ra$!#, a w-!te ,!rl. 'ocal cou#sel was #ot ,o!#, to -a$$e#, a#d

t-e!r cou#sel t-at ca3e 1ro3 t-e east coast was o#ly ,!&e# a day to $re$are 1or tr!al. .-e court ruled t-at !t was #ot 3ea#!#,1ul re$rese#tat!o#+ o .-!s actually was tal5!#, about t-e r!,-t to -!re cou#sel, #ot cou#sel 1or !#d!,e#t, but !t beca3e t-e 1ou#dat!o# o1 t-e later court a$$o!#ted lawyer. o H.-e 1!rst 3aEor Su$re3e Court d!scuss!o# o1 t-e co#st!tut!o#al r!,-t to cou#sel ca3e !# !owell v. #labama, a 1*F2 rul!#, t-at co#s!dered t-e r!,-ts o1 de1e#da#ts botto ut!l!;e deta!#ed cou#sel a#d to be $ro&!ded w!t- court a$$o!#ted cou#sel. !owell was #ot !tsel1 a S!4t- /3e#d3e#t case. "t !#&ol&ed a state $rosecut!o# a#d was dec!ded u#der t-e t-e# $re&a!l!#, S1u#da3e#tal 1a!r#essR !#ter$retat!o# o1 7ourtee#t/3e#d3e#t due $rocess. 2o#et-eless, !t -as -ad co#t!#u!#, s!,#!1!ca#ce !# t-e !#ter$retat!o# o1 t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t. H Powell d!scussed at le#,t- w-y t-!s was a &!olat!o# o1 due $rocess. .-e Court sa!d t-at e&e# !1 t-e de1e#da#t were u#able to $rocure cou#sel, t-e 1a!lure o1 t-e Court to $ro&!de !t was l!5ew!se a &!olat!o# o1 due $rocess. .-e Powell Court we#t o# to say t-at !t would #ot d!scuss ot-er cases, but !# capital cases, t-e r!,-t to cou#sel 3ea#t t-e r!,-t to cou#sel t-at -as t-e ab!l!ty u#der t-e c!rcu3sta#ces to $ro&!de 3ea#!#,1ul re$rese#tat!o#, #ot a$$o!#ted !# a s!tuat!o# w-ere 3ea#!#,1ul re$rese#tat!o# was !3$oss!ble. o 2ote: Powell &. /bra-a3 was a state court case, a#d was dec!ded u#der 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t due $rocess rat-er t-a# S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel, w-!c- -ad#0t bee# !#cor$orated yet. Ao-#so# &. Derbst: 7ederal Courts 3ust $ro&!de cou#sel !# all serious criminal cases. Betts &. Brady: Peo$le -ad e4$ected t-e Court to read t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t due $rocess reBu!re3e#t to 3a5e state courts $ro&!de cou#sel !# all cases. But !#stead, t-e Court sa!d t-at t-e de1e#da#t #eeded to $ro&e t-at t-ere were special circumstances t-at H$reEud!cedH t-e case a,a!#st -!3, !.e. t-at t-ere was so3e reaso# w-y t-e de1e#da#t was u#!Buely !#ca$able o1 de1e#d!#, -!3sel1. Blac5 d!sse#ted &!,orously !# Betts, w-!c- stood 1or 21 years. But t-e#, !# @!deo# &. :a!#wr!,-t, Blac5 wrote t-e o$!#!o# o&ertur#!#, Betts, a#d a$$ly!#, t-e r!,-t to cou#sel to all cr!3!#al cases, e&e# !# state court. o But e&e# @!deo# le1t 3a#y Buest!o#s o$e#. :-e# does t-e r!,-t to cou#sel be,!#< :-e# does !t e#d< Be1ore or a1ter a$$eals< :-at 5!#ds o1 cr!3!#al cases are co&ered< /r,ers!#,er &. Ca3l!#, Scott &. "ll!#o!s: /ctual !3$r!so#3e#t test - cou#sel 3ust be a$$o!#ted !# cases t-at could lead to actual !#carcerat!o#, e&e# s-ort !#carcerat!o#. /laba3a &. S-elto#: %oes t-e r!,-t to a$$o!#ted cou#sel a$$ly !# cases w-ere !3$r!so#3e#t !s de1erred a#d de1e#da#t !s $laced o# $robat!o#< .-e a#swer was yes.

Betts &. Brady (1*G2+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 26, 2012 10:0 /M Facts of the Case 2etts was indicted for robbery in 8aryland. An indigent, he was unable to afford counsel and requested one be appointed for him. 7he udge in the case denied the request, and 2etts subsequently pled not guilty while maintaining he had a right to counsel and arguing his own defense. Question

*oes denying a request for counsel for an indigent defendant violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which embraces the defendant&s right to counsel guaranteed by the 0ixth Amendment1 Rule: 0tates are not required to provide counsel for indigent defendants, unless there are special circumstances that ma!e the defendant unable to represent himself. 7he 0ixth Amendment right to counsel requires only that they not be denied their own hired counsel. Conclusion =o. 7he 'ourt ruled that the previously discovered right to counsel provided by the fourteenth amendment does not compel states to provide counsel to any defendant. Bustice ;wen 3oberts& opinion asserted that the right to counsel merely prevented the state from interfering in a defendantKs request for representation rather than requiring a state to offer counsel. 7he court implied that in order to require counsel, the defendant would need to be at a disadvantage because of the lac! of counsel, presumably either because he was not intelligent or because of the circumstances of the case. Notes: 'ourt says at the outset that the 0ixth Amendment is not entirely incorporated into the Fourteenth. *istinguishes 6owell v. Alabama because it was a murder case in a state that required appointment of counsel, and yet counsel was not provided. 'ourt notes that li!e most 8aryland trials, this was not a ury trial, and udges are better equipped to discern the truth than uries are when there are no lawyers."TT$ Dissent: 'ites 6owell case to say that the right to counsel is fundamental. 6oints out that defendant was uneducated. %t is impossible to arrive at the truth when the suspect has been denied counsel.

@!deo# &. :a!#wr!,-t (1*6F+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 26, 2012 10:1* /M Facts of the Case Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for brea!ing and entering. <e lac!ed funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trialI he was convicted by a ury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison. Question *id the state court&s failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the 0ixth and Fourteenth Amendments1 Rule: 7he 0ixth Amendment requires that anyone who is charged with a crime and cannot afford a lawyer be provided with one. Decision: 9 votes for Gideon, - vote"s$ against Legal provision: 3ight to 'ounsel %n a unanimous opinion, the 'ourt held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court5 appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its (9:) decision of 2etts v. 2rady. %n this case the 'ourt found that the 0ixth Amendment&s guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the *ue 6rocess 'lause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bustice 2lac! called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. 7hose familiar with the American system of ustice, commented 2lac!, recogniAed that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries." Notes: 'ourt specifically points out that Gideon was able to conduct the trial as well as any layman. 'ourt compares the resources spent on prosecuting defendants. 'ourt says that in fact, 6owell decision was correct in saying that the right to a ury is a fundamental right. "2etts was an anachronism when it was handed down." Concurrence (Clar7): 'onstitution doesn&t distinguish between capital and other cases, in fact, life and liberty are placed together. Concurrence (Harlan): 2etts is entitled to a more respectful burial. 6owell case was narrow and left room for exceptions, and 2etts was a valid attempt to set a standard for special circumstances to be proved.

2otes 1ro3 class: @!deo# was brea5!#, a#d e#ter!#, w!t- !#te#t to co33!t a 3!sde3ea#or. /lt-ou,- !t was a 3!#or c-ar,e, -e ,ot 1!&e years. .-e &erd!ct could -a&e bee# o&ertur#ed o# s$ec!al

c!rcu3sta#ces, w-!c- courts -ad bee# 1!#d!#, all o&er t-e $lace !# t-e wa5e o1 Betts, but !#stead t-ey re&ersed Betts &oc!1erously. .-e Court co#cluded t-at t-ere was a r!,-t to cou#sel a#d t-e 6t- /3e#d3e#t was 1u#da3e#tal to a 1a!r tr!al. (By 1*62, t-ere were 22 state attor#ey ,e#erals w-o 1!led a3!cus br!e1s o# @!deo#0s be-al1. =&ery Eud,e , says Pro1, wa#ts to -a&e lawyers re$rese#t t-e $eo$le w-o a$$ear !# 1ro#t o1 t-e3.+ @!deo# le1t 3a#y Buest!o#s o$e#. :-at cases s-ould !t a$$ly to< /t w-at sta,e !# t-e $roceed!#,s do you #eed cou#sel< %u#ca# &. 'ou!s!a#a ca3e dow# arou#d t-e3, say!#, t-at cr!3es t-at !#&ol&e s!4 3o#t-s or 3ore reBu!re a Eury6 !s t-!s t-e sa3e t-!#, - t-e r!,-t to cou#sel attac-es !# cases t-at !#&ol&e s!4 3o#t-s or 3ore< :-y s-ould t-e r!,-t to a Eury tr!al attac- at cr!3es o1 s!4 3o#t-s or 3ore, but t-e r!,-t to cou#sel s-ould attac- at a d!11ere#t t!3e< o So3eo#e says, a#d $ro1 a,rees, t-at t-e r!,-t to cou#sel 3a5es t-e $rocess 3ore 1a!r a#d 3ore rel!able. "1 you do#0t -a&e eBual $art#ers !# co#1l!ct w!t- eac- ot-er, t-e result !s called !#to Buest!o#. Could !t be de$e#de#t o# w-et-er t-e cr!3e !s a 1elo#y< .-at would lead to d!11!culty ad3!#!ster!#, because t-e de1!#!t!o# !s d!11ere#t !# eac- state.

/laba3a &. S-elto# (2002+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 26, 2012 10:2> /M

&acts of the Case 'ereed S-elto# re$rese#ted -!3sel1 !# a# /laba3a C!rcu!t Court cr!3!#al tr!al. .-e court war#ed S-elto# about t-e d!11!cult!es t-at sel1-re$rese#tat!o# e#ta!led, but at #o t!3e o11ered -!3 ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel at state e4$e#se. )lt!3ately, S-elto# was co#&!cted o1 3!sde3ea#or assault a#d se#te#ced to a F0-day Ea!l ter3, w-!c- t-e tr!al court sus$e#ded, $lac!#, S-elto# o# two years0 u#su$er&!sed $robat!o#. S-elto# a$$ealed o# S!4t/3e#d3e#t ,rou#ds. .-e /laba3a Su$re3e Court re&ersed S-elto#0s sus$e#ded Ea!l se#te#ce, reaso#!#, t-at ).S. Su$re3e Court0s dec!s!o#s !# /r,ers!#,er &. Ca3l!#, G0> ).S. 2 , a#d Scott &. "ll!#o!s, GG0 ).S. F6>, reBu!re $ro&!s!o# o1 cou#sel !# a#y $etty o11e#se, 3!sde3ea#or, or 1elo#y $rosecut!o#, Ht-at actually leads to !3$r!so#3e#t e&e# 1or a br!e1 $er!od.H .-e court co#cluded t-at, because a de1e#da#t 3ay #ot be !3$r!so#ed abse#t $ro&!s!o# o1 cou#sel, S-elto#0s sus$e#ded se#te#ce could #e&er be act!&ated a#d was t-ere1ore !#&al!d. G!estion %oes t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to a$$o!#ted cou#sel, as de1!#ed !# /r,ers!#,er &. Ca3l!#, G0> ).S. 2 , a#d Scott &. "ll!#o!s, GG0 ).S. F6>, a$$ly to a de1e#da#t w-o was se#te#ced to a sus$e#ded se#te#ce< R!le: / sus$e#ded se#te#ce t-at -as t-e c-a#ce o1 result!#, !# $r!so# t!3e 1or &!olat!o#s 3ay #ot be !3$osed w!t-out cou#sel. Pr!so# 3ay #ot be !3$osed 1or $robat!o# &!olat!o#s !# cases w-ere t-e !#!t!al cr!3!#al -ear!#, d!d #ot allow 1or cou#sel. Decision: &otes 1or S-elto#, G &ote(s+ a,a!#st *egal pro,ision: R!,-t to Cou#sel Ies. "# a -G o$!#!o# del!&ered by Aust!ce Rut- Bader @!#sbur,, t-e Court -eld, accord!#, to /r,ers!#,er, t-at a sus$e#ded se#te#ce t-at 3ay He#d u$ !# t-e actual de$r!&at!o# o1 a $erso#0s l!bertyH 3ay #ot be !3$osed u#less t-e de1e#da#t was accorded Ht-e ,u!d!#, -a#d o1 cou#selH !# t-e $rosecut!o# 1or t-e cr!3e c-ar,ed. .-e Court reaso#ed t-at, because t-e !#&ocat!o# o1 t-e sus$e#ded !#carcerat!o# would co#st!tute a $r!so# ter3 !3$osed 1or t-e assault o11e#se o1 w-!c- de1e#da#t was co#&!cted w!t-out t-e ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel, t-e

Co#st!tut!o# reBu!red t-e $ro&!s!o# o1 cou#sel. Aust!ce /#to#!# Scal!a, w!t- w-o3 C-!e1 Aust!ce :!ll!a3 C. Re-#Bu!st a#d Aust!ces /#t-o#y M. ?e##edy a#d Clare#ce .-o3as Eo!#ed, d!sse#ted. Aust!ce Scal!a ar,ued t-at t-e Court0s $r!or dec!s!o#s e3$-as!;ed actual !3$r!so#3e#t as t-e touc-sto#e o1 e#t!tle3e#t to a$$o!#ted cou#sel. Class #otes: /laba3a &. S-elto#: Sus$e#ded se#te#ce - s-ould t-ere be cou#sel w-e# t-ere !s t-e t-reat o1 !3$r!so#3e#t. o /laba3a ar,ued t-at t-ere was #o $r!so#, so t-ere s-ould#0t be a cou#sel reBu!re3e#t. But t-e court obser&ed t-at t-e $robat!o# re&ocat!o# $roceed!#, !s #ot d!scuss!#, t-e or!,!#al cr!3e, !t0s Eust about t-e &!olat!o# o1 $robat!o#, a#d !t does#0t -a&e t-e sa3e due $rocess reBu!re3e#ts, a#d based o# t-at, t-e ,uy 3!,-t e#d u$ ,o!#, to Ea!l. o ("t could also -a&e !33!,rat!o# co#seBue#ces, s!#ce $eo$le ca# be de$orted 1or &!olat!o#s o1 3!sde3ea#ors.+ o Pro1 #otes t-at t-ere were two cases t-at /laba3a c!ted, a case w-ere a# u#cou#seled co#&!ct!o# t-at led to a -!,-er se#te#ce later o#. (2!c-ols+ a#d

Court starts out by say!#, t-at @!deo# le1t Buest!o#s o$e# about 3!sde3ea#ors a#d lesser $e#alt!es. Argersinger ,. 9a"lin dealt w!t- a co#cealed wea$o# case. .-e 7lor!da Su$re3e Court -ad sa!d t-at t-e r!,-t to cou#sel a$$l!ed o#ly to #o#-$etty o11e#ses w!t- 3ore t-a# s!4 3o#t-s !3$r!so#3e#t. But t-e Su$re3e Court sa!d t-at w-!le t-ere !s so3e $recede#t 1or l!3!t!#, t-e r!,-t to Aury .r!al 1or less t-a# s!4 3o#t-s !3$r!so#3e#t, t-ere !s #o suc$recede#t re,ard!#, t-e r!,-t to cou#sel. .-ere1ore t-ere !s a r!,-t to cou#sel !# suc- cases - 2o $erso# s-all be !3$r!so#ed 1or a#y o11e#se u#less -e was re$rese#ted by cou#sel at -!s tr!al. Aust!ce Powell (Ao!#ed by Re-#Bu!st+ co#curred (#ot to be co#1used w!t- t-e case, Powell &. /bra-a3+ a#d sa!d t-at t-e r!,-t to cou#sel !# suc- cases s-ould be deter3!#ed o# a case by case bas!s. cott ,. Illinois: Scott was c-ar,ed w!t- s-o$l!1t!#, a#d was 1!#ed ] 0. "# t-at case, Re-#Bu!st -eld t-at Ea!l a#d 1!#es are !#-ere#tly d!11ere#t a#d t-ere was #o reBu!re3e#t 1or 3ere 1!#es. Bre##a#, Mars-all a#d Stewart d!sse#ted, e3$-as!;!#, t-at t-e cr!3e !tsel1 was l!able 1or u$ to a year !# $r!so#, w-!c- 3ea#s t-at !# t-!s $er3utat!o#, t-e r!,-t to cou#sel !s #arrower t-a# t-e r!,-t to a Eury tr!al (allowed 1or a#y cr!3e w!t- a $e#alty o&er s!4 3o#t-s+, w-!c- ,oes a,a!#st $recede#t. ("s t-ere so3e d!11ere#ce -ere betwee# e4 a#te a#alys!s o1 t-e $e#alty, a#d e4 $ost a#alys!s o1 t-e result< "t see3s odd t-at e4 $ost a#alys!s would -el$, s!#ce we do#0t 5#ow w-at t-e e11ect o1 -a&!#, #o lawyer 3!,-t be !# ,e#eral. Maybe t-e ,uy $led out because -e could#0t -a&e a lawyer, because -e $led out to less t-a# s!4 3o#t-sP+ Court d!scusses: 2ow t-at /r,e#s!#,er a#d Scott -a&e bee# 3e#t!o#ed, !t #eeds $o!#t!#, out t-at #e!t-er dealt w!t- t-e Buest!o# o1 w-et-er a tr!al court 3ay !3$ose $robat!o# o# a# !#d!,e#t de1e#da#t w-o -as #ot bee# $ro&!ded cou#sel. .-e se#te#ce was actually a F0 day se#te#ce, w-!c- was sus$e#ded !# l!eu o1 two years $robat!o#. .-e Su$re3e Court o1 /laba3a -ad ruled t-at a sus$e#ded se#te#ce d!d 3eet t-e ter3 o1 !3$r!so#3e#t de1!#!t!o# u#der /r,ers!#,er a#d t-ere1ore de1e#da#t was e#t!tled to cou#sel. .-ere1ore, t-e /laba3a Su$re3e Court t-rew out t-e sus$e#ded se#te#ce (a#d by e4te#s!o#, t-e $robat!o#+ but 5e$t t-e rest o1 t-e &erd!ct !#tact, !#clud!#, 1!#es. .-!s led to t-ree $oss!ble results !# t-e

Su$re3e Court: (1+ .-ey could u$-old t-e sus$e#ded se#te#ce as !3$osed but #ot allow !t to be ad3!#!stered, (2+ .-ey could toss t-e sus$e#ded se#te#ce e#t!rely (as d!d t-e /laba3a Court<+ or t-ey could (F+ u$-old t-e w-ole t-!#,, s!#ce t-e or!,!#al se#te#ce was sus$e#ded a#d w!ll #ot ,o !#to e11ect u#less $robat!o# !s &!olated - a $os!t!o# t-at /laba3a aba#do#ed but /3!c! su$$orted. .-e Court !33ed!ately t-rows out /3!c!0s su,,est!o#, s!#ce !t0s t-e u#derly!#, o11e#se t-at tr!,,ers t-e se#te#ce, #ot t-e $robat!o# &!olat!o#. Court d!st!#,u!s-es cases w-ere t-ey allowed e&!de#ce o1 u#cou#seled 3!sde3ea#ors to $lay a role !# se#te#c!#,, a#d w-ere a $robat!o#ary -ear!#, was -eld w!t-out cou#sel. .-e d!11ere#ce was t-at !# t-ose cases, t-e $roceed!#,s were -eld w!t- t-e correct $rocedure a#d le&el o1 cou#sel a#d t-ere1ore 1!t w!t/r,ers!#,er. "# t-!s case, t-e lower courts -o$ed to sal&a,e a &!olat!o# o1 de1e#da#t0s r!,-ts by !3$os!#, a lesser se#te#ce. ("t see3s l!5e t-e debate -ere esse#t!ally !s w-et-er Courts ca# set u$ $lea deals 1or #o Ea!l t!3e w!t-out -ear!#,s a#d cou#sel. /llow!#, t-at would sa&e resources, but would $robably u#leas- t-e $ol!ce a#d $rosecutors !# #ew ways+. Cowe&er, !# t-!s case, were S-elto# to &!olate -!s $robat!o#, -e would 3erely ,et a# !#1or3al -ear!#, w!t-out cou#sel a#d 3!,-t be se#t to $r!so# w!t-out e&er -a&!#, bee# ,!&e# cou#sel. .-at !s a &!olat!o# o1 /r,ers!#,er0s rule. Courts t-at t-!#5 t-!s !s too ,reat a burde# (s!#ce !t ta5es away t-e $oss!b!l!ty o1 $lead!#, out to a&o!d Ea!l t!3e a#d t-e reBu!re3e#t o1 cou#sel+ ca# always resort to $re-tr!al $robat!o#. (2ote: .-!s dec!s!o# see3s to be say!#, t-at t-ey w!ll #ot allow d!scret!o# to t-e $rosecut!o# to ta5e t-e r!,-t away a#d t-e# e#sure t-at e&eryo#e $leads to so3e lower c-ar,e a#d se#te#ce w!t-out e&er ,ett!#, a lawyer.+ .-e Court we!,-s /laba3a0s $ro$osal to se$arate t-e sus$e#ded se#te#ce 1ro3 t-e $robat!o#, !# w-!c- t-ey co#cededly would #ot be allowed to !3$r!so# S-elto#, but would be allowed to !3$ose t-e $robat!o#. "1 S-elto# were to &!olate t-e $robat!o#, t-e /laba3a Court would be l!3!ted to co#te3$t-ty$e e#1orce3e#t a,a!#st -!3, w!t- a 1ull r!,-t to cou#sel. Court re1uses to address t-at $ro$osal, s!#ce !t was#0t ra!sed below. .-ere1ore, t-e rule re3a!#s t-at S-elto# could #ot -a&e rece!&ed a sus$e#ded se#te#ce w!t-out be!#, $ro&!ded a lawyer. Dissent ( calia): 2obody -as bee# !3$r!so#ed, so t-ere ca#0t be a &!olat!o# o1 t-e S!4t/3e#d3e#t. .-e w-ole t-!#, !s based o# s$eculat!o#. .-e Court sa!d t-at later $rocedure would#0t be e#ou,- to 1!t t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t w!t-out e&e# 5#ow!#, w-et-er t-ere w!ll #eed to be a later $rocedure.

Be,!##!#, o1 t-e r!,-t to cou#sel

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 26, 2012 11:0> /M

:-e# does t-e r!,-t to cou#sel be,!#< "s t-!s t-e sa3e 1or =yew!t#ess "% $ur$oses as 1or e&eryt-!#, else< Mass!a- a#d Brewer !#&ol&ed $ost-!#d!ct3e#t act!&!ty, as d!d Mo#teEo. Rot-,ery &. @!lles$!e Cou#ty !#&ol&es a -ear!#, !# 1ro#t o1 a 3a,!strate w!t-out a $rosecutor $rese#t, 1or t-e $ur$oses o1 !#1or3!#, de1e#da#t o1 t-e c-ar,es a#d sett!#, ba!l. .-e Su$re3e Court ruled t-at !t attaches t-e r!,-t to cou#sel but o#ly as #eeded 1or cr!t!cal $roceed!#,s. .-e Court d!d #ot address w-at cr!t!cal $roceed!#,s are. o /l!to0s co#curre#ce !# Rot-,ery ,!&es l!#eu$s as a# e4a3$le o1 a cr!t!cal sta,e, as well as $retr!al !#terro,at!o#, $retr!al $syc-!atr!c e4a3s, a#d certa!# 5!#ds o1 arra!,#3e#ts.

Rot-,ery &. @!ll!s$!e Cou#ty (2008+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 26, 2012 11:08 /M

Facts of the Case Walter 3othgery was arrested in 7exas as a felon in possession of a firearm. 3othgery was ta!en before a udge for processing and, upon learning that see!ing legal assistance would delay the proceedings, waived his 0ixth Amendment right to counsel. =o prosecutor was present at this hearing. 3othgery posted bail and was released, but was rearrested after a grand ury indictment several months later hi!ed his bail to a sum he could not afford. 7hroughout this entire period 3othgery continued to pursue legal counsel and only obtained such counsel approximately one wee! after the grand ury indictment. 3othgery&s attorney almost immediately produced evidence that 3othgery was in fact not a felon and he was released from custody. 3othgery brought a section (9@# suit against Gillespie 'ounty, 7U for violating his civil rights by not appointing counsel as required under the 0ixth Amendment. 2oth the district court and the Fifth 'ircuit re ected his claim, the Fifth 'ircuit stating that 3othgery&s 0ixth Amendment rights were not implicated because no prosecutor was present at the initial hearing. %n his petition for certiorari, 3othgery argued that both federal and state case law indicate that the 0ixth Amendment right to counsel applies to any hearing where a defendant is advised of his rights and the charges against him, regardless of whether or not a prosecutor is present. Question *id the Fifth 'ircuit err in holding that 3othgery&s right to counsel under the 0ixth Amendment was not implicated when he was denied counsel at the time of his initial hearing for being a felon in possession of a firearm but the hearing was conducted without the involvement of a prosecutor1 Decision: @ votes for 3othgery, ( vote"s$ against Legal provision: 3ight to 'ounsel Rule: ;nce the criminal defendant appears before a udge, the proceedings against him have begun, and defendant is entitled to representation at any "critical proceeding" of the trial from that point on. 7he definition of critical proceeding is not expressed. Holding: 'ourt held that a criminal defendant&s initial appearance before a udge mar!s the beginning of the proceedings against him and triggers the defendant&s 0ixth Amendment right to counsel whether or not a prosecutor is aware of or involved in that appearance. 7his right to counsel applies whenever a defendant learns of the charges against him and has his liberty sub ect to restriction. 7he opinion was penned by Bustice *avid 0outer. Bustice 'larence 7homas wrote the only dissent, arguing that the phrase "criminal prosecution" as used in the 0ixth Amendment should not include a defendant&s initial appearance in the absence of a prosecutor. 'hief Bustice Bohn G. 3oberts, oined by Bustice Antonin 0calia, chose to write a concurring opinion pointing out the validity of 7homas& argument but reasoning that 'ourt precedent required him to agree with the ma ority. Bustice 0amuel Alito also filed a concurring opinion, stating that 3othgery&s right to counsel certainly arose at the time of his appearance but reserving udgment on whether the 'ounty&s actions infringed on that right in this case. Notes: *iscussionD 7he 'ourt notes that it has found that prosecution was necessary as part of the determination that proceedings have begun. 2ut it is not true that an actual prosecutor has to be there 5 it is enough that formal proceedings have started. 'ourt cites to 2rewer "'hristian 2urial case$ and Bac!son "overturned in 8onte o case1$ %t would be absurd to lin! inextricably the right to counsel with the prosecutor&s schedule. 'ourt distinguishes Gouveia case, in which prisoners suspected of murder were placed in administrative detention but denied counsel until charges were broughtI in that case there had been no formal udicial proceeding. 7he right to counsel attaches not when formal charges are brought, but when the government has used the udicial machinery to signify that a commitment to prosecute. 'ourt did not pass udgment on whether the delay pre udiced against "criminal defendant who became$ plaintiff in this case, but that he was entitled to counsel. Concurrence (Ro$erts): 3oberts "and 0calia$ li!e 7homas&s originalist argument in dissent, however, 2rewer and Williams are the correct precedent and must be followed. Concurrence (.lito): 7he 'ourt&s opinion can be interpreted as not necessarily allowing the right to counsel as soon as the 0ixth Amendment comes into play. 7herefore, % agree with it. 2ut it&s a very narrow question 5 it addresses the basically semantic point that the proceedings had begun, but does not address whether that entitled 3othgery to a lawyer. Notes fro# class: 3othgery was a West 6oint graduate, who had had some small issue with the law, and wor!ed it out with some !ind of plea deal. 2ut the records were not updated, and still reflected a felony conviction. <e was found to have a gun, and he was brought before a magistrate on charges that he was a felon with a gun. <e as!ed for a lawyer and he was told that he&d have to wait. 0o he said that he&d go ahead, and he was assigned ./! of bail, which he paid. At a later hearing, bail was raised to

.(/!. <e didn&t have a lawyer, and he stayed in ail for three wee!s. As soon as a lawyer was appointed, the lawyer realiAed that he was not guilty of anything, so he sued. <is claim was that if he had gotten counsel earlier, he would have never stayed in ail for so long. 7he argument seems to have been that when there was a prosecutor, there also should have been a lawyer. At the time that there was a magisterial hearing, there wasn&t really a requirement for a lawyer. 7he issue was more complicated 5 at what point along the way should a lawyer have been appointed to investigate what the hell was going on1 ;!ay to clarify, it seems li!e the ma ority believes that the right to counsel attaches, but attachment only means that should a critical situation arise from that point on, that critical situation will require counsel. 2ut what was the critical stage1 7hat is not addressed by the court. o Ca# !t be ar,ued t-at t-!s was #ot a cr!t!cal sta,e< "1 so3eo#e -ad bee# t-ere to say t-at

t-ere was #o cr!3e because t-ere was #o 1elo#y, t-e# -e would -a&e sa&ed a lot o1 trouble.
7homas dissent says that "7he 0ixth Amendment protects against wrongful conviction, not wrongful prosecution". Where is that from and is it true1 %f 3othgery had been wealthy, it is almost unquestionable that he would never have spent any time in prison. 0hould the equality principle from *ouglas and Griffin come into play here1 %n those cases, you couldn&t have an appeal if you couldn&t have a transcript. What about here1 Jou are at a strong disadvantage in bail hearings if you don&t have a lawyer. 2ut you are also at a disadvantage with regard to paying the bail, aren&t you1 6rof says that there was a question in her court whether the government should pay for psychiatrists at sentencing for indigent defendants. Wealthy people often have daily copy 5 the transcript of the trial for that day. %t&s a big helpI should indigent defendants have it too1 /l!to0s co#curre#ce !# Rot-,ery ,!&es l!#eu$s as a# e4a3$le o1 a cr!t!cal sta,e, as well

as $retr!al !#terro,at!o#, $retr!al $syc-!atr!c e4a3s, a#d certa!# 5!#ds o1 arra!,#3e#ts.

@r!11!#-%ou,las =Bual!ty
Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 26, 2012 12:00 PM

.-e :arre# Court0s re&olut!o# !# Cr!3!#al Procedure was sa!d to -a&e started w!t- Ma$$ &. O-!o, but !t started earl!er - w!t- t-e @r!11!# O$!#!o#, -old!#, t-at a# !#d!,e#t de1e#da#t could #ot be de#!ed t-e r!,-t to a$$eal because o1 -!s !#ab!l!ty to $ay 1or a tra#scr!$t. .-!s o$!#!o# s-owed t-at #ot o#ly d!d t-e Co#st!tut!o# bar u#eBual treat3e#t, but !t also reBu!red states to ta5e a11!r3at!&e act!o# to create eBual!ty w-e# t-ere -ad bee# !#eBual!ty. Aust!ce Blac5: H.-ere ca# be #o eBual Eust!ce w-e# t-e 5!#d o1 tr!al a 3a# ,ets de$e#ds o# t-e a3ou#t o1 3o#ey -e -as.H Carla# d!sse#t: Iou are act!#, u#eBually, by $ay!#, 1or so3e w-at you are 1orc!#, ot-ers to $ay 1or t-e3sel&es. @r!11!# was t-eoret!cally reco#c!lable w!t- Betts, !1 !t was read to be l!3!ted to t-e $oss!b!l!ty o1 re&!ew rat-er t-a# t-e Bual!ty (3ea#!#, w!t- a lawyer<+ o1 re&!ew. o Cowe&er, t-e# ca3e t-e %ou,las case below, w-!c- 3ade t-e @r!11!# ar,u3e#t !# t-e ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel co#te4t, a#d at t-at $o!#t Betts was esse#t!ally dead.

%ou,las &. Cal!1or#!a (1*6F+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 26, 2012 12:08 PM

:-at about a$$eals< /re de1e#da#ts e#t!tled to state 1u#ded attor#eys 1or a$$eal as o1 r!,-t<

&acts: .wo de1e#da#ts were tr!ed a#d co#&!cted !# a Cal!1or#!a state court o# 1elo#y c-ar,es !#clud!#, robbery, assault w!t- a deadly wea$o#, a#d assault w!t- !#te#t to co33!t 3urder. / s!#,le $ubl!c de1e#der -ad bee# a$$o!#ted to re$rese#t t-e3 o# t-ese F c-ar,es. .-e attor#ey0s 3ot!o# 1or co#t!#ua#ce at t-e be,!##!#, o1 tr!al was de#!ed, alt-ou,- -e stated t-at -e was #ot as $re$ared as -e s-ould -a&e bee#. .-erea1ter t-e de1e#da#ts d!s3!ssed t-e de1e#der a#d re#ewed 3ot!o#s 1or se$arate cou#sel a#d 1or a co#t!#ua#ce. .-ese 3ot!o#s were also de#!ed. .-e de1e#da#ts were co#&!cted a#d subseBue#tly 1!led a$$eals. =4erc!s!#, t-e!r o#ly r!,-t to a$$eal as o1 r!,-t, t-ey a$$ealed to a# !#ter3ed!ate Court o1 /$$eals (%!str!ct court o1 a$$eal o1 Cal!1or#!a, seco#d a$$ellate d!str!ct+, a#d, be!#, !#d!,e#t, a$$l!ed to !t 1or a$$o!#t3e#t o1 cou#sel to ass!st t-e3 o# a$$eal. "# accorda#ce w!t- a state rule o1 cr!3!#al $rocedure, t-at Court 3ade a# ex parte e4a3!#at!o# o1 t-e record, deter3!#ed t-at a$$o!#t3e#t o1 cou#sel 1or $et!t!o#ers would #ot be Ho1 ad&a#ta,e to t-e de1e#da#t or -el$1ul to t-e a$$ellate courtH a#d de#!ed a$$o!#t3e#t o1 cou#sel. .-e!r a$$eal was -eard w!t-out ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel a#d t-e!r co#&!ct!o#s were a11!r3ed. .-e %!str!ct Court o1 /$$eal a11!r3ed t-e!r co#&!ct!o#s a1ter de#y!#, t-e!r reBuest 1or a$$o!#t3e#t o1 cou#sel u#der a Cal!1or#!a rule o1 cr!3!#al $rocedure aut-or!;!#, suc- de#!al w-ere a1ter a# !#de$e#de#t !#&est!,at!o# o1 t-e record t-e a$$ellate court deter3!#es t-at a$$o!#t3e#t o1 cou#sel would be -el$1ul to #e!t-er t-e de1e#da#t #or t-e court. (18> Cal /$$ 2d 802, 10 Cal R$tr 188.+ .-e Cal!1or#!a Su$re3e Court de#!ed t-e!r $et!t!o#s 1or a d!scret!o#ary re&!ew/-ear!#,. (18> Cal /$$ 2d 81F, 10 Cal R$tr 21G.+ G!estion: /re !#d!,e#t de1e#da#ts e#t!tled to cou#sel o# a$$eals w!t-out $r!or re&!ew by a court to deter3!#e t-e &al!d!ty o1 t-e a$$eal< R!le: Ies, t-e eBual $rotect!o# clause reBu!res t-at !#d!,e#t de1e#da#ts are e#t!tled to at least o#e a$$eal ,ra#ted as a 3atter o1 r!,-t to all de1e#da#ts. O# cert!orar!, t-e Su$re3e Court o1 t-e )#!ted States &acated t-e Eud,3e#t o1 t-e Cal!1or#!a %!str!ct Court o1 /$$eal. "# a# o$!#!o# by %ou,las, A., e4$ress!#, t-e &!ew o1 s!4 3e3bers o1 t-e Court, !t was -eld t-at t-e de#!al o1 cou#sel u#der t-e Cal!1or#!a rule o1 $rocedure stated abo&e &!olated t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t. Celd: :-ere t-e 3er!ts o1 t-e o#e a#d o#ly a$$eal a# !#d!,e#t -as as o1 r!,-t are dec!ded w!t-out be#e1!t o1 cou#sel !# a state cr!3!#al case, t-ere -as bee# a d!scr!3!#at!o# betwee# t-e r!c- a#d t-e $oor w-!c- &!olates t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t. .-e Court -eld t-at a $rocedure l!5e t-e o#e used by t-e state a$$ellate court !# w-!c- a# !#d!,e#t de1e#da#t was de#!ed cou#sel o# a$$eal u#less -e 1!rst 3ade a $rel!3!#ary s-ow!#, o1 3er!t d!d #ot co3$ort w!t- 1a!r $rocedure. "# &acat!#,, t-e Eud,3e#t o1 t-e state a$$ellate court, t-e Court stated t-at w-ere t-e 3er!ts o1 t-e o#e a#d o#ly a$$eal a# !#d!,e#t -ad as o1 r!,-t were dec!ded w!t-out be#e1!t o1 cou#sel, a# u#co#st!tut!o#al l!#e -ad bee# draw# betwee# r!c- a#d $oor. .-e Court &acated t-e Eud,3e#t o1 t-e state a$$ellate court a#d re3a#ded 1or 1urt-er $roceed!#,s co#s!ste#t w!t- t-e Court0s o$!#!o#. Dissent: Clar5 d!sse#ted o# t-e ,rou#d t-at #e!t-er t-e eBual $rotect!o# clause #or t-e due $rocess clause reBu!res 3ore t-a# w-at !s $ro&!ded !# t-e Cal!1or#!a rule. Carla#, A., Eo!#ed by Stewart, A., d!sse#ted o# t-e ,rou#ds t-at t-e eBual $rotect!o# clause d!d #ot create a# a11!r3at!&e duty, a#d t-at t-e due $rocess clause was #ot &!olated. C!s d!sse#t!#, o$!#!o# also -eld t-at t-e de1e#da#ts were #ot de#!ed e11ect!&e ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel !# t-e tr!al court. /$$ellate re&!ew !s #ot reBu!red by t-e co#st!tut!o# .-ere !s #ot-!#, s$ec!al about t-e 1!rst a$$eal as o$$osed to t-e #e4t s!4.

"s !t a# eBual!ty !ssue or a due $rocess !ssue< .-ere are lots o1 t-!#,s t-at r!c- $eo$le -a&e t-at $oor $eo$le do#0t. But !1 !t0s a due $rocess !ssue, t-ere 3!,-t be 3ore reaso# to allow $oor $eo$le to -a&e t-e!r a$$eals 1u#ded by t-e state. @!&es t-e e4a3$le o1 lots o1 areas !# w-!c- t-e ,o&er#3e#t sets $r!ces, a#d wo#ders !1 t-at would &!olate t-e eBual!ty reBu!re3e#t o1 t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t. 2otes about t-e a$$eal !ssue, 1ro3 class: Pro1 says t-at Eud,es 1eel t-at t-ese are Buest!o#s o1 law, ,e#erally, w!t- l!3!ted 1le4!b!l!ty. .-ere1ore, !t0s e#ou,- t-at a Eud,e loo5s !t o&er a#d dec!des w-et-er t-ere s-ould be a# a$$eal. So3e courts w!t- d!scret!o#ary a$$eals -a&e a tr!a,e, w-ere t-ey loo5 at t-e a$$eal, a#d t-ey se#d !t dow# 1or cou#sel !1 !t 3eets a certa!# t-res-old. "s t-e 3aEor!ty say!#, t-at a#y d!11ere#ce betwee# r!c- a#d $oor $eo$le !s s!,#!1!ca#t a#d 3ust be eBual!;ed by t-e state< So3eo#e a#swers t-at #o, !t0s because t-!s a$$eal !s $rocedurally d!11ere#t - t-e Eud,e re&!ews !t be1ore allow!#, t-e a$$eal 1or $oor $eo$le but #ot 1or r!c- $eo$le. /lso, !# t-!s case t-e a$$ellate re&!ew !s #ot Eust 1or error, but 1or error t-at !s !3$orta#t 1or le,al doctr!#e $ur$oses. "#d!,e#t $eo$le do#0t -a&e a Hr!,-tH to t-at. Cow does t-!s co3$are to Ross &. Mo11!t< (!# t-at case, t-ere was#0t a#y $rocedural d!11ere#ce - !t was Eust t-at $oor $eo$le0s a$$eals were #ot 1u#ded, r!,-t<+ /ccess to Eust!ce !ssues - t-e tra#scr!$t case =Bual!ty !ssues - t-e a$$eal Buest!o# Cabeas cases t-at are de#!ed lead to cert!1!cate o1 a$$ealab!l!ty w-!c- see3s to be a tr!a,e l!5e 3ec-a#!s3, does t-at reBu!re cou#sel< "s !t eBual 1or r!c- a#d $oor $eo$le< Pro1 says t-at s!#ce t-ere0s re&!ew 1or bot- r!c- a#d $oor $eo$le, !t0s #ot a# eBual!ty !ssue.

Ross &. Mo11!t (1*>G+

Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 26, 2012 12:1F PM

&acts: 2ort- Carol!#a -as a t!ered a$$ellate syste3, w!t- a# a$$eals court a#d a Su$re3e Court. 2ort- Carol!#a aut-or!;ed a$$o!#t3e#t o1 cou#sel 1or de1e#da#ts a$$eal!#, to !#ter3ed!ate cours o1 a$$eal, but #ot 1or state su$re3e Court or )S Su$re3e Court re&!ew (w-!c- are d!scret!o#ary+. .-ere were two cases -ere, !# o#e t-e de1e#da#t sou,-t state su$re3e court re&!ew, !# t-e ot-er )S Su$re3e Court re&!ew. G!estion: %oes t-e Co#st!tut!o# (based o# %ou,las case+ reBu!re t-at t-e state aut-or!;e a$$eals to Su$re3e Courts< R!le: .-e ,o&er#3e#t 3ay re1use to 1u#d d!scret!o#ary a$$eals to -!,-er courts a#d !t !s #ot a &!olat!o# o1 eBual $rotect!o#. 9ol$ing: Disc!ssion: Re-#Bu!st c!tes @r!11!# case, a#d says t-at !t sta#ds 1or t-e $ro$os!t!o# t-at a state ca##ot arb!trar!ly cut o11 a$$eal r!,-ts 1or !#d!,e#ts w-!le lea&!#, o$e# a&e#ues 1or ot-er $eo$le. %ou,las t-e# sa!d t-at t-e state 3ust also 1u#d t-e attor#ey 1or a$$eals o1 r!,-t. .-at leads to t-!s Buest!o# - s-ould %ou,las be e4te#ded to d!scret!o#ary a$$eals< .-e r!,-ts -a&e bee# see# to co3e 1ro3 e!t-er t-e 7ourtee#t- /3e#d3e#t eBual $rotect!o# or due $rocess. 2e!t-er !s su11!c!e#t o# !ts ow#. .-e %ue $rocess clause o# !ts ow# does #ot reBu!re states to $ro&!de cou#sel o# d!scret!o#ary a$$eals. /1ter t-e &erd!ct !# t-e tr!al court, t-e de1e#da#t ,oes 1ro3 so3eo#e w-o !s $resu3ed !##oce#t to so3eo#e w-o !s#0t. .-e a$$ellate $rocess !s !#!t!ated by t-e de1e#da#t, t-ou,-, !t !s t-e de1e#da#t0s tas5 to u#do t-at $resu3$t!o# o1 ,u!lt. "# !llustrat!o#, t-e state could at !ts o$t!o# #ot $ro&!de a# a$$ellate $rocess at all.

.-e eBual $rotect!o# clause !s $ro3!#e#t !# t-e %ou,las o$!#!o# a#d ot-er cases l!5e !t. Cowe&er, t-ere !s clearly a l!3!t to t-e eBual $rotect!o# clause0s reac-. .-e state does#0t -a&e to act!&ely 3a5e e&eryo#e eBual re,ard!#, e&eryt-!#,. /lt-ou,- !t0s true t-at a lawyer ca# -el$ w!t- d!scret!o#ary a$$eals, suc- a$$eals are rele&a#t also to $ubl!c $ol!cy, a de1e#da#t 3!,-t #ot 3eet t-e sta#dards o1 t-e Court e&e# w!t- a lawyer. .-at a$$l!es to t-e state su$re3e Court a#d to t-e Su$re3e Court e&e# 3ore, s!#ce t-e state law !s #ot w-at ,a&e r!se to t-e )S su$re3e court t-e way !t ,a&e r!se to t-e a$$eal !# %ou,las a#d @r!11!#.

2ature a#d sco$e o1 t-e 7ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#t

Mo#day, Se$te3ber 10, 2012 11:22 /M

.-e 1ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#t added certa!# $rotect!o#s to de1e#da#ts !# state ,o&er#3e#t $roceed!#,s. But or!,!#ally, !t was #ot see# as e#co3$ass!#, t-e e#t!re b!ll o1 r!,-ts, rat-er !t was l!3!ted to 1u#da3e#tal r!,-ts to due $rocess. .-at sa!d, t-e 1ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#t also added 1a!r#ess stu11 t-at t-e or!,!#al b!ll o1 r!,-ts 3ay #ot -a&e co#ta!#ed. %u#ca# &. 'ou!s!a#a %u#ca# was co#&!cted o1 a s!3$le assault a#d se#te#ced to two 3o#t-s !# $r!so#. Ce -ad as5ed 1or a Eury tr!al, a#d was de#!ed !t u#der 'ou!s!a#a law. .-e court 1ou#d t-at t-e 1ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#t ,uara#teed -!3 t-e r!,-t to a Eury tr!al. .-e court -ad a lo#, d!scuss!o# o1 t-e -!story o1 t-e court0s u#dersta#d!#, o1 t-e 1ourtee#ta3e#d3e#t, a#d t-ere was also so3e d!sa,ree3e#t about !t. .-ere was a d!sse#t t-at sa!d t-at t-ere !s #ot-!#, !#-ere#tly u#1a!r about #ot allow!#, Eur!es 1or a 3!#or cr!3e l!5e t-at. %!str!ct attor#ey0s o11!ce &. Osbor#e Osbor#e was co#&!cted o1 5!d#a$$!#, a#d ra$e. Ce wa#ted to ,et a %2/ test, a#d cla!3ed t-at -!s lawyer d!d#0t allow !t because -e assu3ed t-at Osbor#e was ,u!lty. .-e court sa!d t-at -e was #ot e#t!tled u#der t-e co#st!tut!o# to %2/ test!#,, s!#ce !t was a 3atter 1or t-e le,!slature, a#d t-ere were ot-er ways to 1!#d so3eo#e ,u!lty, a#d %2/ test!#, !s #ot a 3a,!c bullet. .-e court also d!scussed w-et-er t-!s e&!de#ce was re,ulated by t-e 0#ewly d!sco&ered e&!de#ce ruleH !# /las5a a#d sa!d t-at t-e e&!de#ce was arou#d all alo#,, a#d -e -ad c-ose# #ot to test !t. .-e a$$eals court -ad d!scussed w-et-er Osbor#e -ad 3et t-e t-res-old 1or a s-ow!#, o1 l!5ely !##oce#ce. Ce -ad #ot s-ow# t-at -!s co#&!ct!o# was based o# eyew!t#esses, t-at t-ere was doubt as to -!s ,u!lt, or t-at t-e e&!de#ce would be co#clus!&e o# t-e !ssue. %!sse#t says t-at t-ere !s #o reaso# 1or t-e state to a&o!d test!#, t-e %2/. "1 -e0s ,u!lty let us 5#ow, a#d !1 -e0s !##oce#t let us 5#ow. Mc%o#ald &. C!ty o1 C-!ca,o .-e Buest!o# was w-et-er t-e seco#d a3e#d3e#t !s ,uara#teed e&e# by state ,o&er#3e#t. C-!ca,o wa#ted to ba# ,u#s, a#d sa!d t-at t-ey were#0t bou#d by t-e seco#d a3e#d3e#t. C!tes tw!#!#, doctr!#e - t-ere was #o ,uara#tee t-at so3et-!#, was !#cor$orated !# t-e 1ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#t. Mo&es o# to later select!&e !#cor$orat!o# - certa!# r!,-ts were.

Court says !t0s clear t-at due $rocess de3a#ds t-at $eo$le -a&e t-e r!,-t to bear ar3s. .-o3as adds t-at !t0s #ot 1ro3 $rocess, but 1ro3 a d!11ere#t clause. "t0s t-e $r!&!le,es or !33u#!t!es clause. Ste&e#s d!sse#ts, say!#, t-at t-ere !s #o !#cor$orat!o# a#d t-at ow#!#, ,u#s !s #ot a 1u#da3e#tal r!,-t.

2otes day 1
Mo#day, Se$te3ber 10, 2012 12:08 PM

Cr!3 $rocedure !s d!&!ded !#to co$s a#d robbers a#d ba!l to Ea!l. 2,a .ruo#, a#d -er !#1a#t so# l!&ed !# :orcester. Ce was u#-ealt-y. Ce was s!c5 o#e day a#d s-e called *11. Soo#, -e d!ed. /lt-ou,- t-ere was so3e e&!de#ce t-at !t was #atural, s-e co#1essed to t-e 5!ll!#,. S-e was arrested. "# !#terro,at!o#, t-e $ol!ce told -er t-at t-ey 5#ew t-e baby -ad bee# s3ot-ered. .-e case ra!ses Buest!o#s about t-e 1!1t- a#d 1ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#ts, t-e d!11ere#ce betwee# 1ederal a#d state co#st!tut!o#al $rotect!o#s a#d t-e e11!cacy o1 t-e re3edy 1or co#st!tut!o#al &!olat!o#s. :-at about a $ost -oc &olu#tar!#ess a#alys!s as o$$osed to a rote rec!tal o1 r!,-ts< 2O.=: :e w!ll #eed to c!te to t-e Massac-usetts co#st!tut!o# o# t-e e4a3. :-at about t-e sco$e o1 t-e s!4t- a3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel< o :-at !s e11ect!&e cou#sel< o :-at !s t-e !3$act o1 $lea bar,a!#!#, o# lawyer!#,, w-e# o&er *0T e#d !# $leas< :-at !s t-e sco$e o1 t-e 1ourt- a3e#d3e#t< Cow 1ar does co#se#t to searc- e4te#d< .-e s!4t- a3e#d3e#t, t-e 1!1t- a3e#d3e#t. :!t- a court a$$o!#ted lawyer, t-e 2,a .ruo#, would -a&e bee# $us-ed to $lea. 7!1t- a3e#d3e#t, e11ect!&e re$rese#tat!o# o1 cou#sel a#d t-e s!4t- a3e#d3e#t all !#teract. "s t-!s about a 1a!r tr!al< Or does !t de1!#e $ol!ce co#duct< Or does !t car&e out a r!,-t to t-e $r!&ac!es o1 l!1e<

/#d -ow do t-ese $rotect!o#s a$$ly to t-e 3oder# world, !#clud!#, tec-#olo,!cal !#1or3at!o# l!5e e3a!l, !#ter#et accou#ts, t-e cloud<

%oes data 3!#!#,, w-!c- !s a#alo,ous !# certa!# ways to a $ol!ce3a# wal5!#, #e4t to you t-e w-ole day, relate at all to t-e b!ll o1 r!,-ts< 7ourt- a3e#d3e#t o .-e r!,-t o1 t-e $eo$le to be secure !# t-e!r $erso#s, -ouses, $a$ers, a#d e11ects o /,a!#st u#reaso#able searc-ed a#d se!;ueres s-all #ot be &!olated o /#d #o warra#ts s-all !ssue but u$o# $robable cause su$$orted by oat- or a11!r3at!o# a#d $art!cularly descr!b!#, t-e $lace to be searc-ed a#d t-e $erso#s or t-!#,s to be se!;ed. :-at about co3$uters< :-at about $eo$le w-o l!&e !# cars< :-at !s u#reaso#able< .-!s see3s to be about $ol!ce co#duct. :-at do we do w-e# t-ey do t-ose t-!#,s< .-e 1!1t- a3e#d3e#t 'oo5s to t-etr!al .-e s!4t- a3e#d3e#t .r!al a,a!#, about t-e ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel .-e 1ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#t )#t!l t-e 1* 0s, t-e law was clear - t-e b!ll o1 r!,-ts d!d #ot a$$ly to t-e states. .-e !#cor$orat!o# doctr!#e ca3e to be a# !ssue.

Pr!&!le,es or !33u#!t!es, a#d t-e l!1e l!berty $ursu!t o1 -a$$!#ess w!t-out due $rocess o1 law. Massac-usetts art!cle 9 Massac-usetts art!cle 9"" Massac-usetts art!cle 9"8 (searc-es a#d se!;ures+ %o t-ese $ro&!s!o#s de1!#e tr!al r!,-ts< '!3!tat!o#s o# $ol!ce co#duct< Or r!,-t to $r!&ac!es o1 l!1e< R!,-t to $erso#al auto#o3y< Or!,!#al 3ea#!#,s a#d curre#t s!tuar!o# o %o t-ese a3e#d3e#ts re1lect o#ly -!stor!cal co#d!t!o#s< :-at about tec-#olo,y< o Cow do t-ese 1ra3ewor5s wor5 !# a #o#$-ys!cal world< .-ere was a ba#5 dec!s!o# years a,o say!#, t-at ba#5s could be sub$oe#aed to tur# t-!#,s o&er, s!#ce t-e $erso# -ad 3ade a c-o!ce to ,!&e t-e !#1or3at!o# out. o %o t-e a3e#d3e#ts add a r!,-t to be le1t alo#e< o If (al"art an$ Target can $o it, can the go,ern"ent $o itJ /re t-e a3e#d3e#ts about rel!ab!l!ty, a&o!d!#, 1alse co#1ess!o#s< Or are t-ey about le,!t!3acy - t-e ,o&er#3e#t s-ould #ot be do!#, t-!s< .o t-e e4te#t t-at we 1ocus o#ly o# 1a!r $rocess, do we lose t-e ab!l!ty to address u#1a!r outco3es< :-at -a&e t-e e4o#erat!o#s s-ow#<

S-ould t-ere be a# e4clus!o#ary rule< :-at !s !ts !3$act<

:-at !s t-e l!#e betwee# c!&!l a#d cr!3!#al< Post !3$r!so#3e#t su$er&!s!o# 1or se4 o11e#ders<Mt-!s !s co#s!dered c!&!l !3$r!so#3e#tN .-e $ol!ce 3ust -a&e $robable cause be1ore t-ey ca# reBu!re a car dr!&er to o$e# a ,lo&e co3$art3e#t. Iet, outs!de t-e cr!3!#al co#te4t, ,o&er#3e#t o11!c!als rout!#ely reBu!re !#d!&!duals to d!sclose &ate !#1or3at!o#, l!5e ta4 retur#s. .-e relat!o#s-!$ betwee# cr!3!#al $rocedure a#d ot-er !#st!tut!o#s o1 t-e cr!3!#al Eust!ce syste3: Court dec!s!o#s e4$a#d!#, co#st!tut!o#al r!,-ts 3ay lead ot-er actors ratc-et u$ $u#!s-3e#ts a#d e4$a#d cr!3!#al l!ab!l!ty. By erect!#, $rocedural !3$ed!3e#ts to t-e $u#!s-3e#ts o1 cr!3eP t-e court e#sured a react!o# t-at le,!slatures used to create stro#,er syste3s. S-ould t-at 3atter< Cow d!d t-e cr!3!#al Eust!ce re&olut!o# a11ect $ol!ce $ract!ces !# co33u#!t!es o1 color< C-ea$er to !#&est!,ate !# urba# areas. %ru, deals o# t-e street are eas!er t-a# !# a suburba# -o3e. .-e o#ly $eo$le w-o -ad tr!als were t-ose w-o could a11ord t-e3.

Cow d!d t-!s a11ect Eud,es< Aud,es w-ose !#st!tut!o#al !#ce#t!&es 3!,-t 3ade t-e3 3ore !#cl!#ed to -el$ de1e#da#ts, -a&e 1ew e11ect!&e tools w!t- w-!c- to cou#teract le,!slat!&e o&ercr!3!#al!;at!o#. Relat!o#s-!$ betwee# cr!3!#al $rocedure a#d substa#t!&e cr!3!#al law. .-e 3ore co3$le4 t-e substa#t!&e code, t-e 3ore o&erla$, t-e 3ore a3b!,uous, t-e 3ore $ower to $rosecutors a#d $ol!ce. :-e# a w!de ra#,e o1 cr!3es stay o# t-e boo5s or w-ere rout!#e tra11! o11e#ses cou#t as cr!3e, $ol!ce -a&e too 3uc- lat!tude.

(e sho!l$ consi$er the "aterial O# t-e le&el o1 doctr!#e O# t-e le&el o1 -!story O# t-e le&el o1 t-e !#st!tut!o#al $layers O# t-e le&el o1 t-e law !# act!o#

R=/% S.)2.D

B!ll o1 r!,-ts a#d t-e states

Mo#day, Se$te3ber 10, 2012 12: G PM

7ro3 t-e 18>0s to t-e 1*G0s, t-e b!ll o1 r!,-ts d!d #ot a$$ly to t-e states. .-e rat!o#ale was so3ew-at 1ederal!st. Carla# be,a# to d!sse#t !# t-e 3a##er t-at ca3e out !# later cases. D!e process sho!l$ reflect or$ere$ li7ert+. (t-ere are d!11ere#t ty$es o1 !#cor$orat!o# 3 selecti,e incorporation ,s. or$ere$ li7ert+) Pal5o was a double Eeo$ardy case, a#d t-e court ruled t-at !t was#0t a $roble3 1or states. Carla# d!sse#ted. Blac5 also d!sse#ted, say!#, t-at e&eryt-!#, was !#cor$orated. 2o o#e a,reed w!t- Blac5, a#d e&e#tually, t-!#,s be,a# to be c-ose# to be !#cluded !# t-e 1ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#t. %u#ca# was a s!3$le battery case a#d -e was#0t allowed a Eury because !t was#0t a -ard labor or ca$!tal case. .-e $e#alt!es were se&ere alt-ou,- de1e#da#t was o#ly se#te#ced to a 1ew 3o#t-s. "# %u#ca#, t-e court d!d #ot draw a l!#e say!#, e4actly -ow -ard t-e cr!3e -ad to be to reBu!re a Eury tr!al, but !# t-!s case, !t -ad bee# a ser!ous e#ou,- cr!3e to reBu!re a Eury. :-at ty$e o1 Eury was reBu!red< %oes %u#ca# 1orecast w-at t-e Court !s ,o!#, to say about Mc%o#ald &. C-!ca,o< @u##er says t-at ,u# r!,-ts are a $erso#al dec!s!o#. Osbor#e !s #ot a clearly establ!s-ed r!,-t. .-e 3aEor!ty says t-at t-!s !s #ot substa#t!&e due $rocess. .-!s !s $rocedural due $rocess. /#d you already -a&e t-e #ecessary $rocedure. Ordered l!berty be,a# to loo5 at #atural r!,-ts ty$e t-!#,s. .-at e&ol&ed !#to select!&e !#cor$orat!o#, w-ere t-e 3easure o1 1u#da3e#tal#ess beca3e w-et-er so3et-!#, !s !# t-e b!ll o1 r!,-ts. "1 t-e court -ad #ot sa!d, !# %u#ca#, t-at t-e state ,o&er#3e#t #eeded to $ro&!de t-e Eury tr!al< .-ere0s a $oss!b!l!ty t-at certa!# $rosecut!o#s would be ta5e# by state law !#stead o1 1ederal law. "1 a 1ederal o11!c!al &!olated t-e state co#st!tut!o# but #ot t-e 1ederal co#st!tut!o#, would t-ere be a# !ssue o1 ad3!ss!b!l!ty !# t-e state court< o .-e 1ederal r!,-ts are t-e 1loor, but states ca# add $rotect!o#s. So !t would #ot be ad3!ss!ble !# state court. o Cowe&er, !1 t-e 1ederal o11!c!al d!d#0t 1ollow state co#st!tut!o#s, a#d was !# 1ederal court, !t would#0t 3atter. 'oo5!#, at Osbor#e a,a!# .-e court was $re$ared to de1er to t-e states !# co3!#, u$ w!t- $ost co#&!ct!o# %2/ test!#, reBu!re3e#ts. .-e Su$re3e Court o1 /las5a -ad already dealt w!t- !t. o But !# Mc%o#ald, t-ere was #o de1ere#ce to t-e states. .-ey #eeded to ,uara#tee t-at $eo$le -ad t-e r!,-t to bear ar3s. o :-at !s t-e d!11ere#ce<
o

Collee# says t-at Mc%o#ald !s a $ro-!b!t!o#. Osbor#e was deal!#, w!t- a re,!3e t-at -ad deta!led rules about use o1 %2/. "1 Osbor#e -ad ba##ed t-e use o1 %2/ e&!de#ce to $ro&e !##oce#ce, !t 3!,-t -a&e co3e out d!11ere#tly.

Roc-!# &s. Cal!1or#!a, etc. - a l!#e o1 cases t-at !s #ot de$e#de#t o# !#cor$orat!o#. Roc-!# -ad -!s sto3ac- $u3$ed a1ter -e swallowed dru,s o# -!s beds!de table, a#d t-e court sa!d t-at !t !s too close to t-e rac5 to allow t-e ad3!ss!o# o1 e&!de#ce 1ro3 blood, or a $u3$ed sto3ac-. .-e $o!#t o1 t-!s was to !llustrate t-e d!11ere#ce betwee# 1ederal a#d state r!,-ts. Cowe&er, today, select!&e !#cor$orat!o# 3ea#s t-at 3ost r!,-ts are t-e sa3e.

.o3orrow, we w!ll deal w!t- t-e 1ourt- a3e#d3e#t. .-at !s 3ost o1 t-e course. Dissent in %hite, California ,. green%oo$, s"ith ,. "ar+lan$. ?at' case .-e Buest!o# !s -ow you ca# -a&e a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !# a ,e#erat!o# t-at see3s to -a&e #o#e. 2o# trad!t!o#al sett!#,s l!5e -o3eless s-elters, #ews or,a#!;at!o#s, etc. Ca# we -a&e dual e4$ectat!o#s - d!11ere#t o#es betwee# you a#d wal3art a#d you a#d t-e ,o&er#3e#t< :arra#t a#d co3$uter searc-es. :-e# !s a warra#t e4cused< 'esser !#trus!o#s - sto$ a#d 1r!s5 %ue $rocess 3ore ,e#erally $art!cularly !# e#tra$3e#t Cow -as terror!s3 c-a#,ed e#tra$3e#t< Pol!ce !#terro,at!o# - w-at !s !t a#d w-at are !ts l!3!tat!o#s< =yew!t#ess !de#t!1!cat!o#s - w-at are t-e sta#dards, w-at s-ould t-ey be< Soc!al $syc-olo,y calls !t !#to Buest!o# - $eo$le t-!#5 t-ey re3e3ber t-!#,s a#d t-ey do#0t. .er3s to re3e3ber- Ordered l!berty, select!&e !#cor$orat!o#, 1u#da3e#tal r!,-ts, substa#t!&e due $rocess

/3e#d3e#ts
Mo#day, Se$te3ber 10, 2012 8:02 PM

&o!rth A"en$"ent .-e r!,-t o1 t-e $eo$le to be secure !# t-e!r $erso#s, -ouses, $a$ers, a#d e11ects, a,a!#st u#reaso#able searches an$ sei'!res, s-all #ot be &!olated, a#d #o :arra#ts s-all !ssue, but u$o# pro7a7le ca!se, su$$orted by Oat- or a11!r3at!o#, a#d $art!cularly descr!b!#, t-e $lace to be searc-ed, a#d t-e $erso#s or t-!#,s to be se!;ed. &ifth A"en$"ent 2o $erso# s-all be -eld to a#swer 1or a ca$!tal, or ot-erw!se !#1a3ous cr!3e, u#less o# a $rese#t3e#t or !#d!ct3e#t o1 a 1ran$ @!r+, e4ce$t !# cases ar!s!#, !# t-e la#d or #a&al 1orces, or !# t-e M!l!t!a, w-e# !# actual ser&!ce !# t!3e o1 :ar or $ubl!c da#,er6 #or s-all a#y $erso# be subEect 1or t-e sa3e o11e#se to be tw!ce $ut !# Eeo$ardy o1 l!1e or l!3b6 #or s-all be co3$elled !# a#y cr!3!#al case to be a w!t#ess a,a!#st -!3sel1, nor 7e $epri,e$ of life, li7ert+, or propert+, %itho!t $!e process of la%6 #or s-all $r!&ate $ro$erty be ta5e# 1or $ubl!c use, w!t-out Eust co3$e#sat!o#. i:th A"en$"ent

"# all cr!3!#al $rosecut!o#s, t-e accused s-all e#Eoy t-e r!,-t to a s$eedy a#d $ubl!c tr!al, by a# i"partial =!r+ o1 t-e State a#d d!str!ct w-ere!# t-e cr!3e s-all -a&e bee# co33!tted, w-!cd!str!ct s-all -a&e bee# $re&!ously ascerta!#ed by law, a#d to be !#1or3ed o1 t-e #ature a#d cause o1 t-e accusat!o#6 to be confronte$ %ith the %itnesses a,a!#st -!36 to -a&e co3$ulsory $rocess 1or obta!#!#, w!t#esses !# -!s 1a&or, a#d to -a&e t-e Assistance of Co!nsel 1or -!s de1e#ce 0ighth A"en$"ent =4cess!&e ba!l s-all #ot be reBu!red, #or e4cess!&e 1!#es !3$osed, #or cruel a#d u#usual $u#!s-3e#ts !#1l!cted. &o!rteenth A"en$"ent ection 1. /ll $erso#s bor# or #atural!;ed !# t-e )#!ted States, a#d subEect to t-e Eur!sd!ct!o# t-ereo1, are c!t!;e#s o1 t-e )#!ted States a#d o1 t-e State w-ere!# t-ey res!de. 2o State s-all 3a5e or e#1orce a#y law w-!c- s-all abr!d,e t-e pri,ileges or i""!nities o1 c!t!;e#s o1 t-e )#!ted States6 #or s-all a#y State de$r!&e a#y $erso# o1 life, li7ert+, or propert+, %itho!t $!e process of la%6 #or de#y to a#y $erso# w!t-!# !ts Eur!sd!ct!o# t-e e6!al protection of the la%s. ection 4. Re$rese#tat!&es s-all be a$$ort!o#ed a3o#, t-e se&eral States accord!#, to t-e!r res$ect!&e #u3bers, cou#t!#, t-e w-ole #u3ber o1 $erso#s !# eac- State, e4clud!#, "#d!a#s #ot ta4ed. But w-e# t-e r!,-t to &ote at a#y elect!o# 1or t-e c-o!ce o1 electors 1or Pres!de#t a#d 8!ce Pres!de#t o1 t-e )#!ted States, Re$rese#tat!&es !# Co#,ress, t-e =4ecut!&e a#d Aud!c!al o11!cers o1 a State, or t-e 3e3bers o1 t-e 'e,!slature t-ereo1, !s de#!ed to a#y o1 t-e 3ale !#-ab!ta#ts o1 suc- State, be!#, twe#ty-o#e years o1 a,e, a#d c!t!;e#s o1 t-e )#!ted States, or !# a#y way abr!d,ed, e4ce$t 1or $art!c!$at!o# !# rebell!o#, or ot-er cr!3e, t-e bas!s o1 re$rese#tat!o# t-ere!# s-all be reduced !# t-e $ro$ort!o# w-!c- t-e #u3ber o1 suc- 3ale c!t!;e#s s-all bear to t-e w-ole #u3ber o1 3ale c!t!;e#s twe#ty-o#e years o1 a,e !# suc- State. ection ). 2o $erso# s-all be a Se#ator or Re$rese#tat!&e !# Co#,ress, or elector o1 Pres!de#t a#d 8!ce Pres!de#t, or -old a#y o11!ce, c!&!l or 3!l!tary, u#der t-e )#!ted States, or u#der a#y State, w-o, -a&!#, $re&!ously ta5e# a# oat-, as a 3e3ber o1 Co#,ress, or as a# o11!cer o1 t-e )#!ted States, or as a 3e3ber o1 a#y State le,!slature, or as a# e4ecut!&e or Eud!c!al o11!cer o1 a#y State, to su$$ort t-e Co#st!tut!o# o1 t-e )#!ted States, s-all -a&e e#,a,ed !# !#surrect!o# or rebell!o# a,a!#st t-e sa3e, or ,!&e# a!d or co31ort to t-e e#e3!es t-ereo1. But Co#,ress 3ay, by a &ote o1 two-t-!rds o1 eac- Couse, re3o&e suc- d!sab!l!ty. ection ;. .-e &al!d!ty o1 t-e $ubl!c debt o1 t-e )#!ted States, aut-or!;ed by law, !#clud!#, debts !#curred 1or $ay3e#t o1 $e#s!o#s a#d bou#t!es 1or ser&!ces !# su$$ress!#, !#surrect!o# or rebell!o#, s-all #ot be Buest!o#ed. But #e!t-er t-e )#!ted States #or a#y State s-all assu3e or $ay a#y debt or obl!,at!o# !#curred !# a!d o1 !#surrect!o# or rebell!o# a,a!#st t-e )#!ted States, or a#y cla!3 1or t-e loss or e3a#c!$at!o# o1 a#y sla&e6 but all suc- debts, obl!,at!o#s a#d cla!3s s-all be -eld !lle,al a#d &o!d. ection 5. .-e Co#,ress s-all -a&e $ower to e#1orce, by a$$ro$r!ate le,!slat!o#, t-e $ro&!s!o#s o1 t-!s art!cle

7ourt- /3e#d3e#t - Searc-es a#d Se!;ures

Mo#day, Se$te3ber 10, 2012 8:11 PM

:-at co#st!tutes a searc- or se!;ure< :-at !#terests d!d t-e /3e#d3e#t -!stor!cally $rotect< Perso#al auto#o3y< Pr!&acy< :-at !#terests s-ould !t $rotect today< CB 8>-11>

(hat is a protecte$ interestJ (hat is a searchJ (hat is a sei'!reJ "#troduct!o# ,oes t-rou,- t-e 1ollow!#, $ro,ress!o# re,ard!#, t-e sco$e o1 t-e !#trus!o# t-at !s barred by t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. ?at' ,. Unite$ tates: =lectro#!c ea&esdro$$!#, !s a searc- ,o&er#ed by t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t. P-ys!cal !#trus!o# !s #ot #ecessary, rat-er !#1r!#,e3e#t o# a Eust!1!ed e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !s su11!c!e#t. California ,. 1reen%oo$: =4a3!#at!o# o1 ,arba,e &lori$a ,. Rile+: /er!al sur&e!lla#ce ?+llo ,. Unite$ tates: an$ Unite$ tates ,. @ones: @PS trac5!#, de&!ces Unite$ tates ,. (hite: u#derco&er a,e#t secretly record!#, -!s co#&ersat!o#s w!t- ot-ers. .-ere are $ote#t!ally ot-er r!,-ts t-at ca# be !#1r!#,ed by a searc- or se!;ure. But t-e court !# /#drese# &. Maryla#d sa!d t-at a searc- o1 $r!&ate $a$ers d!d #ot &!olate t-e $rotect!o# 1ro3 sel1 !#cr!3!#at!o#.

2otes day 2
.uesday, Se$te3ber 11, 2012 12:10 PM

.-e reaso# t-at t-e !#cor$orat!o# doctr!#e !s !3$orta#t, !s because t-e !#cor$orat!o# cases say so3et-!#, about t-e r!,-ts t-at are ,uara#teed by t-e states as o$$osed to t-e 1ederal ,o&er#3e#t. So alt-ou,- t-e r!,-ts are ,e#erally ,uara#teed by t-e states as well, t-ey so3et!3es -a&e subtle d!11ere#ces. %u#ca# &. 'ou!s!a#a was a 1u#ct!o# o1 t-e 1act t-at t-ere are two 1orces at $lay, t-e 1ederal r!,-ts a#d t-e state r!,-ts. .-at0s w-y t-e court sa!d t-at t-ere does #eed to be a Eury, but t-at t-ere !s a l!ttle w!,,le roo3 !# ad3!#!ster!#, !t. .-!s !s a case t-at !s so3ew-at d!11ere#t at t-e state a#d 1ederal r!,-ts le&el. Aust l!5e t-e c!&!l r!,-ts cases a#d state ,uara#tees o1 1ourtee#t- a3e#d3e#t r!,-ts co3e 1ro3 t-e reco#struct!o# sout-, t-e searc- a#d se!;ure cases co3e 1ro3 H&!ct!3less cr!3esH. .-e $ressure to ea&esdro$ co3es 1ro3 &!ct!3less cr!3es. .-e :arre# Court was t-e court dur!#, t-e 1*60s c!&!l r!,-ts 3o&e3e#t. "t was t-e 1!rst !dea t-at t-ere was suc- a t-!#, as cr!3!#al $rocedure. .-e court bas!cally sa!d t-at $ol!ce are #ot o#ly ,o&er#ed by rules/statutes/state $ol!cy, t-ey are ,o&er#ed by t-e Co#st!tut!o# as well. .-!s -a$$e#ed at a t!3e o1 a cr!3e rate s$!5e. So :arre# co#st!tut!o#al!;ed t-e $ol!ce !ssues at t-e sa3e t!3e t-at t-ere was a cr!3e s$!5e a#d a# o&erreact!o# to !t. .-!s also brou,-t c!&!l r!,-ts !#to cr!3!#al de1e#se. "t we#t !#to cr!3!#al law beyo#d t-e !ssue o1 ,u!lt &s. !##oce#ce, a#d t-at 1u#da3e#tally c-a#,ed cr!3!#al $rocedure. .e4t o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t &o!rth A"en$"ent

.-e r!,-t o1 t-e people to be secure !# t-e!r persons, ho!ses, papers, an$ effects, a,a!#st u#reaso#able searches an$ sei'!res, s-all #ot be &!olated, a#d #o :arra#ts s-all !ssue, but u$o# pro7a7le ca!se, su$$orted by Oat- or a11!r3at!o#, a#d $art!cularly descr!b!#, t-e $lace to be searc-ed, a#d t-e $erso#s or t-!#,s to be se!;ed. .-e 7!1t- a#d S!4t- a3e#d3e#ts are wr!tte# o# a# !#d!&!dual le&el, a#d t-e 1ourt- says Ht-e $eo$leH. "s t-ere a d!11ere#ce< /#t-o#y /3sterda3 says t-at t-e r!,-t o1 t-e $eo$le !s 3ore collect!&e a#d !t0s about re,ulat!#, t-e !#st!tut!o# o1 t-e $ol!ce $ros$ect!&ely, rat-er t-a# a# !#d!&!dual r!,-ts 3odel t-at creates a cause o1 act!o# 1or wro#,ed !#d!&!duals. /#ot-er d!st!#ct!&e as$ect !s t-at !t says #ot-!#, about tr!als. "t says #ot-!#, about ad3!ss!b!l!ty, or co#duct dur!#, tr!al. .-at0s w-y !t0s #ot sur$r!s!#, t-at t-ere was debate about t-e e4clus!o#ary rule, a#d !t ra!ses Buest!o#s about react!o# to &!olat!o#s. .-ere0s a Buest!o# about t-e co#te#t o1 t-e a3e#d3e#t. :-at !s t-e r!,-t o1 t-e $eo$le to be secure !# t-e!r $erso#s< Couses, $a$ers, e11ects< :-ere are t-e $a$ers secure< :-ere&er t-ey0re 1ou#d< =11ects - broader t-a# Eust -ouses. :-at !s t-e relat!o#s-!$ betwee# t-e 1!rst clause a#d t-e t-!rd clause - t-e warra#t clause a#d t-e reaso#able#ess reBu!re3e#t< "s t-ere a cate,ory o1 u#reaso#able searc-es o1 w-!c- warra#ts are o#e, w-!c- would !#d!cate broad $rotect!o#< Or !s t-e warra#tless searc- t-e o#ly u#reaso#able o#e, su,,est!#, a #arrow $rotect!o#< Courts -a&e ta5e# t-e seco#d a$$roac-, ,e#erally. :-at !s $robable cause< .-e B!ll o1 R!,-ts !s o#ly $rotect!o# &!s a &!s t-e ,o&er#3e#t. But #ow t-ere -as bee# a lot o1 blurr!#, o# t-e l!#es betwee# t-e ,o&er#3e#t a#d $r!&ate $art!es. "s !#1or3at!o# t-at your ba#5, or e3a!l $ro&!der, or @oo,le -as o$e# to t-e ,o&er#3e#t as well< Searc-es a#d Se!;ures - ca# t-ere be a se!;ure but #ot searc-< .-ere0s a case about a 3ob!le -o3e t-at was 3o&ed. .-ere was a#ot-er case o1 a su!tcase t-at was se!;ed a#d subEected to do, s#!11!#, but #e&er o$e#ed. Boyd &. )S (1886+ "3$ortat!o# case - t-e law reBu!red t-at -e $roduce t-e $a$ers t-at s-owed t-at -e was wro#,ly !3$ort!#, t-e ,oods, a#d !1 -e re1used to $roduce t-e3, -e was assu3ed to be ,u!lty. .-e -old!#, o1 t-e case t-at t-e 1ourt- a3e#d3e#t !s !3$l!cated !# $roduct!o# o1 $a$ers -as bee# o&ertur#ed. "1 a#yt-!#,, !t0s a sel1 !#cr!3!#at!o# !ssue. But t-e rat!o#ale st!ll -as reso#a#ce. H.-e $r!#c!$les la!d dow# !# t-e o$!#!o# a11ect t-e &ery esse#ce o1 co#st!tut!o#al l!berty a#d secur!tyP "t !s t-e !#&as!o# o1 -!s !#de1eas!ble r!,-t o1 $erso#al secur!ty, $erso#al l!berty a#d $r!&ate $ro$erty. 7orc!ble a#d co3$ulsory e4tort!o# o1 a 3a#0s ow# test!3o#y or o1 -!s $r!&ate $a$ers to be used as e&!de#ce to co#&!ct -!3P !s w!t-!# t-e co#de3#at!o# o1 t-at Eud,3e#t.H Ol3stead !s t-e #e4t case, !t0s c!ted !# ?at;. "t0s 1ro3 1*28.

"# Ol3stead, t-ere was #o tres$ass, a#d t-e court sa!d t-at t-e co#&ersat!o#s were #ot $rotected. Bra#de!s d!sse#ted a#d be,a# to d!scuss t-e r!,-t to be le1t alo#e. .-!s !s so3et-!#, t-at a$$ears to ,o beyo#d tres$ass to so3et-!#, about $r!&acy !#stead o1 $ro$erty. .-e $-ys!cal barr!er ca#0t be t-e sta#dard 1or t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. Bra#de!s Buotes Boyle, a#d says t-at t-e $rotect!o# !s broader t-a# $-ys!cal s$ace. "t ,oes to t-e $r!&acy #ecessary to t-e $ursu!t o1 -a$$!#ess. .-ey reco,#!;ed t-e s!,#!1!ca#ce o1 a 3a#0s t-ou,-ts a#d 1eel!#,sP t-e!r e3ot!o#s a#d t-e!r se#sat!o#s. .-ey co#1erred as a,a!#st t-e ,o&er#3e#t t-e right to be let alone. / 1ew years later, a %etect-a-$-o#e was 1ou#d to #ot be a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t. 'ater, t-ere was a case w-ere a ,o&er#3e#t a,e#t we#t !#to so3eo#e0s -o3e a#d t-e co#&ersat!o# was tra#s3!tted to ot-er a,e#ts. .-e court sa!d t-at you assu3e t-e r!s5 t-at so3eo#e w!ll tur# you !#, a#d t-e 1act t-at t-e 01r!e#d0 broadcast !t, does#0t 3atter. .-ere was a case w-ere a 3!cro$-o#e was $la#ted, a#d !# t-at case, !t was deter3!#ed to be a &!olat!o# because t-ere was tres$ass. Pro1 ,!&es a -y$o. .wo $eo$le e#,a,e !# a dru, deal !# t-e 3!ddle o1 t-e #!,-t !# Ce#tral Par5. .-ey e4$ected $r!&acy, a#d t-e real!ty o1 t-e case su,,ests t-at t-ey are l!5ely to ,et !t. "s t-at a 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !ssue< .-e ob&!ous a#swer !s t-at t-ey do#0t -a&e a 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t cla!3. .-at s-ows t-at t-e ?at; dec!s!o# !s #ot really 3ea#!#,1ul !# t-e abstract. .-ere0s a -y$o !# a law re&!ew art!cle about a co$ s!tt!#, !# t-e $ar5!#, lot o1 a bar record!#, all t-e $eo$le w-o co3e !#. .-!s ca# be a$$l!ed to tec- as well - a co$ ca# dr!&e o# t-e -!,-way a#d use a sca##er t-at #otes t-e l!ce#se #u3bers a#d c-ec5s t-e3 a,a!#st t-e tra11!c a#d ot-er databases<

%ay F
Mo#day, Se$te3ber 2G, 2012 12:06 PM

M!ssed class - Ros- Cas-a#a

2otes day G
Mo#day, Se$te3ber 2G, 2012 12:06 PM

O#e $ara#t-et!cal - 3ost cr!3!#al $rocedure boo5s do#0t s$e#d t-at 3uc- t!3e o# ?at;. But @ert#er t-!#5s t-at t-e 3ost s!,#!1!ca#t act!o# !# t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !s !# t-e ?at; real3. .o3orrow - assu3!#, so3et-!#, !s a searc-, w-at are t-e $rocedures t-at are reBu!red to e#able !t< :-at does a$$ly!#, 1or a warra#t 3ea#, :-at does $robable cause 3ea#< O&er&!ew: :-ere d!d ?at; lead us<

.-ere are two $ro#,s o1 t-at, re1lected !# t-e cases 1or today. ?at; !# l!,-t o1 Ao#es, ?at; relat!#, to t-!rd $arty records. ?at; relat!#, to Co3e-l!5e s!tuat!o#s. "#ad&erta#t -y$ot-et!cal: So3eo#e w-o was !#&ol&ed !# Occu$y Bosto# tweeted t-e !#1or3at!o# relat!#, to $erso#al !#1or3at!o# about $ol!ce o11!cers. .-ey wa#ted to ,et t-e !#1or3at!o#, a#d sub$oe#aed .w!tter. .-e result !s #ot 5#ow# to $ro1essor. ?at; sa!d t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t $rotects $eo$le #ot $laces. O&ertur#ed Old3stead w-!c- sa!d t-at !1 you ta$$ed so3eo#e0s $-o#e w!t-out tres$ass!#,, you were #ot !# &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. /re t-ere a#y $laces t-at are #ot $oss!ble to -a&e a#y e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< /re t-ere a#y $laces t-at always -a&e a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< o ?yllo su,,ests t-at t-e ho"e -as $rotect!o#s t-at ot-er $laces do#0t -a&e, e&e# to searc-es t-at do#0t !#&ol&e !#curs!o#s. o @ree#wood, t-e tras- case, su,,ests t-at tras- !s #ot $rotected, #o 3atter w-at you do to !t. (al3ost+. o Ao#es (@PS case+ su,,ests t-at t-ere !s a cate,ory t-at0s s!3!lar to ?at;, !# t-!s case a car. %oes t-!s a11ect t-e assu3$t!o# t-at cars are #ot 1or stora,e o1 $erso#al e11ects< o Frd $arty !#1or3a#ts a#d broadcasters are a# e4ce$t!o# to al3ost a#y $r!&acy you ta5e your c-a#ces w!t- t-e3. :-at !s t-e obEect!&ely reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy< Carla#0s d!sse#t !# )S &. :-!te (Frd $arty !#1or3a#t tra#s3!tt!#, out o1 t-e -ouse+: :-!le t-ese 1or3ulat!o#s (?at;+ are a# ad&a#ce o&er $lace based restr!ct!o#s, t-ey are st!ll #ot 1ully 1or3ed. .-ere #eeds to be a# e3$!r!cal test. / $erso# -as a reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy, w-ere t-e odds are t-at so3eo#e else w!ll #ot $ry !#to -!s a11a!rs. o Re3e3ber t-e 1lyo&er case, t-ey d!scusses -ow l!5ely !t was t-at t-e 1ly!#, o&er would -a$$e#. .-e ,o&er#3e#t tr!ed to s-ow t-at !t would -a$$e# o1te#, a#d t-e 3aEor!ty see3ed to t-!#5 t-at s!#ce !t was le,al, t-e de1e#da#t -ad to s-ow t-at !t was u#co33o#, a#d t-e d!sse#t sa!d t-at s!#ce !t was $retty clearly !rre,ular, t-e ,o&er#3e#t -ad to s-ow t-at !t was 1reBue#t. o .-e s!3$lest &ers!o# could be H-ow o1te# does t-!s -a$$e#H< o /#ot-er &ers!o# could be H"s t-!s a #or3at!&e e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy<H .-ere was a case o1 so3eo#e w-o -ad -!s lu,,a,e sBuee;ed by a dru, !#s$ector, a#d was t-ereby d!sco&ered to -a&e dru,s. .-e 3aEor!ty sa!d t-at !t was co#trary to t-e reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 bus $asse#,ers, a#d was t-ere1ore a# !lle,al searc-. o .-ere -as bee# a# ele3e#t o1 $os!t!&e law - t-e 3aEor!ty !# t-e 1lyo&er case d!scussed w-et-er t-e ,o&er#3e#t t-at was brea5!#, t-e law - !1 t-ey would -a&e bee#, t-e# !t would -a&e bee# !lle,al searc-. o .-ere0s a#ot-er !dea 1ro3 a Bra#de!s d!sse#t !# a case called (<+ !# w-!c- -e 3e#t!o#s t-e $r!&ac!es o1 l!1e.
o

:-at does Ao#es (@PS case+ do w!t- all o1 t-ose cases< Scal!a sa!d t-at !t 3attered t-at t-e @PS was $laced o# t-e car a1ter !t belo#,ed to Ao#es. (!# co#trast, so3e ot-er cases !#&ol&ed de&!ces w-!c- were tra#s1erred w!tt-e !te3 t-ey were attac-ed to.+

O# t-e Ao#es case - Pro1 says t-at a wr!ter descr!bes /l!to0s o$!#!o# as H$r!&acy a#t!c!$ated by a reaso#able !#d!&!dual, as o$$osed to t-e $erso#0s reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy.H

" -a&e #o !dea w-at t-e -ell t-at 3ea#s. =l!;abet- says t-at e4$ected 3ea#s so3eo#e !s $rotect!#, a r!,-t. /#t!c!$at!#, 3ea#s t-at t-e $erso# would#0t $red!ct t-e d!sclosure. %o we re,ard as co33o#$lace t-at $eo$le w!ll rat us out< "s t-at e3$!r!cal as a 3atter o1 1act< / 3atter o1 law< / 3atter o1 $ol!cy< 7ro3 S3!t- &. Maryla#d ca3e t-e Frd $arty rule a#d t-e !dea t-at #ot e&eryt-!#, !s co#te#t. Pro1 3e#t!o#s t-at s-e was a Eud,e a#d s-e was a##oyed w-e# -er 5!ds $ut -er &acat!o# $!ctures o# d!s$lay o# 7aceboo5. :-at about eco33erce< Iou buy so3et-!#,, a#d t-e# t-ey 5#ow w-at you0&e bou,-t a#d use !t w!t- ot-er co3$a#!es. "# )#!ted States &. M!ller, t-e Court ruled t-at t-e ba#5 was a t-!rd $arty a#d t-e !#1or3at!o# was#0t $rotected. Cow do you $rotect t-e !#1or3at!o#< Iou ca# 5ee$ your 3o#ey !# a s-oe bo4. Ca# you s!,# a co#tract w!t- t-e ba#5< .-ere were #o ste$s t-at you could -a&e ta5e# to a&o!d t-e d!sclosure, so t-ere0s #ot-!#, t-at you could -a&e do#e to create or to de3o#strate a# e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. Soto3ayor !# Ao#es see3s to a,ree w!t- Bre##a# !# M!ller a#d says t-at t-e M!ller dec!s!o# #eeds to be loo5ed at a,a!#. Pro1 says t-at so3e $eo$le cla!3 t-at M!ller 3ea#s t-at !1 a co3$a#y ca# 1!#d t-e !#1or3at!o# (because you bou,-t 1ro3 t-e3+ t-e# !t0s o5ay to ,!&e t-at !#1or3at!o# to t-e ,o&er#3e#t. %oes t-at sur&!&e Ao#es, t-e @PS case< (/ sl!d!#, scale accou#t!#, 1or t-e $r!&acy o1 t-e !#1or3at!o# a#d t-e relat!o#s-!$ to a cr!3e< "# t-at l!,-t, Ba#5s would be relat!&ely easy to access, because 3o#ey !s #ot t-at $r!&ate a#d because cr!3es always !#&ol&e 3o#ey. "#ter#et records would be a $roble3, because t-e $r!&acy !s !33e#se a#d t-ere !s #ot a stro#, relat!o#s-!$ betwee# Ht-e !#ter#etH a#d s$ec!1!c cr!3es.+ Pro1 says t-at s-e 1ou#d a dec!s!o# about a $e# re,!ster case. .-ere was a reBuest 1or a H!#ter#et tra$ a#d traceH de&!ce a#d all t-at -ad to be s-ow# !s t-at !t would be -el$1ul to a# !#&est!,at!o#. .-e 3a,!strate sa!d t-at t-e $roble3 !s t-at a# !#ter#et trac!#, de&!ce ca# ru# t-e r!s5 o1 re&eal!#, co#te#t. )#l!5e tele$-o#es, w-ere t-ere0s a #u3ber a#d t-e# t-ere0s !#1or3at!o#, e3a!ls -a&e rec!$!e#t l!sts, subEect l!#es, "P addresses, etc. (Luest!o#: does !t 3atter as a 3atter o1 $ol!cy t-at !t w!ll lead to stro#,er $e#alt!es !1 1ewer $eo$le ca# ,et cau,-t<+ Mo&!#, o# to tw!tter:

7ed. Rule Cr!3 Pro G1

.uesday, Se$te3ber 2 , 2012 *:28 /M RULE 41. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

"a$ 0cope and *efinitions. "($ Scope. 7his rule does not modify any statute regulating search or seiAure, or the issuance and execution of a search warrant in special circumstances. ")$ Definitions. 7he following definitions apply under this ruleD "A$ E6ropertyF includes documents, boo!s, papers, any other tangible ob ects, and information. "2$ E*aytimeF means the hours between ,D-- a.m. and (-D-- p.m. according to local time.

"'$ EFederal law enforcement officerF means a government agent "other than an attorney for the government$ who is engaged in enforcing the criminal laws and is within any category of officers authoriAed by the Attorney General to request a search warrant. "*$ E*omestic terrorismF and Einternational terrorismF have the meanings set out in (@ >.0.'. ?)##(. "G$ E7rac!ing deviceF has the meaning set out in (@ >.0.'. ?#((4 "b$. "b$ Authority to %ssue a Warrant. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the governmentD "($ a magistrate udge with authority in the districtHor if none is reasonably available, a udge of a state court of record in the districtHhas authority to issue a warrant to search for and seiAe a person or property located within the districtI ")$ a magistrate udge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executedI "#$ a magistrate udgeHin an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorismHwith authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that districtI ":$ a magistrate udge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant to install within the district a trac!ing deviceI the warrant may authoriAe use of the device to trac! the movement of a person or property located within the district, outside the district, or bothI and "/$ a magistrate udge having authority in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred, or in the *istrict of 'olumbia, may issue a warrant for property that is located outside the urisdiction of any state or district, but within any of the followingD "A$ a >nited 0tates territory, possession, or commonwealthI "2$ the premisesHno matter who owns themHof a >nited 0tates diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state, including any appurtenant building, part of a building, or land used for the mission&s purposesI or "'$ a residence and any appurtenant land owned or leased by the >nited 0tates and used by >nited 0tates personnel assigned to a >nited 0tates diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state. "c$ 6ersons or 6roperty 0ub ect to 0earch or 0eiAure. A warrant may be issued for any of the followingD "($ evidence of a crimeI ")$ contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessedI "#$ property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crimeI or ":$ a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained. "d$ ;btaining a Warrant. "($ In General. After receiving an affidavit or other information, a magistrate udgeHor if authoriAed by 3ule :("b$, a udge of a state court of recordHmust issue the warrant if there is probable cause to search for and seiAe a person or property or to install and use a trac!ing device. ")$ Requesting a arrant in the !resence of a "udge. "A$ arrant on an #ffidavit. When a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government presents an affidavit in support of a warrant, the udge may require the affiant to appear personally and may examine under oath the affiant and any witness the affiant produces. "2$ arrant on Sworn $estimon%. 7he udge may wholly or partially dispense with a written affidavit and base a warrant on sworn testimony if doing so is reasonable under the circumstances. "'$ Recording $estimon%. 7estimony ta!en in support of a warrant must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device, and the udge must file the transcript or recording with the cler!, along with any affidavit. "#$ Requesting a arrant b% $elephonic or &ther Reliable 'lectronic (eans. %n accordance with 3ule :.(, a magistrate udge may issue a warrant based on information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means. "e$ %ssuing the Warrant. "($ In General. 7he magistrate udge or a udge of a state court of record must issue the warrant to an officer authoriAed to execute it.

")$ Contents of the arrant. "A$ arrant to Search for and Sei)e a !erson or !ropert%. Gxcept for a trac!ing5device warrant, the warrant must identify the person or property to be searched, identify any person or property to be seiAed, and designate the magistrate udge to whom it must be returned. 7he warrant must command the officer toD "i$ execute the warrant within a specified time no longer than (: daysI "ii$ execute the warrant during the daytime, unless the udge for good cause expressly authoriAes execution at another timeI and "iii$ return the warrant to the magistrate udge designated in the warrant. "2$ arrant Seeking 'lectronicall% Stored Information. A warrant under 3ule :("e$")$"A$ may authoriAe the seiAure of electronic storage media or the seiAure or copying of electronically stored information. >nless otherwise specified, the warrant authoriAes a later review of the media or information consistent with the warrant. 7he time for executing the warrant in 3ule :("e$")$"A$ and "f$ "($"A$ refers to the seiAure or on5site copying of the media or information, and not to any later off5site copying or review. "'$ arrant for a $racking Device. A trac!ing5device warrant must identify the person or property to be trac!ed, designate the magistrate udge to whom it must be returned, and specify a reasonable length of time that the device may be used. 7he time must not exceed :/ days from the date the warrant was issued. 7he court may, for good cause, grant one or more extensions for a reasonable period not to exceed :/ days each. 7he warrant must command the officer toD "i$ complete any installation authoriAed by the warrant within a specified time no longer than (- daysI "ii$ perform any installation authoriAed by the warrant during the daytime, unless the udge for good cause expressly authoriAes installation at another timeI and "iii$ return the warrant to the udge designated in the warrant. "f$ Gxecuting and 3eturning the Warrant. "($ arrant to Search for and Sei)e a !erson or !ropert%. "A$ *oting the $ime. 7he officer executing the warrant must enter on it the exact date and time it was executed. "2$ Inventor%. An officer present during the execution of the warrant must prepare and verify an inventory of any property seiAed. 7he officer must do so in the presence of another officer and the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was ta!en. %f either one is not present, the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in the presence of at least one other credible person. %n a case involving the seiAure of electronic storage media or the seiAure or copying of electronically stored information, the inventory may be limited to describing the physical storage media that were seiAed or copied. 7he officer may retain a copy of the electronically stored information that was seiAed or copied. "'$ Receipt. 7he officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property ta!en to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was ta!en or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer too! the property. "*$ Return. 7he officer executing the warrant must promptly return itHtogether with a copy of the inventoryHto the magistrate udge designated on the warrant. 7he officer may do so by reliable electronic means. 7he udge must, on request, give a copy of the inventory to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was ta!en and to the applicant for the warrant. ")$ arrant for a $racking Device. "A$ *oting the $ime. 7he officer executing a trac!ing5device warrant must enter on it the exact date and time the device was installed and the period during which it was used. "2$ Return. Within (- days after the use of the trac!ing device has ended, the officer executing the warrant must return it to the udge designated in the warrant. 7he officer may do so by reliable electronic means. "'$ Service. Within (- days after the use of the trac!ing device has ended, the officer executing a trac!ing5device warrant must serve a copy of the warrant on the person who was trac!ed or whose property was trac!ed. 0ervice may be accomplished by delivering a copy to the person who, or whose property, was trac!edI or by leaving a copy at the person&s residence or usual place of abode

with an individual of suitable age and discretion who resides at that location and by mailing a copy to the person&s last !nown address. >pon request of the government, the udge may delay notice as provided in 3ule :("f$"#$. "#$ Dela%ed *otice. >pon the government&s request, a magistrate udgeHor if authoriAed by 3ule :("b$, a udge of a state court of recordHmay delay any notice required by this rule if the delay is authoriAed by statute. "g$ 8otion to 3eturn 6roperty. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seiAure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property&s return. 7he motion must be filed in the district where the property was seiAed. 7he court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. %f it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings. "h$ 8otion to 0uppress. A defendant may move to suppress evidence in the court where the trial will occur, as 3ule () provides. "i$ Forwarding 6apers to the 'ler!. 7he magistrate udge to whom the warrant is returned must attach to the warrant a copy of the return, of the inventory, and of all other related papers and must deliver them to the cler! in the district where the property was seiAed.

Ce!#r!c- - /)S/ 1or Massac-usetts (%ay +

.uesday, Se$te3ber 2 , 2012 12:11 PM

Ce used to a$$ear be1ore @ert#er. "ssues o1 $robable cause, Buest!o#s about w-y -e was br!#,!#, $art!cular cases, Buest!o#s about se#te#c!#, t-at o#ly t-ey u#derstood because t-ey -ad -ad earl!er d!scuss!o#s. Says t-at -e !#troduced -er to 3a#y 1r!e#ds by $rosecut!#, t-e3. 'O' Story about $rosecut!#, 3urderer - @ert#er ruled a,a!#st t-e3 !# ad3!ss!b!l!ty !ssues, a#d -e co33e#ted H-ow !s !t to $ract!ce !# %e1e#se 'awyer 7a#tasy Ca3$<H Prosecutors -a&e so3et-!#, called HdutyH w-!c- 3ea#s t-at 1or a wee5 or so a 1ew t!3es a year, t-ey would be !#&ol&ed !# dec!s!o#s o1 !#ta5e. =arly o#, t-ere were e4c!t!#, cases, a#d later -e t-ou,-t t-at -e s-ould better se#d !t to t-e state. /#ot-er $art o1 !t was re&!ew o1 a11!da&!ts 1or warra#t a$$l!cat!o#s. So3e o1 t-e3 were 1ro3 $ostal !#s$ectors. .-ey -ad #arrow reBu!re3e#ts a#d t-ey $retty 3uc- -ad t-e $rocess dow#. .-e# t-ey would -a&e to ,o to a 3a,!strate Eud,e. So3et!3es Ce!#r!c- would $ut !# 3!ss$elled words to d!stract t-e 3a,!strate 1ro3 t-e 1act t-at t-ere was#0t 3uc- $robable cause. Ce t-e# says -e was Eo5!#,. .-ere !s a ,ood 1a!t- e4ce$t!o# 1or warra#ts t-at were ,ra#ted wro#,ly, so t-at leads to t-e warra#ts be!#, lo#, a#d co3$l!cated. But t-e $ostal ser&!ce o#es were $retty re,ular. .-e $ostal ser&!ces would use do,s to s#!11 1or $ac5a,es, w-!c- led to corroborat!o# !ssues w-!c- are so3ew-at d!11ere#t t-a# corroborat!o# w!t- -u3a# !#1or3a#ts. .al5s about warra#ts 1or @PSs. .-ey d!d#0t #eed to ,et a warra#t bac5 !# t-e day, as lo#, as !t0s o# $ubl!c $ro$erty. 2ow, a1ter t-e Ao#es case, t-ey $retty 3uc- ado$ted t-e assu3$t!o# t-at t-ey #eed a warra#t.

Pe# re,!sters - w!t- cell$-o#es, t-ere are ot-er !ssues, because t-ey are u#traceable. :-at ot-er records ca# you ,et< Iou ca# ,et records about w-ere t-e cell$-o#e -as bee#. Iou #eed a court order, based o# reaso#able a#d art!culable 1acts t-at s-ow !t would be rele&a#t to !#&est!,at!o#. Ca# you ,et t-e3 $roact!&ely< Be1ore t-e $-o#e -as bee# so3ew-ere, ca# you ,et a# order say!#, t-at you ca# -a&e t-e !#1or3at!o# as !t -a$$e#s< C!stor!cal cellc!te !#1or3at!o# !s #ot t-e best - so3et!3es t-ey we#t t-e e4act locat!o# data. But 1or t-at, you #eed a warra#t, a#d 1or t-at 3o#ey, you could also ,et a w!reta$. "t0s !3$orta#t to stay u$ to date o# t-e 1ourt- a3e#d3e#t. .-ere0s a @eor,etow# re&!ew boo5 t-at !s !ssued e&ery year a#d d!str!buted to all t-e /)S/s t-at -as e&eryt-!#, su33ed u$. .-ere !s a lot o1 s$ec!al!;at!o# !# t-e /)S/s t-ese days. .!tle F a$$l!cat!o#s: -ere are t-e reBu!re3e#ts: -tt$://www.Eust!ce.,o&/usao/eousa/1o!a^read!#,^roo3/usa3/t!tle*/cr300028.-t3 .-ey reBu!re a HrealH Eud,e, a#d 3a#y ot-er t-!#,s. Cere0s a#ot-er brea5dow# -tt$://www.!t.oE$.,o&/de1ault.as$4<areaQ$r!&acyZ$a,eQ128 @ert#er: "# t-e @ates case, t-e court sa!d t-at t-e /,u!lar test was too tec-#!cal a#d c-a#,ed t-e test to total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces. Ce!#r!c-: .-e o11!cers do#0t l!5e to see e&!de#ce su$$ressed, but t-ey also l!5e clear rules. So t-ere0s a be#e1!t a#d detr!3e#t to t-e @ates case. "# )$to# t-ere0s a 1or3 1or a searc- warra#t t-at ,!&es a# !dea o1 w-at you #eed to be c-ec5!#, o11. =4clus!o#ary rule: you ca#0t use e&!de#ce t-at -as bee# wro#,1ully obta!#ed. .-e @ates case - -!,-er sta#dards w!ll cause $ol!ce to sto$ see5!#, warra#ts. .-e !3$l!cat!o# !s t-at t-ey w!ll ,o 1or a warra#tless searc- rat-er t-a# ,o 1or t-e warra#t t-at !s#0t -el$!#, t-e3 a#yway, because t-e e&!de#ce !s su$$ressed. .-e court -as co3e u$ w!t- so3e e4ce$t!o#s to su$$ress!o#, e.,. !1 t-e warra#t was obta!#ed !# ,ood 1a!t-. @ert#er: :-at does $robable cause 3ea#< "s !t $re$o#dera#ce o1 t-e e&!de#ce, l!5e t-e c!&!l sta#dard< Ce!#r!c-: 2o, !t0s #ot 3ore t-a# 0T or s!3!lar. Iou -a&e to loo5 at w-ere !t !s !# t-e $rocess a#d w-at t-e $o!#t o1 t-e $rotect!o# !s. .-ere !s #ot as 3uc- at sta5e, a#d t-ere !s o#ly t-e $ol!ce $!erc!#, t-e reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy 1or a $er!od o1 t!3e. :e do#0t wa#t $ol!ce do!#, t-at w!lly #!lly or !#de$e#de#tly, but beyo#d t-at, a Eud,e a$$ro&!#, !t does#0t reBu!re a $re$o#dera#ce o1 t-e e&!de#ce. "t0s 3ore t-a# sus$!c!o# t-ou,-. (Reaso#able sus$!c!o#, says @ert#er, !s t-e sta#dard 1or sto$$!#, so3eo#e o# t-e street.+ @ert#er: .-ere are two ways to descr!be !t - by loo5!#, at t-e ser!es o1 cases a#d dec!d!#, w-!c- !s w-!c-, or by actually descr!b!#, w-at !t !s. "s !t t-e sa3e as $r!3a 1ac!e case< Owe#

says t-at !t0s 3ore l!5e d!sco&ery. @ert#er as5s t-e# w-at !s t-e sta#dard 1or rele&a#ce< Ce!#r!c- says t-at t-e reBu!re3e#t 1or rele&a#ce !s &ery low. O#e sc-olar says t-at reaso#able sus$!c!o# !s 20-G0 $erce#t, $robable cause !s G0-G*T, (:-at does actually -a$$e#< "s !t true t-at o#ly G0T o1 t-e cases w-ere $robable cause !s 1ou#d result !# ,ood e&!de#ce< Cow !s e&!de#ce de1!#ed !# t-at co#te4t<+

:arra#tless arrest a#d searc- o1 $erso#s

Mo#day, October 1 , 2012 8: 2 /M

Class #otes 10/1

Mo#day, October 1 , 2012 12:1F PM

Or,a#!;at!o#al $rese#tat!o# o1 cases 1ro3 be1ore we too5 t-e brea5. .-e# Pro1essor 7a,a#0s $rese#tat!o# (a$$are#tly " 3!ssed !t.+ Searc-es, searc- warra#t, $robable cause, w-at t-e reaso# -as to loo5 l!5e .-e# we ,ot to arrest: t-e 1!rst two se#te#ces o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. .-e arrest !ssues address reaso#able#ess. 1. C!rcu3sta#ces 1or arrest, w!t- a#d w!t-out warra#t a. 'eads to t-e #e4t Buest!o# 2. :-at 5!#d o1 searc-es ca# o#e do $ursua#t to a# arrest w!t-out a warra#t< a. .-e 3ore you ca# do !# t-e wa5e o1 a# arrest, t-e 3ore reaso#able#ess !#Bu!r!es ar!se. !. .-ere were Buest!o#s o1 searc-!#, a $erso# !!. /#d Buest!o#s about searc-!#, a $lace b. "1 you ca# searc- a $erso# a1ter arrest!#, -!3 w!t-out a warra#t, t-e# t-e o#ly re&!ew w!ll be $ost 1acto. c. Searc-!#, a $lace was rele&a#t to -o3es a#d cars. .-e cases d!scuss $re-arrest re&!ew &s. $ost -oc re&!ew. o %!scuss!#, t-e best way to re,ulate $ol!ce be-a&!or .-rou,- reaso#able#ess reBu!re3e#t, or Su$$ress!o# o1 e&!de#ce o Rules &s. Sta#dards Rules are clear, sta#dards are total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces (3y t-ou,-ts: !1 t-e re3edy $ost -oc !s ,o!#, to be su$$ress!o#, t-at 3ea#s t-at $ost -oc re3ed!es could sta#d to be !3$ro&ed - !.e. ta5e w-at you wa#t but your #ot ,o!#, to be able to use !tP+ .-e Buest!o# about w-e# you #eed a warra#t 1or arrest o )S &. :atso#, t-e stole# cred!t card case, sa!d t-at -e d!d#0t #eed a warra#t 1or a 1elo#y case s!3$ly because -e could -a&e ,otte# o#e. 2ote, t-at co33o# law 1elo#y was &!rtually all o1 t-e laws (alt-ou,co#&ersely, t-ere were#0t 3a#y rulesP+ o .-ere are also tra11!c sto$s t-at are arrestable o# t-e d!scret!o# o1 t-e o11!cer, !.e. Rob!#so# a#d /twater.

.-e# t-e Buest!o# about t-e $ara3eters o1 t-e e#su!#, searc-. o Rob!#so# says you ca# $at dow# 1or a wea$o# a#d also searc- a co#ta!#er t-at !s 1ou#d o# -!3. o Searc- !#c!de#t to arrest (w!#,s$a# l!3!t+ u#3oored 1ro3 t-e u#derly!#, o11e#se. o Pro1 says t-at s-e0ll as5 about t-e d!11ere#ce betwee# Rob!#so# a#d @a#t, because !# @a#t, t-e court d!d #ot allow t-e e&!de#ce t-at was 1ou#d !# t-e car, alt-ou,- -e was $ulled o&er 1or sus$e#ded l!ce#se. .-!s case started to $ut l!3!ts o# t-e sco$e o1 a searc- u$o# arrest. Mars-all0s d!sse#t 1orecasts t-e :-re# dec!s!o#, w-e# -e $red!cted t-at tra11!c sto$s could be $rete4tual 1or t-e $ur$ose o1 collect!#, e&!de#ce. /twater was a 3ore s!,#!1!ca#t !#curs!o# !# a way t-a# Rob!#so#. / seatbelt arrest led to a searc-. Payto# case !#&ol&ed a searc- !#c!de#t to a# arrest. Payto#0s door was $r!ed o$e#, t-e co3$a#!o# case R!dd!c5 was a c-!ld w-o o$e#ed t-e door. .-e co#clus!o# was t-at 1or a# arrest !# a -o3e, you st!ll #eed a warra#t. O# t-e ot-er -a#d, o#ce you arrest -!3 !# t-e -o3e, you ca# searc- t-e $re3!ses o# w-!c- -e was arrested. But C-!3el l!3!ts t-at. C-!3el was a bur,lary case, a#d t-e $ol!ce arrested -!3 a#d searc-ed -!s e#t!re -ouse. .-e Court sa!d t-at to searc- u$o# a# arrest !# a -ouse, you ca# o#ly searc- t-e area !# w-!c- -e -as !33ed!ate co#trol, w-ere -e 3!,-t ,rab a wea$o# or destroy e&!de#ce. Maryla#d &. Bu!e !s t-e# a case o1 a $rotect!&e swee$ o1 t-e -ouse - t-e court sa!d t-at !t0s o5ay to loo5 !# a#y $lace w-ere a# acco3$l!ce 3!,-t be. ?e#tuc5y &. ?!#, ()S 2011+ $ro1 says s-e ca#0t 1!,ure out. Pol!ce !# ?e#tuc5y 1ollowed so3eo#e w-o3 t-ey0d obser&ed tra#sact!#, w!t- coca!#e. .-e $ol!ce lost -!3 at a# a$art3e#t bu!ld!#,, but t-ey s3elled 3ar!Eua#a 1ro3 a# a$art3e#t. "1 t-ey were correct s-ould t-ey #eed a warra#t< "s t-ere a reaso# w-y #ot< =!t-er way, t-ey ba#,ed o# t-e door a#d a##ou#ced t-e!r $rese#ce. .-ey -eard, !# res$o#se, t-e 0sou#d o1 d!s$osal o1 3ater!alH so t-ey 5!c5ed dow# t-e door. .-ey 1ou#d ?!#,, a 1r!e#d, a#d a ,!rl1r!e#d s!tt!#, o# t-e couc- s3o5!#, 3ar!Eua#a. .-ey $er1or3 a H$rotect!&e swee$H o1 t-e -ouse, a#d 1!#d 3ore coca!#e a#d 3ar!Eua#a. .-e Court u$-eld t-e searc-. Pro1 !s #ot -a$$y. "1 t-ere !s $robable cause t-at 3!,-t -a&e bee# su11!c!e#t to ,et a warra#t, $ol!ce ca# ba#, o# t-e door, a#d !1 t-ey -ear Hd!s$osal sou#dsH t-ey ca# cla!3 e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces to 5!c5 dow# t-e door. But t-e court co#d!t!o#s t-!s o# t-e 1act t-at t-e $ol!ce d!d#0t create t-!s s!tuat!o# by &!olat!#, t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t. Pro1 ,!&es t-e cra;y e4a3$le o1 t-e $ol!ce bur#!#, dow# t-e -ouse !# order to t-reate# t-e e&!de#ce, w-!c- would t-e# be a# e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ce. Pro1 1ou#d a s!3!lar case - t-e $ol!ce a##ou#ced t-e!r $rese#ce to so3eo#e w-o was sus$ected o1 c-!ld $or#o,ra$-y. .-ey s-outed 1ro3 outs!de t-e bu!ld!#,, a#d assu3ed t-at t-e ,uy was ru##!#, to t-e !#c!#erator. So t-ey bro5e !# a#d 1ou#d t-e e&!de#ce. "# t-at case t-e court ruled t-at t-e !#c!#erator e4!,e#cy was too s$eculat!&e to assu3e t-at t-e e&!de#ce was to be destroyed.

Pro1 as5s w-at !1 t-e $ol!ce say O$e# u$, !t0s t-e $ol!ce< =4a3$le: /,e#t calls -otel roo3 a#d says !# s$a#!s- t-at Ht-ere were $roble3s w!t- t-e &essel, $eo$le -a&e bee# arrested a#d !t0s better to ,et out.H Pro1 says t-at ?e#tuc5y &. 5!#, says t-at t-e $roble3 !s us!#, t-e aut-or!ty o1 t-e state w-e# you do#0t -a&e !t u#der t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. Mo&!#, alo#, to searc- !#c!de#t to arrest !# car. Ca# !t be reco#c!led w!t- Ao#es, t-e @PS case<

Car#ey was a 3ob!le -o3e case. -tt$://e#.w!5!$ed!a.or,/w!5!/Cal!1or#!a^&.^Car#ey .-ey -ad !#1or3at!o# t-at t-ere was a $ract!ce o1 dru,s be!#, e4c-a#,ed 1or se4. .-ey saw so3eo#e ,o !#to t-e 3ob!le -o3e a#d close t-e w!#dows-ade. Ce was t-ere a#d t-e# -e le1t. .-ey as5ed -!3 w-at -ad -a$$e#ed, a#d -e sa!d t-at -e0d e4c-a#,ed se4 1or 3ar!Eua#a. o .-e $ol!ce d!d #ot see5 a warra#t, a#d ra!ded t-e &e-!cle a#d arrested Car#ey. o .-e Su$re3e Court sa!d t-at t-e auto3ob!le e4ce$t!o# to t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t searc-es rule a$$l!ed to t-!s 3ob!le -o3e. Because !t was s!tuated !# a way t-at !3$l!ed t-at !t was 3ob!le, a#d see3ed to be used as a &e-!cle 3ore t-a# as a -o3e, t-e searc- was a car searc- rat-er t-a# a -o3e searc-.
o o

.-at leads to t-e Buest!o#s about searc- !#c!de#t to arrest, $er1or3ed o# a car. "1 you ca# arrest $eo$le 1or tra11!c &!olat!o#s, you ca# do so !# a $rete4tual 3a##er, a#d you ca# searc- 1or e&!de#ce e&e# t-ou,- !t0s #ot a cr!3e t-at !#&ol&es e&!de#ce, a#d you ca# use t-e e&!de#ce a,a!#st -!3, t-at would be s!,#!1!ca#t d!3!#ut!o# o1 t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#. @a#t -tt$://e#.w!5!$ed!a.or,/w!5!//r!;o#a^&.^@a#t - t-ere was a# a#o#y3ous t!$ t-at res!de#ts were sell!#, dru,s !# a $art!cular $lace. .ucso# $ol!ce as5ed to s$ea5 to t-e ow#er. @a#t sa!d t-at t-e ow#er was#0t t-ere, a#d t-at -e0d be bac5 later. .-e $ol!ce !# t-e 3ea#t!3e 1ou#d t-at @a#t -ad -ad -!s l!ce#se sus$e#ded. .-ey ca3e bac5 later. .-ey 1ou#d a 3a# a#d a wo3a#, bot- o1 w-o3 were arrested6 t-e 3a# 1or ,!&!#, a 1alse #a3e, a#d t-e wo3a# 1or dru, $ara$-er#al!a. .-e#, @a#t s-owed u$. Pol!ce saw t-at -e was dr!&!#,, a#d t-ey arrested -!3 a#d -a#dcu11ed -!3. .-e two ot-er arrestees were secured, 3ore o11!cers arr!&ed, @a#t was loc5ed !# t-e bac5 o1 t-e $ol!ce car. .-e $ol!ce t-e# searc-ed -!s car, !#c!de#t to t-e arrest. .-ey 1ou#d a ,u#, coca!#e, etc. Ce was c-ar,ed w!t- $ossess!o# o1 dru, $ara$-er#al!a, a#d -e co#tested !t, say!#, t-at -e could#0t -a&e reac-ed t-e car a#d t-ere1ore !t was beyo#d t-e sco$e o1 a reaso#able searc- !#c!de#t to -!s arrest. .-e court be,!#s to a$$ly a test t-at !3$l!es t-at t-ere are d!11ere#t rules 1or e&!de#ce sto$s a#d #o#-e&!de#ce sto$s. Rob!#so# -ad u#3oored t-e reaso# 1or t-e sto$ 1ro3 t-e sco$e o1 t-e searc-, w-e# t-e 1!#d!#, o1 -ero!# !# -!s $oc5et was u$-eld a1ter a tra11!c sto$. Cowe&er, you ca# st!ll searc- t-e car !1 t-ere !s reaso#able bel!e1 t-at t-ere !s e&!de#ce o1 a cr!3e.

Cy$os
.uesday, October 16, 2012 8:F2 /M

:-at are t-e !ssues< t-e arrest, o :as t-ere $robable cause< :-at0s t-e e&!de#ce< Robert Ao#es le1t !# t-e 3or#!#, w!t- -!s brot-er, a#d ca3e bac5 alo#e. C!s brot-er was o#e o1 two $eo$le !# t-e robbery.

Pol!ce -a&e at least a rou,- descr!$t!o# o1 t-e 3a#, but -ow e4act !s t-e descr!$t!o#< Robert Ao#es we#t to a -otel. %o we 5#ow t-at -e was t-e acco3$l!ce< /r,uably #ot. %oes t-e wo3a#0s descr!$t!o# -el$< / 3a# 3eet!#, t-!s descr!$t!o#, u#less t-ere was 3ore to t-e descr!$t!o#, 3!,-t #ot be e#ou,-. Cow 3a#y $eo$le were !# t-e -otel< "1 3a#y, t-ey 3!,-t -a&e less o1 a case. "s t-ere a $laus!ble ar,u3e#t t-at t-!s !s e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces< '!5e !# ?!#,, t-ey a##ou#ced t-at t-ey were $ol!ce, a#d 5!c5ed !# t-e door o#ly w-e# t-ey -eard t-e w!#dow o$e#< :as t-ere a reaso# to d!s$e#se w!t- t-e reBu!re3e#t o1 a warra#t< "1 #ot, t-e Buest!o# s-ould tur# to w-et-er t-e -otel roo3 -as t-e status o1 a dwell!#,, !# w-!c- case t-ey would #eed a warra#t. Pro1 says t-at t-e reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !s w-at sets u$ t-e reBu!re3e#t 1or a warra#t. But so3eo#e else says t-at t-e ?at; test o1 reaso#able e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy !s #ot w-at0s at $lay -ere. "t0s t-e arrest !# a -o3e, w-!c- !s 3ore related to t-e sacred#ess o1 a -o3e or so3et-!#,.

.-e searc- o1 t-e roo3 Searc-!#, t-e roo3 !#c!de#t to arrest< o .-e ,uy was arrested already, w-at !s t-e $ur$ose o1 searc-!#, a#yt-!#,< @a#t case su,,ests t-at t-e sco$e o1 t-e searc- !s l!3!ted to w-ere -e was at t-e t!3e o1 t-e arrest. C-!3el says t-at you ca# searc- t-e area t-at -e !s !#. But ca# t-ey do !t later, to searc- t-e area t-at t-e sus$ect :/S< Owe# !s s5e$t!cal. But @a#t see3ed to !#troduce t-e !dea t-at t-e sco$e o1 t-e searc- !s de1!#ed by t-e da#,er, a#d o#ce t-e arrest !s 3ade t-ere !s #o da#,er. Boo5: .-ree 1elo#!es a day.

Sto$ a#d 7r!s5

.uesday, October 16, 2012 10:1> /M

:-!le t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t a$$l!es to stra!,-t1orward searc-es a#d se!;ures by reBu!r!#, $robable cause a#d warra#ts, t-ere !s HlesserH 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t act!&!ty t-at ca# be e#,a,ed !# w!t- so3et-!#, less t-a# $robable cause. Ca3ara &. Mu#!c!$al Court reco,#!;ed t-at t-e le&el o1 !#trus!o# #eeds to be bala#ced a,a!#st t-e #ecess!ty o1 t-e searc-. .erry &. O-!o t-ere1ore allowed t-at a less !#trus!&e $ract!ce, deta!#!#, sus$!c!ous $eo$le o# t-e street 1or !#&est!,at!o#, #eeded so3ew-at less t-a# $robable cause. So t-ere see3 to be t-ree le&els at t-!s $o!#t (3aybe t-at ,!&es r!se to Buest!o# about w-!cle&el we0re !# at a ,!&e# t!3e+6 a 1ull arrest, a# !#&est!,atory sto$ t-at does#0t reBu!re Bu!te as 3uc- sus$!c!o# as a# arrest, a#d a re,ular $ol!ce e#cou#ter w-!c- $resu3ably would#0t reBu!re a#y sus$!c!o# at all. / re,ular $ol!ce e#cou#ter, s-ow# by t-e later cases, see3s to reBu!re t-at t-e $erso# u#dersta#d t-at -e !s 1ree to ter3!#ate t-e e#cou#ter at a#y t!3e. "1 -e does#0t 1eel t-at way, t-e# !t beco3es a &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. (But w-at does !t beco3e< %oes !t beco3e a .erry sto$, or a real arrest<+

'esser !#trus!o#s
Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:F0 PM

.-ere are so3e ot-er 5!#ds o1 searc-es t-at -a&e bee# u$-eld w!t-out warra#ts a#d w!t-out $robable cause. /s #oted !# t-e sto$ a#d 1r!s5 sect!o#, Ca3ara a$$l!ed a bala#c!#, test, w-ere t-e state !#terest a#d t-e le&el o1 sus$!c!o# were co3$ared to t-e le&el o1 !#trus!o#. But Ca3ara was a# ad3!#!strat!&e ty$e searc-. o O#e sta#dard t-at0s bee# used !s reasona7le s!spicion (o1 a $art!cular !#d!&!dual+. .wo !llustrat!&e cases are O0Co##or &. Orte,a a#d 2ew Aersey &. .'O. .-ey were searc-es o# stude#ts !# $ubl!c sc-ools based o# reaso#able sus$!c!o# o1 &!olat!#, sc-ool rules. o /#ot-er way to bala#ce t-e #ecessary searc- w!t- t-e t-reat o1 !#trus!o# !s to !#s$ect based #ot o# !#d!&!dual sus$!c!o#, but o# #eutral cr!ter!a w-!c- ,uard a,a!#st arb!trary select!o#. So3e e4a3$les !#clude a!r$ort secur!ty c-ec5s, dr!&er0s l!ce#se c-ec5 roadbloc5s, a#d sobr!ety c-ec5$o!#ts. o .-e Sa3so# case, co3!#, r!,-t u$, we!,-ed w-et-er a# !#trus!o# could be u$-eld w!t#e!t-er ty$e o1 restra!#t.

Searc- !#c!de#t to arrest

.uesday, October 16, 2012 12:G* PM

.-ere !s t-e co#ce$t o1 He&!de#ce arrestH as o$$osed to ra#do3 arrest. 7or e4a3$le, arrest!#, so3eo#e 1or a tra11!c &!olat!o# !s #ot a# e&!de#ce arrest, because t-ere !s #o 1urt-er e&!de#ce to be 1ou#d. 2e&ert-eless, Rob!#so# case says t-at !t0s o5ay to searc- so3eo#e w-o was arrested, #ot 1or wea$o#s or a#yt-!#, related to t-e cr!3e, but s!3$ly because -e was arrested. ("s t-at doctr!#e<+

Co#se#t Searc-es
Su#day, October 21, 2012 *:0* /M

2ot sure w-at t-e co##otat!o#s o1 -a&!#, t-!s se$arate 1ro3 t-e earl!er bus searc-es !s. Clar!1y t-at.

Pla!# 8!ew
Su#day, October 21, 2012 10:00 /M

"# %oolidge v. 4ew Hampshire, G0F ).S. GGF, *1 S.Ct. 2022, 2* '.=d.2d 6G (1*>1+, we sa!d t-at !# certa!# c!rcu3sta#ces a warra#tless se!;ure by $ol!ce o1 a# !te3 t-at co3es w!t-!# $la!# &!ew dur!#, t-e!r law1ul searc- o1 a $r!&ate area 3ay be reaso#able u#der t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t. /r!;o#a &. C!c5s, G80 ).S. F21, F2F, 10> S. Ct. 11G*, 11 1, *G '. =d. 2d FG> (1*8>+ .-ose c!rcu3sta#ces !#clude s!tuat!o#s SMwN-ere t-e !#!t!al !#trus!o# t-at br!#,s t-e $ol!ce w!t-!# $la!# &!ew o1 suc- Me&!de#ceN !s su$$orted ... by o#e o1 t-e reco,#!;ed e4ce$t!o#s to t-e warra#t reBu!re3e#t,R

/r!;o#a &. C!c5s, G80 ).S. F21, F26, 10> S. Ct. 11G*, 11 F, *G '. =d. 2d FG> (1*8>+

Class o1 10/22
Mo#day, October 22, 2012 12:1F PM

Searc- !#c!de#t to arrest Perso# Co3e Car 'et0s ta5e t-e3 o#e by o#e. 2e4t wee5 Mo#day, .uesday !s t-e e4clus!o#ary rule. Pro1 $ut !t later so t-at we0d -a&e co#te4t 1or !t. .-e# we -a&e two ,uests. O#e o# t-e 2a .ra# case, a#d t-e seco#d w!ll be o# e#tra$3e#t.

"#c!de#t to arrest :-e# do you #eed a warra#t< o :atso# o .e##essee &. @ar#er o :-re#: Iou ca# sto$ so3eo#e 1or a Eust!1!ed tra11!c sto$, e&e# !1 t-e reaso# !s $rete4tual. But !1 t-ere was #o Eust!1!cat!o#, t-e# you ca#0t sto$ t-e3. o But see t-e $re,#a#t coca!#e case: "# ad3!#!strat!&e searc-es, t-e $rete4t does #ot allow you to searc- t-e way !t d!d !# t-e tra11!c case. 'oose#!#, t-e warra#t reBu!re3e#t -as !3$l!cat!o#s 1or searc- !#c!de#t to arrest. o .-e $erso# 3ay be searc-ed #ow w!t-out a warra#t. Searc-!#, a -o3e o Payto# arrest warra#t o C-!3el (searc-!#, !33ed!ate area o1 arrestee+ o .-ere !s also a co#ce$t o1 w!#,s$a# a#d searc- 1or wea$o#s o @a#t: Ca# you searc- t-e area t-at t-e $erso# was !# w-e# -e was arrested, or o#ly t-e area t-at !s 1actually #ecessary curre#tly< @a#t sa!d t-at searc-es are o#ly warra#ted 1or so3et-!#, t-at t-e arrestee ca# access, or 1or e&!de#ce t-at d!rectly relates to t-e cr!3e. o Maryla#d &. Bu!e: .-e $ol!ce ca# searc- a -o3e 1or $oss!ble assa!la#ts, a#d t-!#,s t-at t-ey e#cou#ter !# t-e course o1 t-at searc- are allowed !#to e&!de#ce. (Pro1 says t-at t-!s e:igent circ!"tance !s a .erry ty$e rat!o#ale. "t !s a cursory sto$, t-ere !s #o sus$!c!o# o1 a#yt-!#, related to e&!de#ce, but $ol!ce ca# ta5e w-at " 1!#d as well.+ o ?!#,: (.-!s !s a d!11ere#t ty$e o1 e:igent circ!"stance, w-ere!# t-e warra#t !s e4cused because o1 destruct!o# o1 e&!de#ce. .-ere was $robable cause, a#d t-ere was worry about #ot -a&!#, t!3e to ,et a warra#t. + o .-ere0s a t-!rd ty$e o1 e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ce. 2ot sure !1 $ro1 sa!d w-at !t !s. Searc- o1 a car !#c!de#t to arrest -as #ow e&ol&ed !#to a s!tuat!o# w-ere !1 you0re sto$$ed an$ arreste$ 1or a#y &!olat!o#, t-e car ca# be searc-ed e&e# 1or t-!#,s t-at are #ot related to t-e arrest. o @a#t see3s to say t-at t-ere !s #o u#br!dled r!,-t to searc- a car !#c!de#t to arrest. .-e r!,-t !s o#ly w-e# t-e arrestee is !nsec!re$ a#d w!t-!# reac- o1 t-e ,lo&e

co3$art3e#t or !1 t-ere !s e,i$ence relate$ to the cri"e. (%oes t-!s a$$ly o#ly to cars<+ o .-ere !s a#ot-er !3$l!cat!o#: "1 t-ere !s reaso# to bel!e&e t-at t-ere !s e&!de#ce related to t-e cr!3e o1 arrest u#!Bue to t-e &e-!cle co#te4t, t-e# t-ey ca# searc- t-e car. But t-e case says #ot-!#, about t-e sta#dard 1or t-at. "s !t $robable cause< Reaso#able sus$!c!o#< /lso, w-at !s t-e e11ect o# C-!3el< %oes !t #arrow t-e sco$e o1 t-e searc- o1 a -ouse !#c!de#t to arrest< :-at !s t-e e11ect o# Bu!e< %oes !t #arrow t-e searc- !#c!de#t to arrest 1or $ote#t!al attac5ers< %oes !t alter t-e Rob!#so# -old!#,, re,ard!#, searc- o1 t-e $erso# !#c!de#t to arrest< "# t-at case, !t was clear t-at t-ere was #ot-!#, relat!#, to t-e cr!3e #or a#y wea$o#s !# -!s $oc5et. Cowe&er, !t0s really #ot so rele&a#t, s!#ce t-ey ca# always use t-e H!#&e#toryH tr!c5, w-!c- 3ea#s t-ey ca# !3$ou#d t-e car a#d t-e# t-ey -a&e to !#&e#tory t-e co#te#ts, a#d t-e e&!de#ce w!ll tur# u$ a#yway. o (:-y !s t-e doctr!#e so 1or3al< :ould#0t !t 3a5e se#se to be 3ore 1u#ct!o#al!st<+ o Terr+ stops see3 to be su11er!#, 1ro3 3!ss!o# cree$. "t started out w!t- a $art!cular set o1 1acts, a#d #ow !t e#ded u$ beco3!#, a broad doctr!#e. "t0s so3ew-ere !# betwee# a searc-/dete#t!o# a#d a# e#cou#ter. Br!e1ly deta!#ed w-!le $ert!#e#t Buest!o#s are d!rected at -!3. Ce 3ay re1use to a#swer, a#d t-at w!ll #ot !# !tsel1 be bas!s o1 arrest, but t-e o11!cer ca# ta5e !t !#to accou#t !# deter3!#!#, w-et-er 1urt-er 3o#!tor!#, !s #ecessary. O#ce t-e o11!cer sto$s you, -e ca# t-e# $at you dow# 1or wea$o#s, s!#ce -e !s t-eoret!cally !# da#,er. .erry beca3e a# e4ce$t!o# to t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. "t e3$-as!;es t-e 1!rst $art o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t Hu#reaso#able searc-esH. /d3!#!strat!&e searc-es: .-e $rototy$e !s o#e o1 so3et-!#, l!5e read!#, t-e ,as 3eter. "1 you are allowed to loo5 ,e#erally 1or a# ad3!#!strat!&e searc-, t-e# w-ate&er you tur# u$ !s 1!#e. o "ll!#o!s &. '!dster - $ol!ce loo5!#, 1or -!t a#d ru# dr!&er, ca3e to t-e s$ot a#d wa!ted to see !1 a#yo#e 5#ew a#yt-!#, about t-e acc!de#t. .-ey sto$$ed a car a#d t-e dr!&er was dru#5. .-e Court sa!d t-at s!#ce t-e $ur$ose was ,e#eral !#&est!,at!o# relat!#, to a $art!cular e&e#t, !t was Eust!1!ed. Owe# says t-at s!#ce t-ey were#0t loo5!#, 1or sus$ects, t-ere does#0t #eed to be a#y sus$!c!o#. Pro1 co3$ares t-e '!dster case to t-e "#d!a#a$ol!s &. =d3o#d case to 1!,ure out w-y o#e !s reaso#able a#d o#e !s #ot. .-e '!dster case sa!d t-at s!#ce t-!s !s ,e#erally !#&est!,at!&e $ol!ce wor5 t-at !s stro#,ly Eust!1!ed, !t0s 1!#e to -a&e t-e roadbloc5. .-at leads to a d!scuss!o# o1 7er,uso# &. C-arlesto#. "# t-at case, t-ere was a stro#, Eust!1!cat!o# - $re&e#t!#, wo3e# 1ro3 us!#, coca!#e. /ssu3!#, t-at -os$!tal $erso##el were ,o&er#3e#t actors, t-ey were treat!#, t-e wo3e#, a#d t-ey were 1!#d!#, out !#1or3at!o# !# t-at co#te4t. ('oo5!#, at t-e t-ree cases alo#, w!t- t-e Cy$o about $ol!ce o11!cers sto$$!#, $eo$le 1or !#1or3at!o# o# a dru, bust. .-e 1actors t-at t-e '!dster court ,a&e to allow t-e c-ec5$o!#t was t-at !t was Eust!1!ed 1or a#ot-er $ur$ose a#d #ot so !#trus!&e. So w-at about C-arlesto#< :-at about %ru, -y$o< Ca# t-ey be Eust!1!ed< "s !t !#trus!&e<+

=d3o#d: Iou ca#0t sto$ a#d searc- ra#do3 $eo$le at a c-ec5$o!#t to see !1 t-ey are co33!tt!#, ,e#eral cr!3es. '!dster: Iou ca# sto$ $eo$le at a c-ec5$o!#t to as5 t-e3 !1 t-ey 5#ow a#yt-!#, about a -!t a#d ru# acc!de#t t-at -ad -a$$e#ed t-e wee5 be1ore. C-arlesto#: Iou ca#0t -a&e t-e -os$!tal test 1or coca!#e use a#d tur# o&er t-e results 1or $ol!ce. .-e# $ro1 t-rows !# Sa3so#, us!#, t-e sa3e set o1 rules. :-at !s t-e !#terest< :-at !s t-e le&el o1 sus$!c!o#< 2ot sure !t wor5s. " t-ou,-t !t was 3a!#ly because t-e ,uy could -a&e bee# !# $r!so#.

Pro1essor @ert#er a#d t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t

.uesday, October 2F, 2012 >:26 /M

Bo#!t; &. 7a!r, 80G 7.2d 16 G 7e3ale !#3ates -ad t-e!r 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts &!olated w-e# t-ey were str!$ searc-ed. Pro1 was o# t-e br!e1 1or $la!#t!11s. O-, loo5, a ra#do3 l!st o1 $oss!ble e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces: (1+ H-ot $ursu!tH o1 a 1elo# !#to a res!de#ce6 (2+ !33!#e#t destruct!o# o1 e&!de#ce w!t-!# t-e res!de#ce6 (F+ a t-reate#ed a#d $ote#t!ally success1ul esca$e by a sus$ect 1ro3 !#s!de t-e res!de#ce6 or (G+ a# !33!#e#t t-reat to t-e l!1e or sa1ety o1 3e3bers o1 t-e $ubl!c, t-e $ol!ce o11!cers, or a $erso# located w!t-!# t-e res!de#ce. / wo3a# d!ed w-!le $ol!ce were ass!st!#, a# a !#&olu#tary co33!t3e#t. .-ey 5!c5ed dow# t-e door to -er -ouse w!t-out a warra#t, alt-ou,- t-ey -ad a H$!#5 $a$erH 1ro3 a doctor. Pro1 #oted t-at %arrantless, nonconsens!al e#tr!es !#to $r!&ate res!de#ces are pres!"pti,el+ C!nreasona7leC u#der t-e FourthAmendment, abse#t e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces. t-at w-!le !t was $oss!ble to -a&e e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces !# so3e cases, !# t-!s case t-ere were#0t a#y, s!#ce t-e $ol!ce -ad ta5e# t-e!r t!3e !# e4erc!s!#, t-e H$!#5 $a$erH w-!c- d!d#0t see3 to !#d!cate a# e3er,e#cy. .-ere1ore, t-ere were #o e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces a#d t-ey s-ould -a&e ,otte# a warra#t. .-e a$$eals court o&ertur#ed t-at &erd!ct a#d re3a#ded, say!#, t-at t-e $ol!cy t-at t-e c!ty -ad o1 e4erc!s!#, t-ese warra#ts !# t-!s was d!d #ot &!olate t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t.
McCabe v. Life-Line Ambulance Serv., 77 F.3d !"

Class o1 10/2F
.uesday, October 2F, 2012 12:1* PM

%!scuss!o# o1 t-e $ara3eters o1 .erry sto$s. .-e Buest!o# !s w-at !s allowed !# ter3s o1 t-e deta!#ee lea&!#,, or re1us!#, to as5 Buest!o#s. "1 t-e $erso# ca#0t lea&e, t-e# w-y !s#0t !t a co3$lete se!;ure< "1 -e ca#, w-y does a#yo#e stay< @uest says t-at t-e e11ects o1 certa!# law e#1orce3e#t -as stro#,er e11ects t-a# t-ey s-ould. 7or e4a3$le, Eu3$!#, a tur#st!le ca# result !# de$ortat!o#. /#ot-er e4a3$le !s 3ar!Eua#a e#1orce3e#t, w-!c- -as -u,e collateral co#seBue#ces des$!te be!#, so3et-!#, #o o#e cares about.

2ew Ior5 cr!3!#al Eust!ce !s all about &olu3e. .-e 3urder rate !# 2I $ea5ed !# *2. .-ere were about 2,000 3urders, as o$$osed to G00 last year. Robber!es are dow# as well. But w-at !s !,#ored !s t-at t-e 3!sde3ea#or arrest rate -as ,o#e u$ >00T. .-at results 1ro3 Bual!ty o1 l!1e, bro5e# w!#dows $ol!c!#,. .-!s -as also led to a# e4$los!o# o1 collateral co#seBue#ces. .-e Bro#4 %e1e#ders0 o11!ce wor5s out creat!&e ways to deal w!t- t-ose sorts o1 $ol!c!es. .-e &olu3e 3et-od o1 deal!#, !# 2I Cr!3e 3ea#s t-at t-e $ol!ce are ru##!#, t-e cr!3!#al Eust!ce syste3. 7or e4a3$le, t-e a3ou#t o1 t!3e t-at courts are o$e# dur!#, o11 t!3es !s based o# t-e a3ou#t o1 $ol!ce t-at w!ll be o# t-e streets dur!#, t-ose t!3es. Mar!Eua#a arrests br!#, to l!,-t s-oc5!#, !ssues. "t caused t-ousa#ds o1 arrests a#d a lot o1 collateral da3a,e. =&e# t-e $ol!ce w!ll ad3!t t-at !t0s a low $r!or!ty. But !t leads to t-e lar,est #u3ber o1 arrests. S$ea5er says t-at !t led to w-at !s bas!cally He#,!#eered 3!sde3ea#orsH. 7or e4a3$le, you are #ot ,o!#, to ,et 3ore t-a# a 3!sde3ea#or 1or -a&!#, 3ar!Eua#a !# your $oc5et, but !1 you ta5e out t-e 3ar!Eua#a a#d !t0s !# $ubl!c &!ew, !t t-e# beco3es a cr!3e. o .-ey tr!ed to !de#t!1y t-e sco$e o1 t-e $roble3. Ce tra!#ed !# a bu#c- o1 Cleary lawyers to arra!,# $eo$le. .-ey arra!,#ed about 0 3ar!Eua#a cases, a#d too5 data to 1!,ure out e4actly w-at was -a$$e#!#,. o .-!s was a ,ood !ssue because #o o#e cares about 3ar!Eua#a. .-e 3ayor ad3!ts t-at -e s3o5ed !t. 2obody cares. Cl!e#ts are t-ere1ore l!5ely to tell you w-at -a$$e#ed. /#ot-er reaso# t-ey were ,reat to wor5 w!t- !s because t-ere were so 3a#y o1 t-e3. o =&e# t-e #o#-cr!3!#al &!olat!o#s lead to collateral co#seBue#ces t-at are sta,,er!#,. / co#&!ct!o# 3a5es you !#el!,!ble 1or 1ederal educat!o#al 1!#a#c!al a!d, !#el!,!ble 1or $ubl!c -ous!#,, el!,!ble 1or de$ortat!o#. Re,ularly leads to !#&ol&e3e#t o1 C-!ld Ser&!ces w-o 3ay ta5e away $eo$le0s 5!ds. .-e way t-ey tr!ed to 1!,-t t-e cases was by try!#, to su$$ress t-e e&!de#ce. .-e data s-owed t-at F T o1 t-e3 were 3a#u1actured 3!sde3ea#ors. "1 you add t-e $oss!b!l!ty t-at t-e or!,!#al sto$ was #ot warra#ted, t-ere 3ay be as 3uc- as G0T o1 t-e arrests were wro#,1ul. o 2 T o1 t-e arrests -a$$e#ed o# :ed#esdays. :-at does t-at tell us< S$ea5er sus$ects t-at t-e reaso# !s t-at t-e re$ort!#, reBu!re3e#ts are .-ursday 3or#!#,s. o S$ea5er tr!ed about 60 a#d o&ersaw about 12 . 2ot a s!#,le -ear!#, -as bee# co#ducted. (:-y #ot<+ o .-e $o!#t !s t-at we #eed to 5#ow w-at t-e Gt- /3e#d3e#t 3ea#s !# co#te4t. :-y !s !t t-at !t0s e&eryo#e0s lowest $r!or!ty to re,ulate 3ar!Eua#a, a#d yet !t leads to t-e 3ost arrests a#d t-e 1ewest -ear!#,s. o .-e syste3 would o11er t-e3 a 3!sde3ea#or d!sturb!#, t-e $eace. .-e# t-ey would -a&e to co3e bac5 a,a!# a#d a,a!# be1ore t-ey would ,et a#yw-ere. O#e ,uy ca3e bac5 12 t!3es. M!ssed 1G days o1 wor5. 7!#ally t-ey ,ot to a -ear!#, a#d t-e %/ dro$$ed t-e case be1ore a#yt-!#, could -a$$e#. .-e $o!#t !s t-at t-e trouble t-at t-ey were $ut t-rou,- 1ar outwe!,-ed t-e &!#d!cat!o#. .-ese $eo$le ca#0t co3e bac5 a,a!# a#d a,a!#, so t-ey -a&e #o c-o!ce but to acce$t t-e $leas, a#d 3o&e o# w!t- t-e!r l!&es. Luest!o#: w-at !s t-e real!ty o1 co#se#t searc-es as o$$osed to sto$ a#d 1r!s5< "1 t-e $ol!ce as5 t-e ,uy w-at0 s !# -!s $oc5ets, a#d o .-ere are 1our 2I cate,or!es start!#, w!t- a 1r!e#dly sto$ o# t-e street

2e4t le&el !s co33o# law r!,-t to !#Bu!re - a# art!culable reaso# to do !t, e&e# w!t-out sus$!c!o#. =.,. !1 so3eo#e loo5s lost, t-e co$ ca# as5 -!3 !1 -e #eeds -el$. o .erry sto$ - reBu!re3e#t art!culated !# 2I law reBu!res reaso#able sus$!c!o# t-at a cr!3e -as bee# or !s about to be co33!tted. Perso# !s #ot 1ree to lea&e, so !t0s a dete#t!o# o1 sorts. o 2e4t le&el !s arrest. Peo$le loo5 1or br!,-t l!#e rules. But t-ere are#0t a#yo#e. .-ere1ore, !t0s !3$orta#t to de&elo$ 1acts, because 1acts are 3alleable. .-ey are -ard to $!# dow# a#d -ear!#,s -a$$e# a lo#, t!3e a1terward, a#d usually t-e o11!cer test!1!es, a#d t-e arrestee does#0t. o So you try to el!c!t 1acts t-at $lace t-e arrest at a# earl!er $o!#t !# t!3e. Iou try to s-ow t-at t-e arrest was w-e# t-ey ,ot out o1 t-e car, rat-er t-a# a1terward w-e# t-ey were 3ore sus$!c!ous. .-ere !s a# o#l!#e 2IP% de3o#strat!o# o1 w-at a# !deal sto$ a#d 1r!s5 !s, a#d s$ea5er says t-at !t0s a3a;!#, w-at t-e 2IP% t-!#5s !s H!dealH. Says -e0s !#&ol&ed !# 1*8F cases a#d class act!o#s about tres$ass!#, arrests. o %/ test!1!ed o# be-al1 o1 t-e de1e#ders0 o11!ce, because t-ey -ad as5ed t-e $ol!ce to sto$ 3a5!#, t-ose arrests. Pro1 $o!#t out t-at t-e e4clus!o#ary rule !s a #ull!ty !1 you are#0t ,o!#, to court a#yway. S$ea5er says t-at t-e Co#st!tut!o#al laws co3e 1ro3 t-e b!, cases, ,u#s 1ou#d !# or,a#!;ed cr!3e cases, but t-ere0s #o case law about tee#a,ers w-o were 1ou#d w!t- weed o# t-e way -o3e 1ro3 sc-ool. /#ot-er $o!#t t-at ca3e out o1 t-e study was o Be!#, t-at t-e 2IP% !s so close3out-ed, !t was !#terest!#, t-at t-ere was a de$art3e#t-w!de 3e3o c!rculated 1ro3 t-e co33!ss!o#er t-at sa!d t-at $ol!ce #eeded to sto$ creat!#, t-ese 3a#u1actured 3!sde3ea#ors. .-e reaso# !s t-at t-e !#ce#t!&es !#ter#al to t-e 2IP% screa3ed t-e o$$os!te to t-e o11!cers. .-e 3e3o ca3e 1ro3 t-e to$ 1or $ol!t!cal reaso#s, but t-e o11!cers see3ed to 5#ow t-at t-ey were#0t su$$osed to l!ste#. 2I -as a s$eedy tr!al law says t-at you #eed to try a 3!sde3ea#or w!t-!# 60 days. But a year a#d a -al1 $assed, a#d !# ter3s o1 t-e way t-e t!3e was calculated !t was o#ly 2G days. o .-e way t-at t-ey 3a#!$ulate t-e t!3e !s t-!s: t-e o#ly t!3e t-at accrues !s t-e t!3e t-at t-e %/ !s #ot $re$ared 1or tr!al. So !t does#0t !#clude 3ot!o# $ract!ce. /1ter s!4 3o#t-s o1 3ot!o# $ract!ce, t-e %/ w!ll as5 1or a wee5, a#d t-ere !s too 3uc- o# t-e Eud,e0s cale#dar so -e0ll $us- !t o11 a 3o#t-. S!#ce t-e %/ o#ly as5ed 1or a wee5, t-at0s all t-e t!3e t-at accrues o# t-e s$eedy tr!al law. o Pro1 says t-at t-ere0s also a 6t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t. S$ea5er res$o#ds t-at Eud,es #e&er care about t-at law, because !t0s #ot $art!cularly clear or use1ul. =&e#tually, a1ter two years o1 delay, t-ey w!ll 1!#ally 1all bac5 o# t-e 6t- /3e#d3e#t. S$ea5er says t-at t-e case law all -as 1act s$ec!1!c a#alys!s. But t-e way !t0s wor5!#, #ow, $ol!ce are act!#, collect!&ely a,a!#st co33u#!t!es. .-ey e&e# ad3!t t-at !t0s collect!&e deterre#ce. o But t-e case law does#0t address t-at at all. /#d w-e# you -a&e a co$ o# t-e sta#d, a#d you as5 -!3 -ow 3a#y sto$s -e 3ade, -e w!ll usually say 18. (.-ey -a&e a# 18 a#d 1 rule, w-!c- 3ea#s sto$ 18 $eo$le a#d arrest 1.+ But t-ey ca#0t as5 -ow 3a#y $eo$le -e sto$$ed co3$ared to -ow 3a#y t-ey arrested, because t-at does#0t really relate to t-e case at -a#d. /#d s$ea5er says t-at t-at0s t-e -ole !# t-e Gt/3e#d3e#t l!t!,at!o# case law. o Pro1 says t-at we0ll be tal5!#, about a11!r3at!&e c!&!l su!ts (7a,a# -as o#e too+. But t-e class -as to be o1 $eo$le w-o were !##oce#t, rat-er t-a# o#e o1 $eo$le w-o
o

were ,u!lty. /#d t-e #arrow!#, o1 t-e e4clus!o#ary rule -as co!#c!ded w!t- t-e #arrow!#, o1 c!&!l l!ab!l!ty 1or !lle,al searc-es. S$ea5er c!tes Sc-#ec5lerot- case, w-!c- says t-at t-e Gt- /3e#d3e#t -as #ot-!#, to do w!t- t-e r!,-t to a 1a!r tr!al. Ce says t-at !t0s #ot as clear as t-e case would l!5e !t to be. .-e 1act !s t-at t-e !3$u#!ty w!t- w-!c- o11!cers are allowed to act does a11ect t-e outco3e 1or t-e de1e#da#t. .-e court !s bas!cally say!#, t-at t-e &!olat!o#s o1 t-e law by t-e o11!cer -as #ot-!#, to do w!t- t-e tr!al. But w-ere tr!als are su$$osed to su$$ort de3ocracy, t-ere ou,-t, $er-a$s to be a co##ect!o# betwee# t-e Gt- /3e#d3e#t a#d t-e tr!al. 0.-!s /3er!ca# '!1eH $odcast d!scuss!#, b!wee5ly status 3eet!#,s w!t- 2IP% su$er&!sors, as5!#, 1or 18 a#d 1, etc. =3a!l: scottl_bro#4de1e#ders.or,

.-e R!,-t to Cou#sel

Su#day, 2o&e3ber 0G, 2012 6:1> PM

"# a way, t-e %!sse#t !# /s-cra1t tur#ed out to be r!,-t, because o#ce t-e H&olu#tar!#essH o1 t-e co#1ess!o# was deter3!#ed based o# t-e act!o#s o1 t-e $ol!ce be!#, H!#-ere#tly coerc!&eH or #ot, t-e court e#ded u$ -a&!#, to call co#1ess!o#s &olu#tary or !#&olu#tary based o# t-e Eud,3e#t o1 t-e !#terro,at!o# tact!cs alo#e. /l3ost e&eryt-!#, was rele&a#t to deter3!#!#, w-et-er t-e !#terro,at!o# was !#-ere#tly coerc!&e, a#d !t e#ded u$ be!#, a total!ty o1 t-e c!rcu3sta#ces t-!#,, w!t-out 3ucco#s!ste#cy o# w-at was t-e correct total!ty. .-!s led to t-e te#de#cy to wra$ e&eryt-!#, u$ !# t-e Hr!,-t to cou#selH. o Started w!t- a d!sse#t !# Croo5er (1* *+. o "# Croo5er, t-e de1e#da#t was aware t-at -e was e#t!tled to a lawyer, a#d des$!te -!s !#s!ste#ce t-at -e ,et o#e, t-e $ol!ce co#t!#ued !#terro,at!#, -!3. .-e Court de#!ed -!s cla!3 t-at t-at -ad &!olated -!s due $rocess r!,-t. o 'ater, !# t-e S$a#o case, t-ere a$$eared to be a 3aEor!ty 1or t-e Hr!,-t to cou#selH $ro$os!t!o#, but t-e case was dec!ded o# t-e trad!t!o#al H&olu#tar!#essH ,rou#ds a#yway. o .-e#, !# Mass!a-, t-e Court !#st!tuted t-e #ew r!,-t-to-cou#sel at t-e !#&est!,at!o#al $-ase was 1ou#d. o .-e Court co#1!r3ed !t a 1ew wee5s later !# =scobedo.
o

)#!ted States &. %a&!s (2011+

.uesday, October F0, 2012 11:G6 /M Facts of the Case 6olice arrested Willie Gene *avis after a traffic stop. <e subsequently gave a false name to the officers. After discovering his real name, the officers arrested him, handcuffed him and put him in the police car for giving false information to a police officer. 7hen they searched the vehicle and found a gun in his ac!et. <e was charged and convicted for possession of an illegal weapon. Following a ury trial, *avis was convicted and sentenced to ))- months in prison. 2ut the >.0. 'ourt of Appeals for the Gleventh 'ircuit found that while the search was illegal the evidence found in the vehicle was still admissible. Question

*oes the good5faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to a search that was authoriAed by precedent at the time of the search but is subsequently ruled unconstitutional1 Decision: , votes for >nited 0tates, ) vote"s$ against Legal provision: /th Amendment, Gxclusionary 3ule Jes. 7he 0upreme 'ourt affirmed the lower court order in an opinion by Bustice 0amuel Alito. "0earches conducted in ob ectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not sub ect to the exclusionary rule," Alito wrote. Bustice 0onia 0otomayor oined in the udgment only. 8eanwhile, Bustice 0tephen 2reyer dissented, oined by Bustice 3uth 2ader Ginsburg. "7he 'ourt finds a new &good faith& exception which prevents application of the normal remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation, namely, suppression of the illegally seiAed evidence," 2reyer notes, addingD "At this point % can no longer agree with the 'ourt. A new &good faith& exception and this 'ourt&s retroactivity decisions are incompatible."

Alito says that the deterrence varies with the culpability of the police. 0here they act in bad faith ,the deterrence rationale will stop them. )ut if they acted in good faith, then on an individual basis in terms of the officer and in terms of the action, the deterrence won$t help. 3*t seems that the difference between the "individual deterrence" and the "general deterrence" is that even if an officer wasn$t culpable, there still might be a general deterrence of such searches 5 it would create a buffer 'one around the practices. )ut if you only loo at the individual officer on an individual occasion, then there is no deterrence unless there was clear bad faith.

Class o1 10/F0 (e4clus!o#ary rule+

.uesday, October F0, 2012 11: 0 /M

Aud,e :!l5ey state3e#t o# t-e e4clus!o#ary rule /3o#, #at!o#s o1 t-e c!&!l!;ed world, we are u#!Bue !# two res$ects: :e su11er t-e 3ost e4traord!#ary cr!3e rate w!t- 1!rear3s, a#d !# cr!3!#al $rosecut!o#s, by a rule o1 e&!de#ce w-!ce4!sts !# #o ot-er cou#try, we e4clude t-e 3ost trustwort-y a#d co#&!#c!#, e&!de#ce. .-ese two aberrat!o#s are #o u#co##ected. "2 1act, t-e e4cus!o#ary rule -as 3ade u#e#1orceable t-e ,u# co#trol laws we -a&e a#d w!ll 3a5e !#e11ect!&e a#y str!cter co#trols w-!c3ay be de&!sed. "t 1ettersP $ol!ce e11orts to $re&e#t, detect, a#d $u#!s- street cr!3es !#&ol&!#, #ot o#ly wea$o#s but #arcot!cs. React!o#s: Owe# says t-at we -a&e a u#!Bue ,u# culture, a#d t-e state3e#t 1a!ls to ta5e !#to accou#t ot-er reaso#s 1or !t. So3eo#e else says t-at !t 1a!ls to accou#t 1or t-e 1act t-at !t0s a #atural out,rowt- o1 t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t. .-e d!11!cult!es t-at $ol!ce 1ace areas a result o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t #ot t-e e4clus!o#ary rule. Pro1 says t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !s searc-!#, 1or e&!de#ce o1 cr!3e, 1or t-e $ur$ose o1 br!#,!#, !t !#to tr!al. .-ere1ore, !t 3a5es #o se#se to s$l!t t-e &!olat!o# 1ro3 t-e ad3!ss!b!l!ty. Ma$$ says t-at to -old ot-erw!se !s to ,ra#t t-e r!,-t to coerce a co#1ess!o#. "t0s l!5e t-e 7!1t/3e#d3e#t r!,-t to -a&e a certa!# ty$e o1 tr!al. .-!s !s #ot t-e ty$e o1 tr!al t-at you ca# -a&e. (Ca# you ar,ue t-at t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o# o1 a coerced co#1ess!o# !s because !t0s #ot true, #ot because !t0s a $rocedural $roble3<+ So t-at ot-er $erso# says t-at t-!s !s #ot a ,ood result, because t-e !#troduct!o# o1 t-e e&!de#ce !# court !s a co#t!#uat!o# o1 t-e &!olat!o# o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t. But Owe# cou#ters t-at !t0s a &!olat!o# to brea5 !#to so3eo#e0s -ouse a#d #ot 1!#d e&!de#ce as well. "s t-e e4clus!o#ary rule a Eud,e 3ade re3edy, or !s !t $art o1 t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t<

Cerr!#, @!#sbur, d!sse#t: %o #ot $ro1!t 1ro3 lawless#ess. "t0s a# !#te,r!ty !ssue. .-e cr!3!#al ,oes 1ree, but !t !s t-e law t-at sets !t 1ree. .-e# t-ere0s a broader deterre#ce rat!o#ale. So3eo#e says t-at !t does#0t 3a5e se#se to 3a5e two wro#,s 3a5e a r!,-t. Pro1 says t-at t-e cases see3 to lea# toward a &ery s$ec!1!c deterre#ce at t-e le&el o1 t-e !#d!&!dual $ol!ce o11!cer. So3eo#e says t-at .erry c-a#,ed t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t, because t-e deterre#ce rat!o#ale so3et-!#, so3et-!#,. 'eads to $ol!ce ,o!#, o11 a#d 1!#d!#, e4ce$t!o#s a#d do!#, t-!#,s l!5e sto$ a#d 1r!s5 to ,et arou#d t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t reBu!re3e#t. Pro1 3e#t!o#s :-re#, w-!c- says t-at we do#0t loo5 at t-e $ol!ce o11!cer0s !#te#t !# sto$$!#,, as lo#, as -e was allowed to. :-et-er !t0s deterre#ce or #ot does#0t say a#yt-!#, about t-e sta#dard 1or e4clus!o#. .-ere0s a# !#st!tut!o#al deterre#ce ar,u3e#t w-!c- !s at a 1a!r le&el o1 ,e#eral!ty. .-e $rese#ce o1 t-e e4clus!o#ary rule c-a#,es $ol!ce tra!#!#,. .-at o$erates at a ,e#eral le&el to !3$ro&e $ol!ce $ract!ces. But t-ere0s also a state3e#t !# Ma$$ t-at says t-at !t0s a rou,- 3easure a#d !t ca#0t be re$l!ed to t-ose w-o e3er,e scat-eless 1ro3 t-e searc-. .-ere0s yet a#ot-er deterre#ce rat!o#ale, w-!c- !s to say car&e out cr!3!#al tr!als - betwee# Ma$$ a#d Cudso# o# o#e s!de, a#d Cerr!#,, 'eo# a#d %a&!s o# t-e ot-er, t-ere are a lot o1 l!3!tat!o#s o# t-e deterre#ce ,e#erally, s!#ce e&e# e4cluded e&!de#ce !s use1ul !# !3$eac-3e#t, !# $arole cases, !# se#te#c!#,, etc. So !t0s o#ly deterre#ce !# a ,e#eral way, w!t-out 3easur!#, t-e cul$ab!l!ty o1 a# !#d!&!dual $ol!ce o11!cer. (!s t-!s Eust $rese#ted as e&!de#ce o1 t-e !dea t-at !t0s a ,e#eral deterre#t rat-er t-a# a s$ec!1!c o#e, because !t does#0t deter co3$letely !# a#y o#e case s!#ce !t ca# st!ll be used !# se#te#c!#,<+ 'oo5!#, at t-e 'eo# case: :as tr!ed to,et-er w!t- S-e$$ard. .-e !ssues were w-e# t-ere was error !# t-e warra#t t-at was !ssued. "# S-e$-erd, t-ere was a dra1t!#, error, a#d !# 'eo#, t-ere was a $robable cause error. .-e Court acce$ted t-e :arra#t !# 'eo#, say!#, t-at t-ere was #o reaso# to deter !# cases w-ere t-e 3a,!strate -ad 3ade a 3!sta5e. Pro1 d!st!#,u!s-es 1ro3 7ra#5s, w-ere t-e o11!cer del!berately 3!sled t-e 3a,!strate. "# t-!s case t-e 3a,!strate was !3$art!al, a#d Eust 3ade a 3!sta5e. (Pro1 #otes t-at t-e !#st!tut!o#al le,!t!3acy/!#-ere#t 7ourt/3e#d3e#t e4clus!o# would #ot see3 to wor5 w!t- t-!s rul!#,.+ /1ter 'eo#, t-e doctr!#e really see3s to -a&e ,o#e stro#,ly !# t-e d!rect!o# o1 t-!s H,ood 1a!t-H e4ce$t!o# o1 t-e $ol!ce o11!cer. "# Cerr!#,, t-e $ol!ce clearly wa#ted to ,et Cerr!#,. .-e Pol!ce o11!cer as5ed !1 t-ere were outsta#d!#, warra#ts 1or Cerr!#,0s arrest. .-ere were#0t !# -!s d!str!ct, a#d -e -ad -!s d!str!ct call a#ot-er d!str!ct to see !1 t-ere was a warra#t. .-e ot-er d!str!ct could#Kt 1!#d t-e warra#t t-at was l!sted as outsta#d!#,, a#d alt-ou,- t-at was because t-e warra#t -ad bee# w!t-draw#, by t-e t!3e t-e #e!,-bor!#, d!str!ct 1ou#d t-at out, !t was too late - Cerr!#, -ad bee# arrested a#d !# a searc- !#c!de#t to arrest, -e was 1ou#d to -a&e dru,s.

6rof says that this is a new cost benefit analysis that applies to the individual police officer. 7his is isolated negligence, the opinion says. %t is attenuated from the arrest as opposed to deliberate, intentional or rec!less. %t is not recurring or gross negligence. 7his seems to be a new approach of loo!ing at the culpability of the officer. 2ut it&s possible to say that the door is still open to institutional culpability in cases where there is an institutional setup that led to the violation. 2ut would it address the exclusionary rule in that context1 7hat would be odd, wouldn&t it1 Whren relates a bit to this, since Whren says that the intent of the officer doesn&t matter as long as he had the right to ma!e the arrest for some reason. 2ut in this case, the court says that we&ll loo! into the intent of the officer and he didn&t !now that the warrant was expired. "W7<1 *id prof read the same case that % did1$ 7he law after <erring seems to be that as long as there was no flagrant or deliberate violation of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule does not apply. "sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid for it by the ustice system." 6rof turns to (9@# liability and compares it to exclusionary rule. 6rof says that the qualified immunity standard of clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have !nown, is basically what seems to be the standard now. 'ould there be a legislative remedy to the exclusionary rule1 6robably. %n addition to the changes in the exclusionary rule, there were other issues that arose. 8innesota v. 'arterD Who has standing to challenge1 %f someone is in someone else&s house and is arrested after police violate the Fourth Amendment and brea! into the house1 *ude came into the house to bag cocaine and the question is whether the invitee has an expectation of privacy. 7he 'ourt concludes that since he was there for a short time and was there for a commercial purpose, he had no standing to challenge the search. 7he *issent says that this should be within the right to invite people into your home.

Murray &. ).S. (S)PP.+ "lle,al searc- o1 a -ouse, w!t-out a searc- warra#t. 'ater, t-ey ,ot a warra#t a#d searc-ed a related ware-ouse. .-e !#1or3at!o# t-at t-ey saw !# t-e -ouse was #ot $ut !# t-e warra#t. .-e stu11 1ro3 t-e or!,!#al -ouse was e4cluded, but t-e Buest!o# !s a1ter t-ey later ,ot a warra#t, was t-at !# 1act based o# t-e earl!er warra#tless searc-. .-e court sa!d t-at t-e Buest!o#s to as5 were w-et-er t-e $ol!ce would -a&e searc-ed t-e ware-ouse w!t-out -a&!#, 1!rst !lle,ally searc-!#, t-e -ouse. .-e seco#d Buest!o# !s w-et-er t-e 3a,!strate was !#1lue#ced by t-e !#1or3at!o# t-at t-ey o#ly 5#ew because o1 t-e searc- o1 t-e -ouse. 2!4 &. :!ll!a3s (S)PP.+ .-e !#e&!table d!sco&ery rule: t-!s !s t-e way t-at courts dealt w!t- atte#uat!o# be1ore. .-ere was a searc- 1or t-e body o1 a 3urder &!ct!3. 8olu#teers were searc-!#, 1or t-e body. .-e $ol!ce $!c5ed u$ 2!4. 2!4 already -ad a lawyer, a#d t-e lawyer sa!d #ot to !#terro,ate -!3 u#t!l -e was at t-e stat!o#. %es$!te t-!s, t-e $ol!ce ,ot t-e !#1or3at!o# about w-ere t-e body was 1ro3 -!3. .-e Court co#cluded !# t-at case t-at s!#ce t-e e&!de#ce would -a&e bee# obta!#ed !#de$e#de#tly, t-e e&!de#ce based o# w-ere t-e body was was #ot e4cluded. .-e !ssue !s #ot w-at t-e $ol!ce could -a&e do#e, but w-at t-ey would -a&e do#e. Could -a&e do#e !s abstract. :ould -a&e !s w-at t-ey !# 1act would -a&e do#e. "1 t-ey HwouldH -a&e 1ou#d !t,

t-e e&!de#ce !s ad3!ss!ble, but !1 t-ey are Eust say!#, t-at t-ey HcouldH -a&e 1ou#d !t, t-e# !t would -a&e bee# e4cluded. Mass. 8. S-e$ard (S)PP.+ )#!ted States &. %esosaur< Pro10s ow# case: o11!cers arrested so3eo#e a#d -e told t-e $eo$le sta#d!#, t-ere to tell -!s $eo$le. O# t-at bas!s, t-e $ol!ce were sus$!c!ous t-at e&!de#ce was ,o!#, to be destroyed. .-ey we#t to t-e -ouse, cla!3!#, t-at t-ey -ad e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces s!#ce t-e e&!de#ce 3!,-t -a&e bee# destroyed. .-ey ,ot to t-e -ouse a#d d!d a H$rotect!&e swee$H, (!t0s #ot clear w-at t-ey were $rotect!#, 1ro3+. :-!le searc-!#, t-e -ouse, t-ey saw a bu#c- o1 dru,s ty$e stu11. O# .C/. bas!s, t-ey ,ot a warra#t a#d red!sco&ered t-e e&!de#ce. Pro1 as Eud,e sa!d t-at !t was u#reaso#able. .-e 1!rst Buest!o# s-e a$$roac-ed was w-et-er w!t-out t-!s !#1or3at!o#, would t-ey -a&e -ad $robable cause. .-e seco#d Buest!o# was w-et-er t-ey would -a&e actually bee# !#terested !# searc-!#, t-e -ouse w!t-out t-at !#1or3at!o#. .-e t-!rd !ssue was t-at o#e o1 t-e o11!cers l!ed u#der oat-. .-e dec!s!o# was re&ersed. .-e /$$eals Court a$$l!ed t-e 7ra#5s a#alys!s, w-!c- deter3!#es w-et-er a de1e#da#t ca# c-alle#,e a warra#t o#ce !t -as bee# !ssued. .-at a#alys!s !s 3uc3ore str!#,e#t - t-e de1e#da#t -as to s-ow so3et-!#, l!5e del!berate 1alse-ood. .-ere1ore, $ro1 was o&ertur#ed.

Class o1 11/
Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 0 , 2012 1:2 PM

Prese#tat!o# o1 attor#ey 1or t-!s ,uy w-o was arrested a#d se#te#ced to 1> years o# a $lea deal 1or $lott!#, to attac5 )#!ted States tar,ets. .-e way t-!s H$lotH was Hu#co&eredH was t-at t-e !#1or3a#t, a dru, add!ct, told $ol!ce t-at t-!s ,uy was !#terested !# $lott!#, a,a!#st /3er!ca. .-e !#1or3a#t $us-ed -!3 to e#,a,e !# certa!# co#duct, a#d t-e 1ederal a,e#ts also d!d, $us-!#, -!3 to create e&er 3ore elaborate $la#s, to recru!t ot-er $eo$le, to do sur&e!lla#ce o1 :as-!#,to# a#d ot-er tar,ets. .-ey told -!3 to de&!se a way (w!dely a&a!lable o#l!#e+ t-at t-ey could use $-o#es as a deto#ator. Ce d!d, a#d t-ey told -!3 t-at t-ey too5 !t a#d used !t to 5!ll $eo$le o&erseas. .-ey e#coura,ed -!3 to de&!se bo3b $la#s, a#d told -!3 t-at t-ey would ,et t-e e4$los!&es 1or -!3. :-e# t-ey d!d, a#d -e bu!lt a bo3b, -e was arrested. %e1e#da#t at o#e $o!#t sa!d t-at -e was su11er!#, 3e#tal -ealt- !ssues a#d su,,ested t-at t-ey ,et so3eo#e else, but t-ey co#&!#ced -!3 to stay o#. .-ere was #o Buest!o# t-at -e d!d w-at t-ey cla!3ed -e d!d, but t-e 3a!# Buest!o# was w-et-er t-ere was a# e#tra$3e#t de1e#se. .-at would 3ea# t-at t-e ,o&er#3e#t would -a&e to $ro&e t-at -e was $red!s$osed, a#d t-at t-e ,o&er#3e#t d!d #ot !#duce -!s cr!3es. "t was -!,-ly u#l!5ely t-at t-!s $lot would -a&e wor5ed. .-e $la#es would l!5ely #ot -a&e ta5e# o11 w!t- t-e we!,-t o1 t-e e4$los!&es, a#d t-e Pe#ta,o# a#d Ca$!tol were #ot l!5ely to be so u#$rotected. %e1e#se t-ou,-t t-at t-!s was Eust a 1a#tasy a#d -ad #o c-a#ce o1 wor5!#, at all. %e1e#da#t d!d#0t -a&e a Eob or a l!ce#se or a cell$-o#e or co3$uter w-e# -e be,a# t-e $lot. Ce was l!&!#, at -o3e w!t- -!s $are#ts.

.-e 1!rst !ssue was $red!s$os!t!o#. .-e ,o&er#3e#t0s e&!de#ce o1 $red!s$os!t!o# was so3e e3a!ls t-at t-ey 1ou#d o# -!s co3$uter t-at sa!d t-at H-!s $eo$leH -a&e a r!,-t to de1e#d t-e3sel&es. .-ere was a#ot-er e3a!l t-at sa!d so3et-!#, about /3er!ca o$$ress!#, Musl!3s !# ot-er cou#tr!es. Pro1 #otes t-at t-ere !s a $red!s$os!t!o# rat!o#ale (1ro3 a case called Coll!#,swort- t-at was #e&er 1ollowed+ t-at we!,-s w-et-er t-e de1e#da#t !# 1act -ad t-e ca$ab!l!ty to do w-at -e was su$$osed to -a&e $lotted to do. "# t-!s case, t-e ,o&er#3e#t d!d#0t $us- certa!# c-ar,es, l!5e atte3$ted use o1 :M%, because t-ey -ad to ad3!t t-at t-ere was #o c-a#ce t-at -!s blue$r!#ts were Hwea$o#s o1 3ass destruct!o#H. Luest!o# relat!#, to !#duce3e#t or $oss!bly s!3!lar to atte3$t: -ow close does t-e cul$able act!o# -a&e to be to a Hcr!3eH to be co#s!dered a cr!3e<

Class o1 11/6
.uesday, 2o&e3ber 06, 2012 1:12 PM

Ca3e late: Pro1 !s lay!#, out t-e doctr!#e o1 e#tra$3e#t !# ter3s o1 w-o -as t-e burde# o1 $ro&!#, w-at, a#d -ow t-e burde# 3o&es arou#d. CC=C? .C"S )P Pro1 #otes t-at !# cases o1 !#c-oate cr!3es, !t0s e&e# -arder to deter3!#e w-ere t-e ,o&er#3e#t0s role sta#ds !# ter3s o1 t-e s$ectru3 o1 causal!ty a#d -ow !t relates to $red!s$os!t!o#. t- /3e#d3e#t H2o $erso# s-all be co3$elled !# a#y cr!3!#al case to be a w!t#ess a,a!#st -!3sel1, #or de$r!&ed o1 l!1e, l!berty, or $ro$erty w!t-out due $rocess o1 law.H O# !ts 1ace, t-e t- /3e#d3e#t !#cludes t-e r!,-t to #ot be sub$oe#aed 1or o#e0s ow# tr!al. But -ow 1ar does !t e4te#d, a#d w-e# does !t be,!#< .-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t !s clearly related to t-e $rocedures o1 tr!al. Co#1ess!o#s: "# t-e 0s a#d 60s, t-ere was t-e Frd de,ree. .-ere was $-ys!cal coerc!o#. But as t!3e we#t by, t-e coerc!o# beca3e $syc-olo,!cal. .-e Court !# M!ra#da ta5es stro#, !ssue w!tt-at, $ars!#, t-e deta!ls o1 t-e tact!cs !# $ol!ce 3a#uals. Bre##a#, d!sse#t!#, !# a case called Colo. &. Co##elly, sa!d t-at s!#ce Co#1ess!o# !s so -ea&!ly re,arded at tr!al, esse#t!ally, t-e searc- 1or co#1ess!o#s !# ad&a#ce o1 t-e tr!al !s e#t!tled to t-e sa3e $rotect!o# as t-e tr!al. Cases start to d!st!#,u!s- betwee# !#Bu!s!tor!al a#d accusator!al tact!cs. o "#Bu!s!tor!al !s a le,al syste3 !# w-!c- a #eutral law o11!cer !s !# c-ar,e o1 1!#d!#, out t-e !#1or3at!o#, a $rocess t-at !#cludes t-e !#terro,at!o# o1 sus$ects a#d w!t#esses. (Co33o# !# c!&!l law cou#tr!es.+ o /ccusator!al !s our syste3, !# w-!c- we allow t-e ad&ersar!al syste3 to arr!&e at t-e result.

<iran$a $octrine be,!#s !# a way w!t- t-e /s-cra1t (1*GG+ case, su33ar!;ed abo&e. "# /s-cra1t, t-e de1e#da#t co#1essed a1ter a F6 -our !#&est!,at!o#. o .-e /s-cra1t Buest!o# was !# ter3s o1 t-e &ifth A"en$"ent, a#d w-et-er t-e co#1ess!o# -ad bee# co3$elled. o .-e court d!d #ot Eud,e t-e $art!cular co#1ess!o# a#d w-et-er !t -ad bee# o#ly because o1 co3$uls!o#, rat-er t-ey we!,-ed w-et-er t-!s tact!c was !#-ere#tly coerc!&e a#d s!#ce !t would #e&er 1ly !# court, !t could#0t 1ly !# !#&est!,atory !#terro,at!o#s e!t-er. Presu3ably because o#ce t-e co#1ess!o# !s ,!&e#, t-e case !s bas!cally o&er. o (" ca#0t tell !1 /s-cra1t !s released because -!s !#!t!al co#1ess!o# was coerced, or because t-e later co#1ess!o# ca3e as a result o1 t-e earl!er o#e. .-!s !s a Buest!o# t-at s-ould also be a$$l!ed to M!ra#da. 2ow, !# a M!ra#da re,!3e, w-at about t-e !#&est!,atory, rat-er t-a# adEud!catory e11ects o1 a co#1ess!o#< "1 sus$ect ,!&es t-e3 a lead, ca# t-ey $ursue !t< + o /s-cra1t was #o&el because !t 1ocused #ot o# t-e accuracy o1 t-e co#1ess!o#, because t-e court d!d#0t care t-at !t was !# 1act accurate, co#1!r3ed by later e&e#ts. o .-ere are t-ree t-e3es t-at ar!se 1ro3 suc- cases /ccuracy co#cer#s "#st!tut!o#al le,!t!3acy co#cer#s <<<<< /1ter /s-cra1t, t-e Mass!a- case (7ocused o# t-e i:th A"en$"ent+ c-a#,ed t-!#,s a b!t. Mass!a- !s su33ar!;ed !# 1ull, abo&e. Mass!a- was out o# ba!l a#d a# acco3$l!ce o1 -!s tur#ed state0s w!t#ess. .-e coo$erat!#, w!t#ess wore a w!re a#d tra#s3!tted a co#&ersat!o# t-at !#cul$ated Mass!a-. .-e Court ruled t-at s!#ce Mass!a- was $ost-!#d!ct3e#t, -e was e#t!tled to t-e tr!al $rotect!o#s o1 t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t a#d could #ot be !#terro,ated w!t-out a lawyer. Mass!a- !s bas!cally say!#, t-at you -a&e a r!,-t to cou#sel !# a#y case w-ere t-e $roceed!#,s -a&e be,u# a#d t-e de1e#da#t 3a5es !#cul$atory state3e#ts. =scobedo (S!4t- /3e#d3e#t+ was $ost arrest. Ce was told t-at t-e co-de1e#da#t -ad #a3ed =scobedo as t-e ,u!lty $arty. =scobedo as5ed 1or -!s lawyer, a#d t-e $ol!ce re1used to let -!3 tal5 to -!s lawyer. "#stead, t-ey brou,-t t-e co-de1e#da#t a#d t-e two co#1ro#ted eac- ot-er. =scobedo says H" d!d#0t 5!ll Ma#uel, you d!d,H a state3e#t w-!c- e&e#tually led to -!s 1urt-er ad3!ss!o#s a#d e&e#tual co#&!ct!o#. .-e d!sse#t 1ocuses o# t-e !dea t-at t-e Co#st!tut!o# does#0t address co#1ess!o#s, o#ly co3$elled co#1ess!o#s. (Pro1 says t-at !t $re1!,ures M!ra#da, s!#ce !t addresses de1e#da#ts w-o do#0t actually -a&e to a#swer to $ol!ce, but t-!#5 t-ey do.+ M!ra#da (7!1t- /3e#d3e#t+ was a -u,e state3e#t. .-e Court s$e#ds $a,es tal5!#, about t-e $syc-olo,!cal 3et-ods o1 co#1ess!o#s, c!t!#, to 3a#uals t-at were #ot used !# t-e cases t-at were be1ore t-e3. Pro1 says t-at t-ey were clearly reac-!#, !# t-e dec!s!o#, a#d t-ey d!d#0t care about t-e 1acts o1 t-e cases t-at were !# 1ro#t o1 t-e3. (.-e boo5 also #otes t-at t-e lawyer 1or t-e de1e#da#ts was sur$r!sed s!#ce -e t-ou,-t !t was a S!4t- /3e#d3e#t !ssue but t-e court addressed !t as a 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t !ssue.+ "t 3!,-t be so3ew-at stro#,er as a 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t !ssue, at least 1ro3 t-e $ers$ect!&e o1 t-e court, s!#ce !t was be1ore arrest. Pro1 #otes t-at t-e co#1ess!o# was #ot coerced - !t was a two -our dete#t!o# o1 M!ra#da.

"# a way, !t0s $oss!ble t-at t-e court !s say!#, t-at !#deed, as Aac5so# sa!d !# /s-cra1t, a#y dete#t!o# !s coerc!o#, a#d t-ere1ore, t-!s !s a coerced co#1ess!o# u#less t-ere !s a lawyer t-ere to sto$ !t. /#ot-er !ssue o1 cra1t !s t-at t-ese rules 3!,-t -a&e bee# be $ro3ul,ated !# a case !#&ol&!#, d!11ere#t 1acts t-at would be better su!ted to $rotect!o#.
o

Pro1 $o!#ts to Sc-ec5lerot- case !# w-!c- t-e case d!scusses t-e &olu#tar!#ess o1 co#1ess!o#s as co3$ared to t-e r!,-t to searc-. .-e Court !# Sc-#ec5lerot- sa!d t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !s d!11ere#t, s!#ce t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t !#&ol&es t-e ,uara#tees to a de1e#da#t !# t-e H1a!r ascerta!#3e#t o1 trut- at a cr!3!#al tr!alH, w-ereas t-e 7ourt/3e#d3e#t !s Ho1 a w-olly d!11ere#t orderH. o :-at does t-at 3ea#< Pro1 su,,ests t-at t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t !s 3ore $rotect!&e because !t !s 3ore ce#tral to t-e ad&ersar!al &s. !#Bu!s!tor!al a$$roac-. Matt-ew says t-at t-e reaso# !s t-at a co#1ess!o# !s t-e e#d o1 t-e l!#e - !1 you co#1ess t-e case !s o&er, w-ereas !1 you let t-e $ol!ce !#, you st!ll 3!,-t #ot be ,u!lty Pro1 says t-at t-!s also 3!,-t be a $ract!cal !ssue - $ol!ce are -arder to re,ulate w!t-!# t-e!r custod!al real3, because !t0s !#-ere#tly coerc!&e.

:a!&er/Re!#!t!at!o#
.-ursday, %ece3ber 06, 2012 6:16 PM

Class o1 11/12
Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 12, 2012 1:1F PM

/1ter =scobedo a#d Mass!a-, !t see3ed t-at t-e Court was ,o!#, to e4$a#d t-e S!4t/3e#d3e#t. .-e 'awyer 1or M!ra#da t-ere1ore br!e1ed t-e case o# ,rou#ds o1 t-e S!4t/3e#d3e#t. Mass!a- a#d =scobedo sa!d t-at !1 you -a&e a lawyer, -!s $rese#ce #eeds to be res$ected. :-at d!11ere#ce would !t -a&e 3ade !1 M!ra#da was a S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t< o .-e r!,-t to re3a!# s!le#t does#Kt -a&e a cou#sel-related corollary. o "# M!ra#da, t-ere was #o lawyer a$$o!#ted yet, so -e was#0t yet e#t!tled to a lawyer. O# t-e o#e -a#d, !t e4$a#ds t-e r!,-t to cou#sel as a $ro$-ylact!c, e&e# to $rotect 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-ts. O# t-e ot-er -a#d, !t0s a $ro$-ylact!c rat-er t-a# a tr!al r!,-t, so t-e Court -ad t-e o$$ortu#!ty to #arrow !t dow# later o#. (".e. !1 t-e state -ad ta5e# M!ra#da0s e4$ress ar,u3e#t t-at !t was a S!4t /3e#d3e#t &!olat!o#, t-e# t-e ar,u3e#t would -a&e rested o# t-e $re3!se t-at o#ce -e was arrested -e was e#t!tled to S!4t- /3e#d3e#t (tr!al+ r!,-ts. "1 t-at were t-e case, t-e# Mo#teEo would #ot -a&e bee# $oss!ble.+ .-e Buest!o#s t-at M!ra#da ra!sed o :-at !s custody<

o o

A%B &. 2ort- Carol!#a says t-at -!s a,e 3ust be ta5e# !#to accou#t . :-at would a reaso#able $erso# o1 t-at a,e bel!e&e< "t0s -ard to 5#ow -ow broadly t-at a$$l!es o#ly to a,e< .o 3e#tal status< :-at !s !#terro,at!o#< :-at !s wa!&er o1 r!,-ts .o cou#sel< .o s!le#ce< :-at !s t-e re3edy< ,rof says that in J:) v. 4%, the court could have said that it was in fact coerced, even if he wasn$t in custody 5 that under the circumstances of a teen in a closed office, it would turn out to be coercion even if he wasn$t in custody. 2his illustrates that even in cases where the &iranda rights are not implicated, there can still be straightforward coercion. 2he %ourt could have said that interrogations in schools are categorically similar to being in custody. :-at !s !#terro,at!o#< R-ode "sla#d &. "##!s: "##!s was arrested 1or robbery w!t- a s-ot,u#. Ce d!d#0t -a&e t-e ,u# - !t -ad bee# -!dde#. Ce as5ed 1or a lawyer, a#d was be!#, tra#s$orted to t-e stat!o# w!t-out be!#, Buest!o#ed. .-e o11!cers tal5ed a3o#, t-e3sel&es about -ow terr!ble !t would be !1 so3e s$ec!al-#eeds c-!ld 1ou#d t-e ,u#. "##!s o&er-eard t-!s a#d co#1essed. "ll!#o!s &. Per5!#s: .-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t does#0t a$$ly because !t was #ot a coerc!&e e#&!ro#3e#t. .-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t does#0t a$$ly because -e -ad #ot as5ed 1or a lawyer !t was a# !#&est!,at!o#, #ot a# ad&ersar!al $roceed!#, t-e way !t was !# =scobedo. "ll!#o!s &. Per5!#s: :-o bears t-e burde# o1 s-ow!#, t-at t-ere was a wa!&er o1 M!ra#da r!,-ts< .-e d!sse#t says t-at M!ra#da $ut t-e o#us o# $ol!ce, but t-e 3aEor!ty says t-at !1 t-e $erso# s$ea5s, t-at0s a# !3$l!ed wa!&er o1 t-e r!,-t to be s!le#t. o Soto3ayor c-aracter!;es -!s u#res$o#s!&e#ess as s-ow!#, t-at -e was#0t ,o!#, to s$ea5. S-e c!tes t-e d!sta#ce t-at t-e Court -as ta5e# 1ro3 M!ra#da, because t-e M!ra#da dec!s!o# sa!d t-at !t would be a -ea&y burde# to bear 1or t-e ,o&er#3e#t to s-ow t-at a de1e#da#t -ad wa!&ed -!s r!,-ts. .-e rule 1ro3 Per5!#s !s t-at t-e burde# o1 $roo1 !s o# t-e ,o&er#3e#t, but t-e ,o&er#3e#t ca# $ro&e !ts case by say!#, t-at t-ere was a# !3$l!ed wa!&er. Pro1 #otes t-at s!#ce t-!s was a Cabeas dec!s!o#, t-e court could -a&e u$-eld t-e lower court0s co#&!ct!o# by say!#, t-at t-e dec!s!o# was w!t-!# t-e ra#,e o1 reaso#able#ess, a#d t-e# t-e Cabeas act!o# would -a&e 1a!led. "#stead, t-e court used t-e o$$ortu#!ty to rede1!#e M!ra#da by say!#, t-at t-e !#&ocat!o# o1 t-e r!,-t to re3a!# s!le#t -as to be e4$l!c!t. :-at about !#&ocat!o# o1 t-e r!,-t to cou#sel, a#d wa!&!#, t-at r!,-t< .-e 3a!# case was =dwards &. /r!;o#a, !# w-!c- t-e sus$ect sa!d t-at -e wa#ted cou#sel a#d t-ey co#t!#ued to Buest!o# -!3 t-e sa3e day. .-e Court !# =dwards sa!d t-at !t was a &!olat!o# o1 -!s r!,-ts. Maryla#d &. S-at;er: Pol!ce Buest!o#ed S-at;er, a $r!so#er, about a d!11ere#t cr!3e t-ey sus$ected o1 -!3. Ce as5ed 1or cou#sel, a#d t-ey sto$$ed Buest!o#!#, -!3. .wo years later, t-ey ,ot 3ore e&!de#ce a#d tr!ed Buest!o#!#, -!3 a,a!#. .-!s t!3e -e co#1essed a1ter wa!&!#, -!s r!,-t to cou#sel. .-e court sa!d t-at t-ere !s a two wee5 rule - !1 !t0s 3ore t-a# two wee5s later, t-e# t-ey ca# try a,a!#.

o o

Pro1 #otes t-at at t-!s $o!#t t-e court !s say!#, t-at M!ra#da !s a $ro$-ylact!c. :-e# !t was 1!rst wr!tte#, M!ra#da -ad bee# $erce!&ed as a Co#st!tut!o#al r!,-t. .-e court was d!&!ded about t-e 1G days rule, but all a,reed t-at by t-e t!3e t-ey started a,a!# !t was #ot a &!olat!o# o1 M!ra#da.

Mo#teEo &. 'ou!s!a#a: Murder sus$ect wa!&es r!,-ts. /1ter -e ,ets cou#sel 1ro3 a Eud,e, two $ol!ce o11!cers ta5e -!3 w!ll!#,ly to t-e sce#e o1 t-e cr!3e, a#d alo#, t-e way -e 3ade !#cul$atory state3e#ts. o .-e Buest!o# !s w-et-er t-ey are subEect to t-e esse#t!al rule o1 cou#sel e&eryt-!#, 3ust ,o t-rou,- t-e lawyer o#ce -e -as o#e. o Or, does -e -a&e to !#&o5e t-e r!,-t to cou#sel< Ce #e&er acce$ted t-e lawyer, so ar,uably !t was #ot -!s lawyer. o .-e court co#cludes t-at w-et-er -e !s re$rese#ted or #ot -e ca# wa!&e -!s r!,-t to cou#sel, w-!c- -e d!d. .-e reaso# t-!s does#0t s3ell r!,-t !s t-at -e wa!&ed -!s r!,-t to a lawyer w!t-out a lawyer.

Class o1 11/1*
Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 1*, 2012 1:1F PM

Pro1 3a5es c-art o1 /3e#d3e#ts. .-e !dea !s to co3$are t-e r!,-ts, $rocedures a#d re3ed!es de3a#ded o1 eac-. GttM!ra#da %e1!#e !#terro,at!o# %e1!#e !#&ocat!o# o1 r!,-ts :a!&er o1 r!,-ts 6tMass!a=scobedo Mo#teEo (starts to br!#, to,et-er t- a#d 6t- /3e#d3e#t rat!o#ales+ Brewer a#d ?u-l3a## also $lay o# bot- t-e t- a#d 6t- a3e#d3e#ts Pro1 ,!&es t-e -y$o about S-er3a# McCoy, w-o was accused o1 -!t a#d ru#. ("s t-!s 1ro3 Bo#1!re o1 t-e &a#!t!es<+ .-e $ol!ce br!#, -!3 !#, do#0t 3!ra#d!;e -!3, e&e#tually t-ey tell -!3 t-at -e s-ould co#1ess so t-at t-ey wo#0t $us- 1or t-e stro#,est c-ar,es - 3aybe t-ey0ll ,o eas!er. Ce was !#d!cted a#d -e -!red a lawyer. .-e lawyer told t-e %/ t-at -e would be re$rese#t!#, McCoy. .-e o11!cers t-e# &!s!ted -!3 at -!s -o3e, w-ere t-ey told -!3 t-at -e s-ould H,!&e t-e3 w-at t-ey #eedH. Ce !#&o5ed -!s !#terest !# tal5!#, to a lawyer, but t-ey d!scoura,ed -!3. .-ey told -!3 t-at t-ey -ad all 5!#ds o1 e&!de#ce a,a!#st -!3 a#d t-at -e s-ould co#1ess so t-at t-ey0ll ,o easy o# -!3. t- /3e#d3e#t a#alys!s "s !t !#terro,at!o#< .-e reaso#able $erso# sta#dard.

%!d -e wa!&e -!s r!,-ts< 6t- /3e#d3e#t a#alys!s Ce was e#t!tled to cou#sel but d!d -e wa!&e -!s r!,-ts< O#ce -e sa!d t-at -e wa#ts to tal5 to -!s lawyer, t-ey #eed to sto$ tal5!#, to -!3. So3eo#e $o!#ts out t-at Mo#teEo too5 t-at away as a $er se rule. But " t-!#5 !t0s st!ll rele&a#t because t-e court a$$l!ed =dwards to t-e 6t/3e#d3e#t as well. #rof: e4$la!#s t-at t-ere !s a $resu3$t!o# a,a!#st wa!&er !# court, w-e# you wa!&e t-e r!,-t to cou#sel. But w-at about wa!&er !# t-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t co#te4t< "t !s so3ew-at less 1or3al t-a# !t -ad bee# !# t-e 6t-. Pro1 wo#ders !1 t-ere0s a S!4t- /3e#d3e#t $roble3 !# t-e -y$o abo&e, s!#ce t-e $ol!ce3a# was try!#, to dr!&e a wed,e betwee# t-e de1e#da#t a#d -!s lawyer. Pro1 says t-at t-ere are stra#ds !# two t-eor!es o# Mo#teEo. Sto$s elaborat!#, be1ore we co#t!#ue. Pro1 says t-at s!#ce M!ra#da 1or3al!;ed e&eryt-!#,, !t led to br!#5s3a#s-!$ !# w-!c- $ol!ce a#d t-e Courts 1!#d -oles !# t-e 1or3al t-eory a#d use t-ose to ,et co#1ess!o#s. Brewer: .-e C-r!st!a# Bur!al case. Pro1 loo5s at Luarles, w-!c- t-e boo5 calls t-e $ubl!c sa1ety e4ce$t!o#. .-e Buest!o# t-at ar!ses !s w-at t-e re3edy !s 1or t-ese &!olat!o#s. Pro1 $o!#ts out t-at t-e M!ra#da r!,-ts !ssue obscures t-e real !ssue, w-!c- !s t-at t-!s was a coerced co#1ess!o# - t-e 1!1t- a3e#d3e#t !s a tr!al/co#1ess!o# r!,-t, a#d t-e Court see3s to &!ew !t as so3e 5!#d o1 re3edy 1or so3e 5!#d o1 $ro$-ylact!c &!olat!o#. .-e Court rel!es o# t-e 1act t-at M!ra#da !s a

Class o1 11/26
Mo#day, 2o&e3ber 26, 2012 1:1F PM

.-e 2a .rou#, case: w-at would a lawyer -a&e do#e< 2ot allowed t-e Buest!o#!#, at all But e&e# !1 -e d!d, t-e lawyer would -a&e !#terEected w-e# t-e $ol!ce sa!d t-at t-ere was e&!de#ce t-at !t was a 3urder, a#d sa!d t-at #o t-ere was #ot a#y suc- e&!de#ce. Pro1 says t-at 3a#y lawyers would #ot -a&e wa#ted to a##oy t-e $rosecutor, a#d would -a&e !33ed!ately $leaded to 3a#slau,-ter. o "# t-at l!,-t, M!ra#da a#d t-e r!,-t to cou#sel are l!3!ted. "# t-e 2,a .rou#, case, t-e Eud,e was also a ,ood Eud,e. "1 t-e 3ot!o# to su$$ress -ad bee# de#!ed, t-e# e&e# -er attor#ey would -a&e bee# te3$ted to acce$t a $lea deal, or at least would -a&e bee# 1aced w!t- a# et-!cal d!le33a. .-e story leads to t-e s!,#!1!ca#ce o1 Cou#sel at early sta,es. .-e read!#, starts w!t- Betts a#d @!deo#, but 3a5es 3e#t!o# o1 Powell &. /laba3a, t-e Scottsboro boys case.

"# Powell, t-ere was a 1!,-t o# a tra!# betwee# a ,rou$ o1 blac5 boys a#d a ,rou$ o1 w-!te $eo$le. .-e w-!te $eo$le, !#clud!#, two ,!rls, were t-row# 1ro3 t-e tra!#, w-!c- was 3o&!#, slowly. :-e# t-e tra!# arr!&ed, $ol!ce arrested t-e blac5 boys. .-ey were c-ar,ed w!tra$!#, t-e w-!te ,!rls, a c-ar,e t-at carr!ed t-e deat- $e#alty !# t-ose days. .-e tr!al $roceeded w!t-out allow!#, t-e3 to ,et cou#sel, because t-e $eo$le !# /laba3a were #ot ca$able o1 re$rese#t!#, t-e3. .-e Su$re3e Court ruled t-at t-!s was a ,ross 3!scarr!a,e o1 Eust!ce, a#d t-at t-ey were e#t!tled to cou#sel. Betts &. Brady 1ollowed a#d sa!d t-at cou#sel !s #ot a r!,-t, but !t ca# be reBu!red !# so3e cases. /1ter Betts &. Brady, w-at -a$$e#ed was t-e s$ec!al c!rcu3sta#ces were always 1ou#d. .-e dec!s!o#, w-!c- -ad l!3!ted t-e !3$os!t!o# o# states0 r!,-ts, !# 1act tur#ed out to lead to 3ore a#d 3ore dec!s!o#s be!#, re&ersed o# s$ec!al c!rcu3sta#ces cases. @!deo# was brea5!#, a#d e#ter!#, w!t- !#te#t to co33!t a 3!sde3ea#or. /lt-ou,- !t was a 3!#or c-ar,e, -e ,ot 1!&e years. .-e &erd!ct could -a&e bee# o&ertur#ed o# s$ec!al c!rcu3sta#ces, but !#stead t-ey re&ersed Betts &oc!1erously. .-e Court co#cluded t-at t-ere was a r!,-t to cou#sel a#d t-e 6t- /3e#d3e#t was 1u#da3e#tal to a 1a!r tr!al. (By 1*62, t-ere were 22 state attor#ey ,e#erals w-o 1!led a3!cus br!e1s o# @!deo#0s be-al1. =&ery Eud,e , says Pro1, wa#ts to -a&e lawyers re$rese#t t-e $eo$le w-o a$$ear !# 1ro#t o1 t-e3.+ @!deo# le1t 3a#y Buest!o#s o$e#. :-at cases s-ould !t a$$ly to< /t w-at sta,e !# t-e $roceed!#,s do you #eed cou#sel< %u#ca# &. 'ou!s!a#a ca3e dow# arou#d t-e3, say!#, t-at cr!3es t-at !#&ol&e s!4 3o#t-s or 3ore reBu!re a Eury6 !s t-!s t-e sa3e t-!#, - t-e r!,-t to cou#sel attac-es !# cases t-at !#&ol&e s!4 3o#t-s or 3ore< :-y s-ould t-e r!,-t to a Eury tr!al attac- at cr!3es o1 s!4 3o#t-s or 3ore, but t-e r!,-t to cou#sel s-ould attac- at a d!11ere#t t!3e< o So3eo#e says, a#d $ro1 a,rees, t-at t-e r!,-t to cou#sel 3a5es t-e $rocess 3ore 1a!r a#d 3ore rel!able. "1 you do#0t -a&e eBual $art#ers !# co#1l!ct w!t- eac- ot-er, t-e result !s called !#to Buest!o#. Could !t be de$e#de#t o# w-et-er t-e cr!3e !s a 1elo#y< .-at would lead to d!11!culty ad3!#!ster!#, because t-e de1!#!t!o# !s d!11ere#t !# eac- state. /laba3a &. S-elto#: Sus$e#ded se#te#ce - s-ould t-ere be cou#sel w-e# t-ere !s t-e t-reat o1 !3$r!so#3e#t. o /laba3a ar,ued t-at t-ere was #o $r!so#, so t-ere s-ould#0t be a cou#sel reBu!re3e#t. But t-e court obser&ed t-at t-e $robat!o# re&ocat!o# $roceed!#, !s #ot d!scuss!#, t-e or!,!#al cr!3e, !t0s Eust about t-e &!olat!o# o1 $robat!o#, a#d !t does#0t -a&e t-e sa3e due $rocess reBu!re3e#ts, a#d based o# t-at, t-e ,uy 3!,-t e#d u$ ,o!#, to Ea!l. o ("t could also -a&e !33!,rat!o# co#seBue#ces, s!#ce $eo$le ca# be de$orted 1or &!olat!o#s o1 3!sde3ea#ors.+ o Pro1 #otes t-at t-ere were two cases t-at /laba3a c!ted, a case w-ere a# u#cou#seled co#&!ct!o# t-at led to a -!,-er se#te#ce later o#. (2!c-ols+ a#d Pro1 tur#s t-e co#&ersat!o# to %2/ e&!de#ce. S-ould we ,o bac5 to loo5 at w-et-er so3et-!#, would -a&e c-a#,ed !1 t-ere were better cou#sel earl!er, a#d use t-at to c-a#,e t-e sta#dards 1or earl!er cou#sel< S-ould t-ere be test!#, 1u#ded 1or bra!# d!sorders, %2/ stu11, etc.< "# Ross &. Mo11!t, t-e court $ut a l!3!t o# t-e r!,-t to cou#sel.

"1 t-e ser&!ce 3!,-t be a be#e1!t to a de1e#da#t, does t-at 3ea# t-at !t0s co#st!tut!o#ally reBu!red< Pro1 says t-at !t0s #ot so settled. Pro1 says t-at s-e would re&!ew a$$l!cat!o#s 1or co3$e#sat!o# 1ro3 lawyers, a#d #e&er cut t-e est!3ates, because so3et!3es de1e#se !#&ol&es dead e#ds, co-cou#sel wor5!#, o# t-e sa3e case. But t-at !s c-a#,!#, a#d t-ere !s ,o!#, to be l!t!,at!o# about t-at as states try to cut costs.

Class o1 12/0F
Mo#day, %ece3ber 0F, 2012 1:11 PM

:-at !s t-e co#te4t o1 t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t $rotect!o#, w-at are t-e ,uara#tees a#d -ow !s !t wa!&ed< :e w!ll tal5 about t-at today, a#d t-e# to3orrow a clos!#, state3e#t a#d t-e cases t-at $ro1 a$$l!ed t-e law !#. .-e o&erw-el3!#, 3aEor!ty o1 (<+ cases !#&ol&ed !#e11ect!&e ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel. "# t-e Cebs-!e case, $ro1 says t-at s-e d!d#0t !#ter&e#e at t-e t!3e, but t-e# ,ot t-e c-a#ce a,a!#, a1ter 1!&e years o1 Ea!l. .-ere are ways !# w-!c- @!deo# #arrowed r!,-ts a#d t-ere are ways !# w-!c- !t e4$a#ded r!,-ts. "# a 3!sde3ea#or case, t-e court could #ot cla!3 t-at you do#0t -a&e t-e r!,-t to your ow# cou#sel. So t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t !tsel1 tec-#!cally a$$l!es e&e# w-e# t-ere0s #o stro#, $e#alty. :-e# $eo$le tal5 about t-e eBual!ty $r!#c!$le, !t does#0t 3ea# eBual!;!#, 3ea#!#,1ully, !t 3ea#s Hrou,-ly eBual!;!#,H. :-at !s t-e !rreducable 3!#!3u3 below w-!c- t-e tr!al beco3es u#1a!r< .-at !s really t-e Buest!o# t-at t-e re&!ew o1 S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t -as to as5. o :-at !s a 1elo#y, w-at !s !3$r!so#3e#t< o Cow s-ould a Eud,e 5#ow !# ad&a#ce w-et-er t-ere0s ,o!#, to be actual !3$r!so#3e#t< .-e Eud,e 3ay ,!&e a reaso#ed Eud,3e#t, but t-e e#d result !s t-at -e wo#0t be able to se#te#ce to $r!so# !1 -e does#0t ass!,# a lawyer early o#. Pro1 $o!#ts out t-at t-e r!,-t to a Eury tr!al does #ot al!,# w!t- t-e cr!3es t-at reBu!re de1e#se cou#sel. .-at sta#ds to reaso#, s-e says, because you 3!,-t #eed cou#sel !# a lot o1 s!tuat!o#s !# w-!c- you would#0t #ecessar!ly #eed a Eury. .-e body o1 law relat!#, to t-e !#e11ect!&e ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel "/C $retty 3uc- s$ra#, 1ro3 #ow-ere. o Pro1 says t-at you ca##ot !3a,!#e -ow 3a#y cases deal w!t- slee$!#, lawyers. .-e a#swer !s #ot always as easy as you 3!,-t t-!#5 !t !s. o Mu#!; &. S3!t-, a -abeas case, -eld t-at a courtroo3 #a$ !s !#su11!c!e#t to $ro&e !#e11ect!&e ass!sta#ce o1 cou#sel. "t 3ust be a s!,#!1!ca#t $art o1 t-e tr!al a#d you 3ust $ro&e $reEud!ce. Pro10s =dd!e Pal3er!ello case - -e 5!lled -!s 3ot-er w-!le rou,--ous!#, a#d bur!ed -er at t-e s!de o1 t-e road. .-e lawyer 1ou#d t-at t-e case was stra#,e - t-ere was a $atter# o1 all t-e c-!ldre# 3o&!#, out as soo# as $oss!ble. .-ere was e&!de#ce o1 abuse !# t-e 1a3!ly, t-ere was e&!de#ce o1 e3ot!o#al abuse o#ce t-e sus$ect was $-ys!cally able to res!st t-e $-ys!cal abuse. .-e lawyer dec!ded t-at s-ow!#, t-e abuse to w-!c- -e was subEect 3!,-t ,et -!3 o11 but !#stead a&o!ded !t because !t 3!,-t lead to t-e su$$os!t!o# o1 actual !# te#t rat-er t-a# t-e

acc!de#t de1e#se w-!c- !s w-at t-ey wa#ted to ra!se. .-e de1e#da#t was co#&!cted, a#d years later, t-e de1e#da#t brou,-t u$ a# "/C cla!3 a,a!#st t-e lawyer, w-o was #ow a Eud,e. So t-e Eud,e -ad to ,o test!1y about t-e strate,y o1 t-e or!,!#al de1e#se. /lt-ou,- s-e 1elt sy3$at-y, s-e st!ll 1elt t-at t-e dec!s!o# was a reaso#able o#e. Pro1 says t-at a1ter Str!c5la#d, t-e bar was really low. .-e#, Carr!#,to# &. R!c-ter: 'a1ler &. Coo$er. .-e Cro#!c case - a real estate lawyer was a$$o!#ted to re$rese#t a 3urder de1e#da#t w!ts-ort t!3e to $re$are. M!c5e#s: t-e &!ct!3 was a 3ale $rost!tute. .-e lawyer -ad !#1or3at!o# about t-e &!ct!3 t-at -e would#0t -a&e ot-erw!se -ad. .-!s was a $ote#t!al co#1l!ct, #ot a $er se co#1l!ct. Pro1 says t-at e4clus!o# !# 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t was a# !#ce#t!&e. .-e e4clus!o# !s so3ew-at 3alleable, s!#ce !t ca# be ad3!tted !# certa!# #o#-deterre#t !#sta#ces, a#d !3$eac-3e#t. .-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t e4clus!o# !s $ure e4clus!o#. %eterre#ce -as #ot-!#, to do w!t- !t co#1ess!o#s t-at are#0t &olu#tary are #ot ad3!ss!ble, $er!od. (.-e $ro$-ylact!c 3easures 3!,-t be so3ew-at closer to 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t e4clus!o#+ .-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t e4clus!o# - w-at would !t be l!5e< "s a -ear!#, -eld w!t-out a lawyer w-!c- 3ust be e4cluded closer to 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t or closer to 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t a#alys!s< ("1 so3et-!#, !s a $re-tr!al r!,-t ,o&er#!#, $ol!ce be-a&!or, !t !s closer to t-e 7!1t/3e#d3e#t but to t-e e4te#t t-at !t0s a tr!al r!,-t to a# attor#ey t-at was 3!sused, !t 3!,-t be closer to t-e 7!1t-.+

.-e role o1 cou#sel

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 12: 2 PM

:e -a&e d!scussed t-e reBu!re3e#t t-at cou#sel be $ro&!ded or allowed 1or. .-ere are c-alle#,es t-at ar!se !# cases w-ere t-ere was cou#sel but t-ere was so3e $roble3 w!t- !t. 1. %e1!c!e#t cou#sel, to t-e $o!#t t-at t-e re$rese#tat!o# d!d#0t 3eet t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t reBu!re3e#t o1 cou#sel a. Most o1te# ra!sed a1ter co#&!ct!o# - !# 1act, 3ost see3 to ar!se !# -abeas cla!3s b. ?#ow# as "#e11ect!&e /ss!sta#ce o1 Cou#sel, or "/C cla!3 !. Str!c5la#d: .-e bas!c reBu!re3e#ts o1 a "/C cla!3 !s a two $ro#, test, s-ow!#, t-at (1+ .-e cou#selor0s $er1or3a#ce 1ell below a# obEect!&e 3easure o1 e4$ectat!o#, a#d (2+ t-at t-ere !s a reaso#able $robab!l!ty t-at w!t-out t-e $oor $er1or3a#ce t-e result would -a&e bee# d!11ere#t. !!. R!c-ter: S!,#!1!ca#t because o1 t-e sta,e at w-!c- t-e cla!3 was ra!sed. .-e /=%P/ !s le,!slat!o# t-at Co#,ress $assed re,ulat!#, 7ederal Court -abeas re&!ew o1 state dec!s!o#s. R!c-ter addresses a cla!3 brou,-t !# t-at co#te4t. !!!. R!c-ter also lays out ,e#eral d!rect!o#s 1or assess!#, co33o# as$ects o1 cou#sel0s $er1or3a#ce. "1 t-e attor#ey t-ou,-t t-at a $art!cular de1e#se would -a&e -ad t-e $ote#t!al to -ar3 a cl!e#t, t-e# !t ca#0t be c-alle#,ed as "/C. !&. Coo$er: /ddresses t-e $reEud!ce $ro#, o1 t-e Str!c5la#d test. /lso d!scusses t-e de1e#se o1 "/C as a de1e#se a,a!#st wa!&ed/1or1e!ted cla!3s, a#d $rocedural cla!3s t-at would -a&e bee# barred by $lea deals.

Coo$er: "1 so3eo#e tur#s dow# a $lea deal o# erro#eous ,rou#ds, w-!cresults !# a tr!al, co#&!ct!o#, a#d se#te#ce t-at !s worse t-a# t-e $lea deal, t-at 3eets t-e $reEud!ce $ro#, o1 t-e Str!c5la#d test. &!. /$$l!cat!o# o1 "/C to 1or1e!ture ca# de$e#d o# t-e Eur!sd!ct!o#0s treat3e#t o1 1or1e!ture !# ,e#eral. So3e Eur!sd!ct!o#s allow certa!# collateral attac5s e&e# a1ter $lea deals, w-!le ot-ers do#0t. 1. /ll Eur!sd!ct!o#s reco,#!;e $la!# error as a# e4ce$t!o# to 1or1e!ture. &!!. Pro1 d!scusses t-at t-e "/C cla!3 ca##ot lead to a Hw!#d1allH 1or t-e de1e#da#t. :-at case !s t-at 1ro3< 2. Presu3$t!o# o1 $reEud!ce, )#!ted States &. Cro#!c: .-ere are t-ree s!tuat!o#s !de#t!1!ed t-at 3!,-t ,!&e r!se to a# "/C cla!3 o# a $resu3$t!o# o1 !#adeBuacy without examining for pre(udice. a. "1 cou#sel !s totally abse#t or $re&e#ted 1ro3 ass!st!#, t-e accused dur!#, a cr!t!cal sta,e o1 t-e $roceed!#,s b. "1 cou#sel was $-ys!cally $rese#t but co3$letely abse#t !# e11ort so t-at t-e $rosecutor0s case !s #ot subEect to a#y ad&ersar!al test!#,. c. S!tuat!o#s !# w-!c- t-ere !s l!ttle l!5el!-ood t-at cou#sel, e&e# !1 $ro&!ded, could -a&e ,!&e# e11ect!&e cou#sel. (Court ,a&e Powell &. /laba3a, t-e case w!t- t-e blac5 tee#s accused o1 ra$!#, w-!te ,!rls !# /laba3a6 w-ere t-e cou#sel arr!&ed 1ro3 out o1 state a#d was se#t !33ed!ately to tr!al. See #otes o# class o1 11/26.+ F. Co#1l!cts o1 !#terest a#d ,o&er#3e#tal restr!ct!o#s t-at $re&e#t cou#sel 1ro3 $ro&!d!#, t-e reBu!s!te le&el o1 ass!sta#ce ca# so3et!3es lead to "/C cla!3s without proving pre(udice. (alluded to !# Str!c5la#d a#d Cro#!c+ a. Ca# be ra!sed e!t-er $re or $ost-tr!al, by e!t-er de1e#da#t or cou#sel. !. Luest!o#s about w-et-er t-e court s-ould -a&e ra!sed t-e !ssue - w-e# t-e court 1a!led to loo5 !#to t-e !ssue des$!te be!#, alerted to !t by a lawyer w-o wa#ted to w!t-draw, t-e de1e#da#t does#0t -a&e to $ro&e a# actual co#1l!ct !# order to ,et a #ew tr!al. (Colloway - #ot !# t-e syllabus+. 1. 2or does t-e de1e#da#t #eed to $ro&e $reEud!ce - !t0s as t-ou,- -e ,ot a tr!al w!t-out a lawyer s!#ce t-e lawyer told t-e Eud,e t-at -e was co#1l!cted a#d t-e Eud,e d!d #ot-!#,. 2. Cowe&er, !t see3s t-at t-ere are ot-er t!3es w-ere t-e Eud,e s-ould -a&e sto$$ed t-e co#1l!ct a#d d!d#0t, a#d yet t-e Court st!ll e#,a,es !# a $reEud!ce a#alys!s (Cuyler &. Sull!&a# - t-ree code1e#da#t s-ared lawyers a#d o#ly o#e was co#&!cted. S!#ce t-e lawyer s-ould -a&e ra!sed t-e !ssue a#d d!d#0t a#d s!#ce Colloway !s a $ro$-ylact!c, de1e#da#t #eeds to $ro&e $reEud!ce.+ !!. Luest!o#s about w-et-er t-e lawyer s-ould -a&e ra!sed t-e !ssue !!!. Luest!o#s about ta5!#, t-e de1e#da#t0s co3$la!#t about co#1l!ct !&. Luest!o#s about ta5!#, t-e de1e#da#t0s wa!&er as to co#1l!ct, s!#ce -e wa#ts a $art!cular lawyer. b. O1te#, t-e o#ly way de1e#da#t real!;es co#1l!ct !s w-e# de1e#da#t !s !#1or3ed by court or attor#ey. .-ere1ore $re-tr!al c-alle#,e ca##ot be reBu!red. c. M!c5e#s &. .aylor: (1+:-at does t-e tr!al court -a&e to do o# !ts ow# to deter3!#e w-et-er t-ere0s a co#1l!ct, a#d (2+ :-at s-ould t-e tr!al court do !# react!o# to a cla!3 by a de1e#da#t t-at t-ere !s a co#1l!ct< !. / co#1l!ct 3ust be act!&e !# order to act!&ate t-e $resu3$t!&e $reEud!ce. =4a3$les !#clude cou#sel re$rese#t!#, 3ore t-a# o#e de1e#da#t ( Colloway &. /r5a#sas+ or be!#, -!red by e3$loyees but $a!d by e3$loyer w!t- co#1l!ct!#, !#terests (:ood &. @eor,!a+. But alle,!#, t-at t-e attor#ey -ad a $erso#al co##ect!o# to a 3urder &!ct!3 does #ot re3o&e t-e $reEud!ce $ro#, - de1e#da#t

&.

G. .

3ust st!ll $ro&e t-at t-ere was so3e result!#, $reEud!ce to t-e result. (M!c5e#s &. .aylor+ !!. .-e Court !# Cuyler &. Sull!&a#, !# w-!c- t-e attor#ey was s!3ulta#eously re$rese#t!#, t-ree de1e#da#ts o1 t-e sa3e cr!3e !# se$arate tr!als, addressed w-et-er tr!al courts t-e3sel&es -ad to c-ec5 !#to $oss!ble co#1l!cts. .-e Court sa!d t-at w-e# t-e tr!al court 5#ows or s-ould -a&e 5#ow# o1 a co#1l!ct, t-ey -a&e a duty to c-ec5 !#to !t, but #ot !1 t-ere !s so3e &a,ue sus$!c!o#. "# Cuyler, t-e Court -eld t-at t-ere was #o duty. ("t see3s t-at co#1l!ct!#, relat!o#s-!$s are #ot e#ou,- - t-ere #eeds to be e&!de#ce o1 co#1l!ct!#, interests or else t-e de1e#da#t 3ust s-ow $reEud!ce. d. )#!ted States &. :-eat: :-at -a$$e#s w-e# t-e $rosecut!o# as5s 1or d!sBual!1!cat!o# o# ,rou#ds o1 co#1l!ct, but t-e de1e#da#t asserts t-at -e -as a r!,-t to c-oose -!s ow# cou#sel< %e1e#da#t0s assert!o# o1 co#trol o&er $roceed!#,s (:-e# cou#sel d!sa,rees<+ =4erc!se o1 t-e r!,-t to sel1-re$rese#tat!o#

Str!c5la#d &. :as-!#,to# (1*8G+

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 2:GF PM Facts of the Case *avid Washington pleaded guilty to murder in a Florida state court. 0ometime during the case, Washington incriminated himself against his attorney&s advice, and his attorney seemed to have chec!ed out somewhat at that point. At sentencing, his attorney did not see! out character witnesses or request a psychiatric evaluation, reflecting his hopelessness at the result and his decision to rest on prisoner&s colloquy about his regret. 0ubsequently, the trial court sentenced 8r. Washington to death finding no mitigating circumstances to rule otherwise. After exhausting his state court remedies, 8r. Washington sought habeas corpus relief in a Florida federal district court. <e argued that his 0ixth Amendment right was violated because he had ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, including the failure to request testimony from friends or to order a psychiatric evaluation. 7he district court denied the petition. ;n appeal, the >.0. 'ourt of Appeals for the Fifth 'ircuit reversed. 7he court held that the 0ixth Amendment accorded criminal defendants a right to counsel rendering "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." %t then remanded the case to the district court to apply this standard and determine whether 8r. Washington&s counsel was sufficiently pre udicial to ustify the reversal of his sentence. Question What standard should be applied to determine whether a convicted person&s 0ixth Amendment right to counsel has been violated by the counselor&s ineffective assistance, so as to require reversal of a conviction or to set aside a death sentence1 Rule: %n order to prevail on a claim of %A', the defendant must show that his representation "($ Fell below the standards of a reasonably effective attorney at the time of the conduct, and ")$ that the result was therefore changed from what the result would have been. Decision: @ votes for state, ( vote against Legal provision: 3ight to 'ounsel 7he 0upreme 'ourt held thatD "($ counsel&s performance must be deficientI and ")$ the deficient performance must have pre udiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. With Bustice 0andra *ay ;&'onnor writing for the ma ority, the 'ourt counseled that in ma!ing a showing of deficient performance, the defendant must demonstrate that counsel&s representation fell below an "ob ective standard of reasonableness." 7he 'ourt also noted that to show pre udice, the defendant must show that there is a "reasonable probability" that, but for counsel&s unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. <ere, the 'ourt reasoned that 8r. Washington&s counsel was not unreasonable 5 there wasn&t much that he could have added, even with people testifying that the defendant seemed nice. 8oreover, the 'ourt stated that even if counsel was unreasonable, counsel&s conduct did not cause sufficient

pre udice to 8r. Washington to warrant setting aside his death sentence in the face of all the aggravating circumstances. Bustice William B. 2rennan wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. <e viewed the death sentence as per se cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Gighth Amendment. 'onsequently, he would not have upheld 8r. Washington&s sentence. Bustice 7hurgood 8arshall also wrote separately, dissenting. <e disagreed with the ma ority&s holding in that in its attempt to ma!e a uniform standard, it created one so malleable as to be virtually useless.

Notes: Court sa!d t-at s$ec!1!cally !# ca$!tal cases, t-e reBu!re3e#t o1 cou#sel at se#te#c!#, !s 1or cou#sel to be as e11ect!&e as at tr!al. Court tal5s about bas!c dut!es o1 loyalty - a&o!d co#1l!cts o1 !#terest, ad&ocate t-e de1e#da#t0s cause, co#sult w!t- de1e#da#t a#d 5ee$ -!3 !#1or3ed. =4erc!se s5!ll a#d 5#owled,e to re#der tr!al reaso#ably accurate ad&ersar!al $roceed!#,s. Reaso#able#ess !s e#ou,- o1 a ,u!de, t-e deta!ls w!ll de$e#d o# t-e s!tuat!o#. /B/ sta#dards 3!,-t be a source o1 re1ere#ce o# w-at !s reaso#able. Aud!c!al re&!ew o1 cou#sel0s re$rese#tat!o# 3ust be de1ere#t!al. "t0s too easy to seco#d ,uess a#d you ca#0t -a&e a seco#d tra!l a1ter e&ery tr!al to deter3!#e t-e e11ect!&e#ess o1 cou#sel $ost1acto. O# t-e $reEud!ce reBu!re3e#t: so3e errors are $resu3ed to be $reEud!c!al, l!5e t-e de#!al o1 reBu!red cou#sel, or !#ter1ere#ce by t-e state w!t- cou#sel0s re$rese#tat!o#. "# cases o1 co#1l!ct o1 !#terest, t-ere0s a 3!lder $resu3$t!o# o1 $reEud!ce6 !# t-ose case, $reEud!ce w!ll be assu3ed !1 de1e#da#t ca# s-ow act!&e re$rese#tat!o# o1 co#1l!ct!#, !#terest t-at ad&ersely a11ected -!s lawyer0s $er1or3a#ce. Courts #eed #ot address bot- $ro#,s o1 t-e test, !1 t-e de1e#da#t0s cla!3 1a!ls o#e o1 t-e $ro#,s. Conc!rrence, Brennan: .-e deat- $e#alty !s cruel a#d u#usual $u#!s-3e#t, so " would re3a#d t-e case. But t-e sta#dard !s a ,ood o#e. Dissent, <arshall: Reaso#able#ess !s too &a,ue. "s reaso#able#ess we!,-ed by a c-ea$ lawyer or a# e4$e#s!&e o#e< .-ere ca# a#d s-ould be 3ore clear re,ulat!o# by Eud,es. 7urt-er3ore, $reEud!ce !s -ard to tell. .-ere are 3a#y cases w-!c- see3 !ro#clad t-at ca# be d!s3a#tled by a ,ood attor#ey. /lso, a ,ood lawyer also e#sures 1a!r $rocedures, !# add!t!o# to a HtrueH outco3e, a#d t-ere1ore t-e $reEud!ce $ro#, !s #ot ,ood. 'astly, e&e# accord!#, to t-e court0s sta#dard, t-e lawyer s-ould -a&e called t-e c-aracter w!t#esses, a#d w-ate&er t-e strate,!c !3$l!cat!o#s would be, -e s-ould -a&e at least 3ade a# e11ort to see w-at t-e w!t#esses could -a&e sa!d. (2ot!ce t-at t-!s $lays o# bot- -!s $rocedure a#d u#5#ow# u#5#ow# ar,u3e#ts.+ 2otes 1ro3 $ro1: 'awyer does#0t wa#t to ,o !#to $syc-olo,!cal test!3o#y, #or does -e e&e# reBuest a# e&aluat!o#. "#stead rel!ed o#ly o# t-e Eud,e0s Hso1t s$otH 1or so3eo#e w-o ta5es res$o#s!b!l!ty. Court sets u$ reaso#able#ess sta#dard. .-!s !s #ot a# easy sta#dard to ad3!#!ster. Su$$osedly !t0s a# obEect!&e sta#dard o1 co3$ete#ce. .-e# t-ere0s a seco#d Buest!o# - w-et-er t-e result -as bee# $reEud!ced. "1 t-e cou#sel -ad bee# better, t-ere would -a&e ar!se# a Hreaso#able doubt res$ect!#, ,u!ltH. 2ote t-at t-!s could -a&e ,o#e t-e ot-er way - !t could -a&e ,o#e w!tHt-e de1e#da#t su11ered so3e s!,#!1!ca#t d!sad&a#ta,e.H Mars-all says t-at t-e 3aEor!ty0s $os!t!o# !s t-at !t0s a ,u!lt/!##oce#ce Buest!o# (also ca# be re1erred to as a Brady r!,-t+. But Mars-all -!3sel1 t-!#5s t-at !t0s a $rocedural r!,-t - t-e ,u!lt!est o1 de1e#da#ts deser&es a 1a!r $rocess. Pro1 $o!#ts out t-at t-e bar !s really low 1or tr!al cou#sel to 3eet - t-e tr!al cou#sel could sur3!se w!t-out e&e# !#&est!,at!#, t-at !t was#Kt wort- ra!s!#, c-aracter de1e#ses a#d $syc-!atr!c e&aluat!o#s. "t0s really -ard to 1!#d s-ortco3!#,s a1ter t-e 1act, because bad lawyers lea&e bad tr!al records !# add!t!o# to re$rese#t!#, t-e cl!e#t su11!c!e#tly.

Carr!#,to# &. R!c-ter (2011+

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 F:F6 PM Facts of the Case A 'alifornia trial court convicted Boshua 3ichter of burglary and murder, after a trial that involved interpretation of a lot contested blood and blood spatter evidence. <e exhausted his state court remedies and filed for habeas corpus relief in a 'alifornia federal district court. 8r. 3ichter argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the 0ixth Amendment. 3ichter produced affidavits from experts testifying that they would have interpreted the evidence in question to support 3ichter&s version of events. 7he district court denied the petition and was affirmed by the >.0. 'ourt of Appeals for the =inth 'ircuit. <owever, upon rehearing en banc, the =inth 'ircuit granted the petition, holding that the state court&s determination that 8r. 3ichter was not denied effective assistance of counsel was unreasonable. 7he court reasoned that under Strickland v. ashington the defendant must show that "counsel&s performance was deficient." And, the defendant must show that "the deficient performance pre udiced the defense." <ere, the requirements of Strickland were met when 8r. 3ichter&s counsel failed to conduct sufficient pre5 trial investigation to determine what forensic evidence or experts would be useful to the defense&s theory when it was foreseeable what evidence the state would introduce. Question %s a defense lawyer deficient for failing to consult blood evidence when planning strategy for trial1 Rule: %n reviewing habeas cases for %A' under the AG*6A "which occurs in cases where the federal courts review habeas petitions from state court decisions$, the 'ourt should show deference for the trial court, which in turn should show deference to the lawyer trying the case. 7he deference means that the Appeals 'ourt is reviewing whether the trial court could reasonably have reached the conclusion it did under 0tric!land, not whether the trial court reached the correct conclusion. Decision: @ votes for <arrington, - vote"s$ against Legal provision: )@ >. 0. '. ?))/:"d$ =o. 3eversing the lower court order, the court held that the state court did not act unreasonably in ruling that the defense lawyer was not deficient in failing to consult blood evidence when planning strategy for trial. 7he lower court might reasonably have concluded that a defense attorney may have reasonably concluded that the blood expert testimony was not necessary, depending on the direction that the defense attorney chooses to ta!e in defense. Although it turned out that the blood position was perhaps the most important factor in the conviction, it was not necessarily clear at the time of the trial. Furthermore, depending on the attorney&s views at the time, he may have thought that basing a defense on expert testimony about the blood was worse for his client, in case the blood turned out to weigh against him. ;n the second prong as well, the =inth 'ircuit failed to give the proper deference to the state court. 7he proper standard was not whether the result was pre udiced, but whether the state court could reasonably have concluded that it wasn&t. Bustice Anthony Cennedy authored the opinion, which was oined by eight of the ustices with Bustice Glena Cagan ta!ing no part in the consideration of the case. Bustice 3uth 2ader Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the udgment. Notes: 'ourt said that under AG*6A it could not free 3ichter unless it was shown that the earlier decision was contrary to federal law, involved unreasonable application of such law, or unreasonable determination of the facts. 7he =inth 'ircuit&s en banc decision to grant the habeas motion was based on the middle exception 5 the unreasonable application of federal law, i.e. the 0tric!land rule. 7he 0upreme 'ourt notes that they were reviewing not whether the state court decision was correct, but whether it was based on a reasonable application of the 0tric!land rule, which gives the state court more deference on review if reasonable urists could disagree. 7he =inth 'ircuit, meanwhile, seemed to review the substance of the state court&s decision de novo, and since they disagreed with the state court, they concluded that the state court was not a reasonable application of 0tric!land, which was a mista!e. 7he

=inth 'ircuit should have been deciding whether the state court could reasonably have reached an opposing conclusion, rather than what the correct conclusion is. 0upreme 'ourt notes that the review is intensive, since on %A' claims, the door can open to defenses that weren&t raised on trial, and thus require a new proceeding entirely. 0tric!land requires deference, and the AG*6A requires deference, so together there is a ton of deference. 7he deference is layered 5 the first "0tric!land$ question is whether the attorney acted reasonably, with deference to the attorney, and the second "AG*6A$ question is whether the lower court interpreted 0tric!land reasonably with deference to the lower court. 'ounsel is not required to be prepared for every eventuality, so even though counsel didn&t !now that the state would rest its case on expert forensic testimony, that doesn&t render the assistance ineffective. And even if counsel would have !nown, there is no rule that every expert must be countered with a counter5 expert from the defense. 'ross5examination can also wor!, and in this case the defense attorney&s cross examination was strong.

Note: "t see3s t-at !t w!ll be &ery !3$orta#t !# $ract!ce to deter3!#e w-et-er t-e re&!ew ar!ses to a 1ederal court 1ro3 a state court, !# w-!c- case /=%P/ would 3a5e t-e de1ere#ce stro#,er, or w-et-er t-e case arose stra!,-t t-rou,- t-e 1ederal court - $er-a$s a $re-&erd!ct 3ot!o#< "# w-!c- case t-e de1ere#ce 1or t-e earl!er dec!s!o# would #ot be Bu!te so -!,-. Pro1 says !t0s t-e !#tersect!o# o1 Str!c5la#d a#d /=%P/. R!c-ter 1acts: .-ere are 1our 3e# !# a roo3. .wo are s-ot, o#e d!es, o#e sur&!&es. Ao-#so# says t-at -e awo5e to 1!#d Bra#sco3be !# -!s roo3 a#d ?le!# -ad bee# s-ot !# t-e ot-er roo3. Ce was t-e# s-ot, a#d t-e assa!la#ts 3ade o11 w!t- -!s ,u#. .-e ,u# was 1ou#d !# R!c-ter0s res!de#ce, a#d ball!st!cs e4$erts l!#5ed t-e bullets used to t-at ,u#. R!c-ter cla!3ed t-at Bra#sco3be -ad bee# t-e o#e w-o s-ot Ao-#so# but !t was !# sel1 de1e#se a#d t-at ?le!# -ad bee# cau,-t !# t-e cross1!re. %e1e#se 3ade t-at case w!t-out us!#, a blood s$atter e4$ert. .-e $rosecut!o# cou#tered w!t- a s$atter e4$ert, but w!t-out #ot!ce, a#d t-e e4$ert test!1!ed t-at !t was u#l!5ely ?le!# -ad bee# s-ot t-e way t-at R!c-ter cla!3ed. %e1e#da#t #e&er called -!s ow# e4$ert. .-e 2!#t- C!rcu!t (Re!#-ardt+ sa!d t-at !t -ad to be "/C to ra!se a t-eory to w-!c- t-ere was #o su$$ort, a#d o$e#ed -!3sel1 u$ to suc- a# attac5.

'a1ler &. Coo$er (2012+

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 G:1> PM Facts of the Case Anthony 'ooper was convicted of shooting a woman in the thigh and buttoc!s after missing a shot to her head. 7he >.0. 'ourt of Appeals for the ,th 'ircuit overturned the conviction after 'ooper claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. <is lawyer told him not to ta!e a plea offer, thin!ing that there could not be a finding that 'ooper intended to murder his victim. 2ut 'ooper was convicted of assault with intent to murder and other charges. 7he appeals court said the incorrect advice equals unconstitutional ineffective assistance and ordered 'ooper released. 2ut 8ichigan officials argue that 'ooper got a fair trial and that the verdict should not be thrown out because of his lawyer&s mista!e. Read the )riefs for this Case Question %s a state habeas petitioner entitled to relief when his counsel deficiently advises him to re ect a favorable plea bargain but the defendant is later convicted and sentenced pursuant to a fair trial1

Rule: When a defendant ma!es a showing of reasonable probability that he would have ta!en a plea deal but for the ineffective assistance of counsel, that meets the 0tric!land test

and he is entitled to a %A' claim. 7he correct remedy is for the state to re5offer the plea deal and for the trial court to decide whether to approve it.
Decision: / votes for +afler, : vote"s$ against Legal provision: habeas corpus Holding: %n this case, the parties conceded the ineffective assistance of counsel, although perhaps there was an argument that the attorney could have made. 7herefore, the question was only on the pre udice prong. ;n the pre udice prong, the decision not to ta!e a plea deal, which resulted in conviction and a longer sentence, was pre udicial. Jes. %n a /5: decision, Bustice Anthony 8. Cennedy delivered the ma ority opinion, vacating the 0ixth 'ircuit udgment and returning the case for reconsideration. 7he 'ourt held that the 8ichigan court applied the wrong standard when it re ected 'ooperKs claim to ineffective assistance of counsel. 7he proper test under Strickland v ashington is whether, absent the ineffective counsel, a defendant would have accepted an offered plea that was less severe than his eventual sentence, and the trial court would have accepted the terms of that plea. 7he ma ority also held that the proper remedy is not specific performance of the original plea. ;n remand, the prosecution should re5offer the plea and, if the defendant accepts it, the trial court can decide how to amend the original sentence. Bustice Antonin 0calia wrote a dissent, stating that there is no right to habeas relief when counselKs advice caused a defendant to have a full and fair trial. A criminal defendant has no right to a plea bargain, so re ecting the plea did not deprive 'ooper of any procedural right. Bustice 'larence 7homas oined in the 0calia dissent. 'hief Bustice Bohn G. 3oberts, Br. oined in the dissent except for Bustice 0caliaKs assertions that the ma ority&s decision elevates the plea bargain to a constitutional right. Bustice 0amuel A. Alito wrote a separate dissent criticiAing the ma ority&s "opaque discussion of the remedy...."

Dissent: .-ere !s #o suc- r!,-t to adeBuate ass!sta#ce at e&ery sta,e !# t-e se#se t-at !t ca# be re&!ewed 1or "/C. Str!c5la#d0s rule 3!,-t see3 to a$$ly, but t-at0s ta5!#, !t out o1 co#te4t. C!tes t-e 7retwell case to su$$ort t-e $ro$os!t!o# t-at t-ere #eeds to be a s$ec!1!c r!,-t t-at !s be!#, lost, #ot a s!3$le assert!o# o1 a $oss!bly better outco3e. 7urt-er3ore, t-e re3edy !s r!d!culous. Notes: .-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t $rotects t-e r!,-t to a 1a!r (e&ery cr!t!cal sta,e o1 t-e ad&ersar!al $roceed!#,s #ot Eust t-e+ tr!al. .-ere !s #o reBu!re3e#t to s-ow t-at t-e "/C led to t-e de#!al o1 a substa#t!&e or $rocedural r!,-t. .-e Court does #ot do a ,reat Eob o1 de1!#!#, w-at are t-e cr!ter!a t-e lower court s-ould use !# deter3!#!#, w-et-er t-e re-o11er s-ould be -o#ored as a $lea deal. .-e Court also su,,ests t-at w-e# t-e o#ly d!11ere#ce betwee# t-e $lea deal a#d t-e &erd!ct !s t-e se#te#ce, t-e court ca# c-oose t-e -!,-er se#te#ce, t-e lower se#te#ce, or a#yt-!#, !# betwee#. :-ere t-e tr!al resulted !# c-ar,es t-at would #ot -a&e bee# le&!ed were t-e $lea to be ta5e#, t-e court s-ould use !ts d!scret!o# as well. .-e court 3ay ta5e accou#t o1 de1e#da#ts w!ll!#,#ess to acce$t res$o#s!b!l!ty 1or -!s act!o#s .-e court 3ay ta5e !#to accou#t !#1or3at!o# t-at sur1aced a1ter t-e $lea deal was o11ered, as a result o1 t-e tr!al. Pro1 #otes t-at t-e co#1us!o# o&er t-e re3edy !s based o# t-e co#1us!o# about w-ere t-e &!olat!o# o1 r!,-ts was. .-e or!,!#al $lea was #ot a 1!#al d!s$os!t!o# t-at -e was e#t!tled to - t-e Eud,e could -a&e re1used !t. .-e re3edy !s t-at t-e $rosecut!o# -as to e4te#d t-e o11er a,a!#. :-at does t-e $lea bar,a!# o11er< .-e Eud,e ca# tur# !t dow#, ca#0t -e< So3eo#e $o!#ts out t-at t-e c-ar,es t-at -e was co#&!cted o# -ad a 3a#datory 3!#!3u3 a#d !1 t-e Eud,e c-ose to allow t-e $lea bar,a!#, -e would #ot -a&e t-e 3a#datory 3!#!3u3. So o11er!#, t-e $lea a,a!# at least 1rees t-e Eud,e to ,!&e a lower se#te#ce t-a# -e could -a&e be1ore, !1 t-e Eud,e !s so !#cl!#ed. Pro1 says t-at t-!s see3s to $ay -eed to t-e Mars-all d!sse#t, w-!c- says t-at t-e r!,-t !s a $rocedural r!,-t to adeBuate cou#sel a#d e&e# w!t-out a $art!cular!;ed loss o1 a r!,-t, t-e de1e#da#t could 3a5e a# "/C cla!3.

Pro1 wo#ders !1 t-!s Hr!,-t to a $lea dealH 3ea#s t-at t-ere !s !# 1act a r!,-t to a 1a!r tr!al, e&e# w!t-out -a&!#, to $ro&e t-at better cou#sel would -a&e bee# able to $ro&e !##oce#ce. Pro1 wo#ders !1 t-!s !s a sea c-a#,e !# t-e r!,-t to cou#sel, because !t !#troduces t-e !dea t-at a $lea bar,a!# !s a cr!t!cal sta,e, a#d !t also su,,ests t-at t-e r!,-ts o1 t-e de1e#da#t do#0t o#ly -!#,e o# ,u!lt a#d !##oce#ce.

M!c5e#s &. .aylor (2002+

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 : 6 PM Facts of the Case A Oirginia ury convicted Walter 8ic!ens, Br., of the premeditated murder of 7imothy <all during or following the commission of an attempted forcible sodomy and sentenced him to death. 0ubsequently, 8ic!ens filed a federal habeas petition, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because one of his court5appointed attorneys had a conflict of interest at trial 5 his lead attorney, 2ryan 0aunders, had represented <all on criminal charges at the time of the murder. 0aunders had not disclosed to the court, his co5counsel, or 8ic!ens that he had represented <all. >ltimately, the en banc 'ourt of Appeals re ected 8%c!ens&s argument that the uvenile court udge&s failure to inquire into a potential conflict either mandated automatic reversal of his conviction or relieved him of the burden of showing that a conflict of interest adversely affected his representation. 0ubsequently, the appellate court concluded that 8ic!ens had not demonstrated adverse effect. Question "($When must a trial court inquire on its own into a conflict of interest between a defendant and his attorney, and ")$ when is there sufficient conflict to avoid the second prong of a 0tric!land inquiry, the requirement that the defendant show pre udice1 Decision: / votes for 7aylor, : vote"s$ against Rule: %n order to demonstrate a conflict sufficient to avoid the "pre udice" prong of the 0tric!land rule, it is not enough to show that there was some relationship that would conflict with representation, defendant must show an active interest that the attorney has that conflicts with representation. Legal provision: Amendment ,D ;ther 0ixth Amendment 6rovisions Jes. %n a /5: opinion delivered by Bustice Antonin 0calia, the 'ourt held that in order to demonstrate a 0ixth Amendment violation in such a situation, a defendant must establish that a conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel&s performance. 7he 'ourt re ected 8ic!ens&s argument that where the trial udge neglects a duty to inquire into a potential conflict the defendant, to obtain reversal, need only show that his lawyer was sub ect to a conflict of interest, not that the conflict adversely affected counsel&s performance. %n doing so, the 'ourt noted that a defendant alleging ineffective assistance generally must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel&s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Notes: 7he 'ourt cites a lot of doctrine from other cases. 0ee below.

!.

!!.

/ co#1l!ct 3ust be act!&e !# order to act!&ate t-e $resu3$t!&e $reEud!ce. =4a3$les !#clude cou#sel re$rese#t!#, 3ore t-a# o#e de1e#da#t ( Colloway &. /r5a#sas+ or be!#, -!red by e3$loyees but $a!d by e3$loyer w!t- co#1l!ct!#, !#terests (:ood &. @eor,!a+. But alle,!#, t-at t-e attor#ey -ad a $erso#al co##ect!o# to a 3urder &!ct!3 does #ot re3o&e t-e $reEud!ce $ro#, - de1e#da#t 3ust st!ll $ro&e t-at t-ere was so3e result!#, $reEud!ce to t-e result. (M!c5e#s &. .aylor+ .-e Court !# Cuyler &. Sull!&a#, !# w-!c- t-e attor#ey was s!3ulta#eously re$rese#t!#, t-ree de1e#da#ts o1 t-e sa3e cr!3e !# se$arate tr!als, addressed w-et-er tr!al courts t-e3sel&es -ad to c-ec5 !#to $oss!ble co#1l!cts. .-e Court sa!d t-at w-e# t-e tr!al court 5#ows or s-ould -a&e 5#ow# o1 a co#1l!ct, t-ey -a&e a duty to c-ec5 !#to !t, but #ot !1 t-ere !s so3e &a,ue sus$!c!o#. "# Cuyler, t-e Court -eld t-at t-ere was #o duty, ($resu3ably because t-ere was t-e $oss!b!l!ty t-at t-e !#terests were al!,#ed. .-e potential co#1l!ct was #ot e#ou,- to 1orce t-e tr!al court to ra!se t-e !ssue.+ ("t see3s t-at co#1l!ct!#, relat!o#s-!$s

are #ot e#ou,- - t-ere #eeds to be e&!de#ce o1 co#1l!ct!#, interests or else t-e de1e#da#t 3ust s-ow $reEud!ce.+ Notes: O0Co##or co#curre#ce ,oes t-rou,- t-e 1acts a#d s-ows t-at t-ere was absolutely #o $oss!b!l!ty t-at t-ere was !# 1act a#y $reEud!ce, based o# t-e $ote#t!al alter#at!&e de1e#ses a#d based o# co-cou#sel a,ree!#, w!t- Hco#1l!ctedH cou#sel0s co#clus!o#s about strate,y. Dissent, te,ens: .-ere were t-ree Buest!o#s ra!sed !# t-!s case. (1+ :-et-er cou#sel -ad to d!&ul,e -!s $ote#t!al co#1l!ct, (2+ :-et-er, a1ter cou#sel d!scloses, de1e#da#t -as a r!,-t to de3a#d a#ot-er attor#ey, a#d (F+ :-et-er t-e tr!al Eud,e -as a duty to to obta!# t-e de1e#da#t0s co#se#t be1ore a$$o!#t!#, t-at lawyer to re$rese#t -!3. /ll t-ree o1 t-ese were &!olated, w-!cra!ses t-e Buest!o# o1 w-et-er t-at creates t-e $resu3$t!o# o1 $reEud!ce. Because !t !s so #ecessary to -a&e trust betwee# a lawyer a#d cl!e#t (Ste&e#s su,,ests t-at total trust would -a&e resulted !# ad3!ss!o# o1 t-e 3urder a#d t-ere1ore, test!3o#y t-at t-e 5!ll!#, was a1ter co#se#sual se4 rat-er t-a# !# order to 1orce se4, w-!c- would -a&e a&o!ded t-e deat- $e#alty+, t-e cou#sel clearly 3ust -a&e to d!&ul,e $ote#t!al co#1l!cts. "# 1act, -!s loyalty to -!s deceased cl!e#t l!5ely sto$$ed t-e attor#ey 1ro3 $ursu!#, t-e a#,le t-at -e was a $rost!tute. 7urt-er, w-e# t-e court a$$o!#ts cou#sel, t-e court s-ould be res$o#s!ble to &et t-e cou#sel 1or cl!e#ts, w-!c- !s a -!,-er de,ree o1 res$o#s!b!l!ty t-at w-e# de1e#da#t c-ooses cou#sel. Dissent, o!ter: JJJ Dissent, Bre+er: .-!s case !s d!scussed as t-ou,-t t-e $recede#t !s b!#d!#,, but t-!s case !s worse t-a# all o1 t-ose. "# t-!s case, t-e ,o&er#3e#t !tsel1 created a -u,e co#1l!ct by allow!#, t-e lawyer w-o -ad Eust re$rese#ted t-e &!ct!3 to re$rese#t t-e de1e#da#t - a 3ass!&e co#1l!ct o# t-e sur1ace t-at s-ould #ot #eed 3ore to allow a#ot-er tr!al. Notes: .-e Mars-all d!sse#t !# Str!c5la#d co3es to 3!#d. .-e test s-ould be 3ore H$roceduralH s!#ce !t0s so d!11!cult to tell w-et-er t-ere was actual $reEud!ce. "# Str!c5la#d, t-ere 3ay be a# ar,u3e#t t-at t-e !#adeBuate cou#sel d!d#0t result !# a c-a#,e, $art!ally bolstered by t-e !dea t-at t-e attor#ey s-ould -a&e d!scret!o#, but !# t-ese cases w-ere t-ere !s a# !#-ere#t 1law !# t-e attor#ey -!3sel1, !t s-ould be e#ou,- to reBu!re a #ew tr!al w!t- adeBuate re$rese#tat!o#. Br!e1 su33ary: %e1e#se cou#sel 1or 3urderer -ad bee# lawyer 1or decede#t. /1ter tr!al, de1e#da#t 3o&ed 1or "/C cla!3 a#d Court -eld t-at t-e co#1l!ct was #ot suc- a stro#, o#e t-at t-e Eud,e #eeded to ra!se !t, a#d !t was #ot suc- a stro#, o#e t-at de1e#da#t s-ould#0t -a&e to $ro&e $reEud!ce.

:-eat &. )#!ted States (1*88+

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 *:F0 PM

&acts: :-eat was a de1e#da#t !# a case w!t- 3a#y suc- de1e#da#ts re,ard!#, $ossess!o# o1 Mar!Eua#a w!t- !#te#t to sell. C!s code1e#da#ts @o3e;-BaraEas a#d Bra&o see3ed to be do!#, really well w!t- t-e $lea deals t-at t-ey wor5ed out us!#, attor#ey "redale. /1ter Bra&o0s $lea, w-!le @o3e;-BaraEas was st!ll ,o!#, t-rou,- &ar!ous $roceed!#,s, :-eat reBuested t-at -e be ass!,#ed "redale as -!s attor#ey. .-e tr!al court was co#cer#ed t-at !t would create a co#1l!ct because t-e ot-er de1e#da#ts0 $roceed!#,s -ad #ot yet wra$$ed u$, so t-ey de#!ed -!s reBuest. G!estion: %oes t-e de1e#da#t -a&e a r!,-t to t-e cou#sel o1 -!s c-oos!#,, o&er t-e obEect!o#s o1 t-e tr!al court o# sus$!c!o# o1 co#1l!ct< R!le: .-e r!,-t to cou#sel o1 o#e0s c-oos!#, !s reco,#!;ed so3ew-at, but #ot !# t-e 1ace o1 sus$!c!o# o# t-e $art o1 t-e tr!al court t-at !t 3!,-t create a co#1l!ct. .-e tr!al court !s e#t!tled to broad lat!tude to de#y $art!cular cou#sel o# ,rou#ds o1 co#1l!ct. Disc!ssion: Court !#&o5ed 7ederal Rules o1 Cr!3!#al Procedure GG` t-at says t-at t-e court s-all be e4tra care1ul !# cases w-ere t-ere !s Eo!#t re$rese#tat!o#. )#less !t a$$ears t-at t-ere !s

,ood cause to bel!e&e t-at t-ere w!ll be #o co#1l!ct o1 !#terest, t-e court s-ould ta5e 3easures to a&o!d suc- a co#1l!ct, !#clud!#, ass!,#!#, se$arate cou#sel. Part o1 t-e reaso# 1or t-e co#cer# about co#1l!cts !s so t-at t-e tr!al court #ot be worr!ed about "/C o# a$$eal. :a!&er does#0t sol&e t-e $roble3, because a$$eals courts -a&e deter3!#ed t-at "/C cla!3s sur&!&ed wa!&er. Dissent, <arshall: .-e court s-ould be able to reEect cou#sel o# t-e bas!s o1 co#1l!ct, but #ot o# t-e bas!s o1 sus$!c!o# o1 co#1l!ct. .-e /$$ellate courts s-ould #ot de1er to t-e tr!al courts, because t-!s !s a 3!4ed Buest!o# o1 law a#d 1act. .-e tr!al court s-ould #ot -a&e a broad r!,-t to &!t!ate t-e S!4t- /3e#d3e#t r!,-t to cou#sel. O# t-e 1acts o1 t-!s case, t-e tr!al court o11ered #o e&!de#ce to s-ow t-at a co#1l!ct would ar!se - t-e $lea deal 1or t-e code1e#da#t was set to ,o t-rou,-, a#d t-e ot-er was co3$lete. .-e code1e#da#ts were !3$l!cated !# t-e sa3e $lot, but were #ot acBua!#ted.

Cou#sel Co#trol &. Cl!e#t Co#trol

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 *:G PM

Pr!or to 7lor!da &. 2!4o#, t-e de1e#da#t -!3sel1 was to dec!de w-et-er to ta5e eac- o1 t-e 1ollow!#, ste$s: Plead ,u!lty :a!&e t-e r!,-t to Eury tr!al :a!&e t-e r!,-t to be $rese#t at tr!al :a!&e t-e r!,-t to test!1y o# -!s ow# be-al1. 7or,o a# a$$eal Mea#w-!le, t-ere was also a lot o1 $recede#t t-at allowed t-e lawyer to 3a5e t-e 1!#al call o# a $a#o$ly o1 $rocedural ste$s, a#d -!s dec!s!o# was co#troll!#,. Ao#es &. Bar#es: / lawyer w-o -ad re1used to !#clude !# a# a$$ellate br!e1 a cla!3 t-at t-e de1e#da#t w!s-ed to $ursue d!d #ot ,!&e r!se to a "/C cla!3. /ttor#eys are 1ree to 1ollow a strate,y o1 #ot wea5e#!#, t-e!r ar,u3e#ts by us!#, o#es t-ey t-!#5 w!ll 1a!l. o =&e# t-ou,- t-e dec!s!o# to a$$eal was t-e de1e#da#t0s. :-ere de1e#da#t0s d!scret!o# rules, t-at leads to a $er se "/C cla!3, w!t-out t-e #eed to $ro&e $reEud!ce. Roe &. 7lores Orte,a. 7lor!da &. 2!4o# reEected suc- a cla!3, but !t0s u#clear w-y a#d w-at t-e e11ect -as bee# o# t-e law.

7lor!da &. 2!4o# (200G+

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 *: 2 PM 7he law is that a lawyer may not himself ma!e certain decisions, and if he does ma!e those decisions against the wishes of the defendant, that is a per se violation of the right to counsel. !leading guilty is one such right that requires the defendant&s approval. 2ut what about conceding guilt to the ury1 Facts of the Case A Florida court convicted Boe Glton =ixon of murder and sentenced him to death. *uring the trial =ixon&s lawyer, against =ixon&s wishes, had told the ury =ixon was guilty. 7he lawyer&s rationale was that there was overwhelming evidence of guilt, including a confession to police, for a horrific crimeI which led the lawyer to conclude that spending time contesting guilt was counterproductive in getting leniency on

mitigating circumstances in sentencing. %t didn&t wor! 5 =ixon was sentenced to death. =ixon appealed the guilty verdict and argued he received ineffective counsel in violation of the 0ixth Amendment. =ixon said he did not agree to the lawyer&s strategy. After several appeals the Florida 0upreme 'ourt granted =ixon a new trial, saying that failure to respect defendant&s wishes was a per se violation of the 0ixth Amendment right to counsel. 7he court said =ixon&s lawyer&s comments were essentially a guilty plea and that because =ixon did not explicitly agree to the strategy, the lawyer was "per se ineffective." Question (.$ %s a defense lawyer&s use of a strategy that concedes the defendant&s guilt ineffective assistance of counsel if the strategy was pursued without the explicit approval of the defendant1 ).$ 0hould counsel be held to a standard that considers whether counsel&s statements were deficient and pre udicial to the defendant, or should counsel be considered ineffective per se1 RuleD 'onceding guilt to the ury at trial is not the same as entering a guilty plea. %f the defendant, upon being informed of intent to concede guilt by counsel, neither ob ects nor consents, it does not stop the attorney from pursuing what he feels is the best strategy in defending the defendant. %n such cases, the classic 0tric!land analysis applies. Decision: @ votes for Florida, - vote"s$ against Legal provision: Amendment @D 'ruel and >nusual 6unishment %n a unanimous @5- decision, the 'ourt ruled that =ixon&s lawyer&s strategy 5 pursued without =ixon&s express approval 5 did not automatically qualify the lawyer as ineffective. 7he 'ourt reversed the ruling of the Florida 0upreme 'ourt, faulting that court for inappropriately applying presumptions of pre udice and deficient performance. 7he opinion by Bustice 3uth 2ader Ginsburg held that conceding guilt to the ury was not the same as a guilty plea, and therefore, "When counsel informs the defendant of the strategy counsel believes to be in the defendant&s best interest and the defendant is unresponsive, counsel&s strategic choice is not impeded by any blan!et rule demanding the defendant&s explicit consent." =ixon&s lawyer would have needed =ixon&s consent for a formal guilty plea, but the 'ourt ruled that the tactic of effectively conceding guilt in order to concentrate on the sentencing phase of the trial was legitimate as long as the defendant was informed of the strategy, at least in capital cases where sentencing is so much more weighty. 'hief Bustice William <. 3ehnquist too! no part in the decision of the case.

Notes: 2!4o# was a$$are#tly !# a u#stable 3e#tal state, w-!c- led t-e lawyer to t-!#5 t-e best bet was to co#cede ,u!lt a#d atte3$t a 3!t!,at!#, 1actor $rese#tat!o# !# se#te#c!#,. .-e /ttor#ey co#ceded ,u!lt a1ter 2!4o# -ad re1used to s-ow u$ !# court a#d -ad t-reate#ed su!c!de, esse#t!ally. /t t-e ,u!lt $-ase, attor#ey d!d co#test certa!# b!ts o1 ,ra$-!c e&!de#ce as $reEud!c!al, !# 5ee$!#, w!t- -!s $la#. Court c!tes law re&!ew art!cle say!#, t-at !t does#Kt wor5 to try a H-e d!d#0t do !tH de1e#se a#d a H-e !s really sorryH 3!t!,at!o#.

)#!ted States &. Cebs-!e (2010+(@ert#er+

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 10:2> PM

&acts: %e1e#da#t Cebs-!e was co#&!cted a#d se#te#ced to t-e 3a4!3u3 1 years !# $r!so# 1or bur#!#, dow# -!s co#&e#!e#ce store. .-e e&!de#ce a,a!#st -!3 was e4$ert test!3o#y relat!#, to t-e cause a#d or!,!# o1 t-e 1!re a#d a#ot-er e4$ert test!1y!#, about 1la3e accelera#t s#!11!#, do,s. .-e state also brou,-t !# e&!de#ce about t-e debt o# t-e store a#d Cebs-!e0s 1!#a#c!al state. .wo l!#es o1 cases are brou,-t to bear !# t-!s case: .wo Su$re3e Court cases -el$ 1ra3e t-!s dec!s!o#: t-e &ery r!,orous sta#dards 1or deter3!#!#, w-e# cou#sel0s $er1or3a#ce !s !#e11ect!&e descr!bed !# Str!c5la#d &. :as-!#,to#, a#d !ts $ro,e#yUa#d t-e s$ec!al reBu!re3e#ts 1or sc!e#t!1!c test!3o#y u#der %aubert &.(a#d 1or tec-#!cal test!3o#y u#der ?u3-o .!re+ )#der Str!c5la#d, Cebs-!e 3ust $ro&e (1+ t-at -!s cou#sel0s $er1or3a#ce was de1!c!e#t a#d (2+ t-at -e su11ered $reEud!ce as a result. .o be de1!c!e#t, a# attor#ey0s co#duct 3ust 1all below a# SobEect!&e sta#dard o1 reaso#able#essR establ!s-ed by S$re&a!l!#, $ro1ess!o#al #or3s.R .o de3o#strate $reEud!ce, Cebs-!e 3ust s-ow a Sreaso#able $robab!l!ty t-at, but 1or cou#sel0s

u#$ro1ess!o#al errors, t-e result o1 t-e $roceed!#, would -a&e bee# d!11ere#t.R :-!le t-e Str!c5la#d sta#dards are #otor!ously d!11!cult to a$$ly to t-e usual strate,!c dec!s!o#s o1 tr!al, sc!e#t!1!c a#d e4$ert e&!de#ce ra!ses 1u#da3e#tally d!11ere#t Buest!o#s, a#d !3$ose a d!11ere#t set o1 obl!,at!o#s. R!le: Str!c5la#d, at 1!rst. S$!ced u$ w!t- so3e %aubert/?u3-o .!re rules about t-e e4tra !3$orta#t -ear!#,s to e4clude #o#-rele&a#t, #o#-rel!able e&!de#ce 1ro3 e4$ert w!t#esses be1ore tr!al. 9ol$ing: .-!s case !s &ery clear, because #ot o#ly was tr!al cou#sel o# #ot!ce 1ro3 $re&!ous cou#sel t-at t-ere were -oles !# t-e case, t-e Court as5ed tr!al cou#sel 3a#y t!3es !1 -e would co#test t-e e4$ert test!3o#y a#d -e decl!#ed, des$!te 3a#y clear s-ortco3!#,s !# t-e e4$ert test!3o#y. 7urt-er3ore, at tr!al, t-e lawyers d!d#0t cross-e4a3!#e ,o&er#3e#t0s e4$ert w!t#esses des$!te clearly u#su$$orted assert!o#s by t-e e4$ert w!t#esses. .-e lawyer s-ould -a&e as5ed 1or a %aubert -ear!#,, !# w-!c- -e could -a&e co#tested t-e ad3!ss!o# o1 test!3o#y as !rrele&a#t or u#rel!able, but d!d #ot, alt-ou,- e&!de#ce was clearly !rrele&a#t a#d u#rel!able. Reaso#ably co3$ete#t cou#sel would -a&e 3o&ed 1or a %aubert -ear!#, o# all t-e e&!de#ce. Notes: .-ere are two l!#es o1 cases ste33!#, 1ro3 Str!c5la#d, o#e !# w-!c- t-e ,e#eral re$rese#tat!o# !s below a reaso#able#ess sta#dard (a total 1a!lure to re$rese#t+, a#d t-e ot-er !# w-!c- t-ere !s one critical error t-at results !# t-e de1e#da#t be!#, at a d!sad&a#ta,e. Court #otes t-at t-!s !s close to a total 1a!lure, but 1or3ally, !t sta#ds o# t-e s!#,le cr!t!cal error ,rou#ds, because o1 t-e 1a!lure to $ursue a#y %aubert -ear!#,s or see5 e4$ert test!3o#y. Court says t-at attor#eys -a&e a duty to be reaso#ably abreast o1 de&elo$3e#ts !# t-e 1!eld, w-!c- t-ey clearly were #ot. Court 1ou#d t-at t-e use o1 do,s to s-ow w-ere t-e 1!re started was beyo#d t-e rel!ab!l!ty o1 suc- e&!de#ce, accord!#, to t-e 27P/. Myst!cal $owers test!3o#y o1 do,--a#dler s-ould -a&e bee# e4cluded. .-!s !s a# e4a3$le o1 a success1ul "/C cla!3, ,ra#ted by Aud,e @ert#er. 2ote t-!#,s t-at Courts loo5 to. 1. Pro1ess!o#al #or3s. 2. '!3!ts o1 ad3!ss!b!l!ty o1 e&!de#ce.

Rossu3 &. Patr!c5

Su#day, %ece3ber 02, 2012 11:2F PM

Rossu3 was co#&!cted o1 5!ll!#, -er -usba#d w!t- 1e#ta#yl. S-e 3o&ed 1or -abeas rel!e1, based o# "/C, o# ,rou#ds t-at -er lawyer s-ould -a&e tested t-e 1e#ta#yl sa3$les to 3a5e sure t-at t-ey -ad bee# !# -er -usba#d0s body a#d #ot Eust added to t-e sa3$les later. ("1 " a3 u#dersta#d!#, t-!s correctly+ t-e court !#!t!ally ,ra#ted a re3a#d o# "/C ,rou#ds, t-e# !# t-e wa5e o1 Carr!#,to# &. R!c-ter, w-!c- reBu!res 3ore de1ere#ce 1ro3 re&!ew!#, courts o# t-e bas!s o1 t-e /=%P/, re&ersed t-e ,ra#t a#d u$-eld t-e lower court0s dec!s!o#. @ert#er was s!tt!#, w!t- t-e 2!#t- C!rcu!t, a#d d!sse#ted. S-e wrote t-at e&e# u#der t-e #ew sta#dard, t-!s was d!11ere#t 1ro3 R!c-ter, s!#ce !# R!c-ter, t-ere was da#,er t-at blood s$latter a#d blood test!#, would !#cul$ate t-e de1e#da#t. O&er -ere, !# co#trast, t-ere was #o reaso# #ot to do t-e test - !1 !t s-owed t-at t-e 1e#ta#yl -ad#0t bee# added, t-e# t-e de1e#se was #o worse o11, but !1 !t s-owed t-e 1e#ta#yl -ad bee# added, t-e# t-e de1e#se 3ust w!#. (Re3!#ds 3e o1 t-e early case about #ot reBu!r!#, %2/ tests o#ce you -a&e a &erd!ct, but t-e trut- !s t-at t-!s !s a d!11ere#t cla!3+.

Class o1 12/G

.uesday, %ece3ber 0G, 2012 1:16 PM

.-e Str!c5la#d Sta#dard: Pro1 says t-at s!#ce you always loo5!#, at t-e re$rese#tat!o# after t-e co#&!ct!o#, !t0s really -ard to tell w-at t-e e11ect o1 t-e re$rese#tat!o# o1 cou#sel was. Pro1 tal5s about t-e correct a$$l!cat!o# o1 Str!c5la#d a#d says t-at t-e !##oce#ce cases (!# w-!c- $r!or co#&!ct!o#s were o&ertur#ed because o1 later e4a3!#at!o# o1 t-e 1acts+, a s!,#!1!ca#t $erce#ta,e -ad ra!sed "/C cla!3s.

"t see3s t-at s-e0s start!#, w!t- t-e 1!rst $ro#,. .al5!#, about slee$!#, lawyers, t-e 7!1t- C!rcu!t sa!d (Burd!#e &. Ao-#so#+ t-at slee$!#, !s #ot so l!5ely to cause $reEud!ce t-at a case by case !#Bu!ry !s wort- t-e cost. "# t-at case, t-e court #oted t-at t-ey could#0t 5#ow -ow 3uc- o1 a# e11ect !t -ad, s!#ce t-ey d!d#0t -a&e a record o1 w-e# -e was slee$!#,, or w-at 5!#d o1 e11ect !t would -a&e -ad. /dd!#, /=%P/ to Str!c5la#d, t-e !ssue beco3es e&e# worse. @ert#er dec!s!o#: Br!tto &. 7!cco H.-e state 3ust #ot Eust be wro#, -- but &ery, &ery wro#,.H Pro1 tal5s about t-e Rossu3 d!sse#t 1or Bu!te a w-!le. Re3ed!es 1or &!olat!o#s - d!11ere#t by a3e#d3e#t, w-at does t-e court say a#d do we a,ree< 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t: '#,ua,e o1 t-e early cases su,,ested t-at t-e 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t !#-ere#tly co#ta!#ed a e4clus!o#ary $ro&!s!o#. But t-at0s e&ol&ed !#to a deterre#ce rat!o#ale, w-!c- leads to cost be#e1!t a#alys!s, 'eo# a#d Cerr!#, a#d %a&!s, 1ocused o# l!5el!-ood o1 deterre#ce, a#d cul$ab!l!ty o1 $ol!ce. Cerr!#, also 3e#t!o#s a H$atter# o1 co#ductH ,rou#d. 7ourt- /3e#d3e#t sta#d!#, - #ot your -ouse #o e4$ectat!o# o1 $r!&acy. (.-!s !s t-e #ew way to d!scuss !t, t-ey do#0t tal5 about sta#d!#, a#y3ore+. S!4t- /3e#d3e#t: State3e#ts ta5e# !# &!olat!o# o1 M!ra#da were $resu3$t!&ely e4cluded. Pata#e. Cowe&er, a 1a!lure by law e#1orce3e#t to co3$ly w!t- M!ra#da does#0t &!olate a sus$ect0s co#st!tut!o#al r!,-ts - t-e &!olat!o# o#ly occurs at tr!al. Pata#e e4cludes t-e co#1ess!o# but #ot t-e ,u#. .-e e4clus!o# o1 t-e H1ru!tH !s Eust a deterre#ce rat!o#ale, a#d t-at does#Kt a$$ly always !# t-e 1!1t- a3e#d3e#t. But actually coerced state3e#ts lead to e4clus!o# o1 t-e $-ys!cal 1ru!t as well. S!4t- /3e#d3e#t -ybr!d< "s !t l!5e t-e 7ourt- or t-e 7!1t-< "t0s clearly a tr!al r!,-t, but O.OC, M!ra#da l!#5s !t to $ol!ce co#duct, a#d so does t-e H!de#t!1!cat!o#H $roceed!#,s. ?a#sas &. 8e#tr!s :-et-er ot-erw!se e4cluded e&!de#ce ca# be !#cluded 1or $ur$oses o1 !3$eac-3e#t de$e#ds u$o# t-e #ature o1 t-e co#st!tut!o#al ,uara#tee t-at !s &!olated. So3et!3es t-at e4$l!c!tly 3a#dates t-e e4clus!o# 1ro3 tr!al, a#d so3et!3es !t does#0t. o .-e 7!1t- /3e#d3e#t ,uara#tees t-at #o $erso# s-all co3$elled to ,!&e e&!de#ce a,a!#st -!3sel1 a#d so !s &!olated bla- bla-. S-e better $ost t-ese sl!des.

)$co3!#, !ssues: 7lor!da &. Aard!#es6 do, s#!11 outs!de a -ouse. 7lor!da &. Carr!s, w-et-er do, alert o1 co#traba#d !# a &e-!cle su11!ces 1or $robable cause. Searc- Buest!o#s: :-at !s a searc- - ta5!#, %2/ 1ro3 so3eo#e w-o -as bee# arrested< (Maryla#d &. ?!#, - !t we#t !#to a database a#d later -el$ed co#&!ct -!3 o1 a cr!3e.+ =4!,e#t C!rcu3sta#ces: %)" Sus$ect re1uses breat-aly;er, so co$ ta5es blood, cla!3!#, e4!,e#t c!rcu3sta#ces. (2ot sure w-at t-e &erd!ct was, but "0d br!#, !# Roc-!#, w-!c- says t-at !t0s too close to !#Bu!s!tor!al torture.+ %oes searc- !#c!de#t to arrest e#ables searc-/se!;ure o1 cell$-o#es. Cow dee$ly ca# you ,o !#to t-e co#te#ts o1 t-e $-o#e< %oes @a#t a11ect !t<