Week 4 Lecture Notes
Week 4 Lecture Notes CJ 100
Popular in Intro to Criminal Justice
One Day of Notes
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Criminal Justice
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Matt Owens on Monday February 9, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to CJ 100 at University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa taught by Douglas Klutz in Spring2015. Since its upload, it has received 244 views. For similar materials see Intro to Criminal Justice in Criminal Justice at University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa.
Reviews for Week 4 Lecture Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/09/15
Matt Owens Intro to Criminal Justice February 2nd 2015 Review Weeks V United States 0 Established exclusionary rule can t use illegally obtained evidence Mapp V Ohio 0 Extended the exclusionary rule to the states Katz Case 0 Reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place I Phone Booth Greenwood V California 0 Anything you knowingly expose to the public is not protected by the 4th amendment Kylo Case 0 Advancement of technology thermal imaging does not fall under plain View doctrine Terry V Ohio 0 Stop and frisk Terry patdownquot Motor Vehicle Exception Allows the search of a motor vehicle without a search warrant still has to be probable cause 0 Since they re mobile they can search without a warrant if they have probable cause due to the fact that the car can easily be moved by the time they obtain a warrant Examples of probable cause Sight or smell of contraband plain View plain smell Minor traffic Violations are E considered probable cause 5th Amendment Grand Jury Indictments Grand jury decides whether the prosecution has enough evidence to bring a defendant to trial Probable cause indictment formal charging green light to proceed No probable cause no billquot suspect not charged Grand Juries Prosecutor presents evidence against suspect Advantageous for prosecution because 0 1 Proceedings are secretive only prosecutor and jury present o 2 Exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings 0 3 Prosecutor can choose which evidence presented to jury Miranda Warnings Miranda v Arizona 1966 o Protects Fifth Amendment rights of individuals against self incrimination Rights read AFTER a person has officially been taken into custody but before any interrogation takes place 0 You must have two conditions met with Miranda Rights I 1 You must be in custody I 2 Have to be read your rights before you re asked potentially incriminating questions You have the right to remain silentquot Matt Owens Intro to Criminal Justice February 4th 2015 Reasons for Miranda Protection against forced confessions compelled selfincriminationquot Protection against lengthy interrogations without legal counsel Public Safetyquot exception Can forgo Miranda warnings if there is a threat to public safety Criminal Court 0 Burden of proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 0 Harder to get convictions in criminal court Does not mean absolute certainty Quantify 97999 Reason the threshold is so high The Government state or federal brings suit against prosecutes a person who they believe has violated the law the defendant Example 0 People of the State of California Prosecution Plaintiff v Orenthal James Simpson Defendant 0 United States Prosecution v Jones Defendant 2012 Civil Court 0 Burden of Proof Preponderance of Evidence Tort Civil wrong think lawsuits 0 Some type of damage that you have experienced Quantify 51 501 Compensation from damages or injuries One party plaintiff who feels they were harmed tort brings a complaint against another party the defendant Example 0 Liebeck Plaintiff v McDonald s Restaurants Defendant I Ms Liebeck was in passenger seat of a car and was STOPPED She put coffee between her legs to add in cream and sugar and it spilled on here I The burns were AWFUL 3rd degree I They asked McDonald s to pay for medical bills but they only offered 800 Media coverage was wrong about different aspects of the event said she was in the driver s seat and was driving so people s views were skewed by false information provided by the media McDonald s had already had over 700 complaints over hot co ee Sued for punitive damages jury awarded 27 million but the money was later cut to 480000 The case was used as the poster child to have tort reform make it harder for the public to take lawsuits to these major industries
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'