Constitutional Issues and Criminal Justice
Constitutional Issues and Criminal Justice CJA 3400
Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Criminal Justice
This 44 page Class Notes was uploaded by Candida Hayes on Wednesday September 23, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to CJA 3400 at Middle Tennessee State University taught by William Shulman in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 29 views. For similar materials see /class/212944/cja-3400-middle-tennessee-state-university in Criminal Justice at Middle Tennessee State University.
Reviews for Constitutional Issues and Criminal Justice
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: 09/23/15
Hampton 1 Matthew Hampton W Shulman C A 3400 1 October 2012 US V Lopez 514 US 549 1995 Alfonso Lopez Jr was arrested and charged under Texas Law with rearm possession on school premises on March 10 1992 after knowingly calrying a concealed 38 caliber handgun into Edison High School in San Antonio Texas The GFSZA of 1990 made it unlawful quotknowing1y to possess a rearm at a school zonequot The next day state charges were dropped when federal agents charged Lopez with Violation of the GFSZA The respondent moved to dismiss the indictment and was denied by the District Court under the conclusion that Section VII Fair Trial Rights the Right to Knowledge of the State s Case Discovery Process Generally A Governed by statute state to state B No speci c Constitutional right guaranteeing discovery C Obligations on part of both parties D General obligations 1 Each side turns over physical evidence 2 Each side turns over reports exams 3 D gets any statements 4 Witness lists 5 NOT witness statements until at trial after direct E Sanctions l disallowing the evidence 2 contempt 3 continuance Constitutional Problems A Exculpatory evidence I evidence that shows D not guilty or otherwise favorable to him 2 Obligation to turn over material evidence when requested 3 Case Brady v Md 1963 4 Extends obligation to unrequested evidence if material 5 Case US v Agurs 1976 6 Extends to impeachment evidence 7 Case US v Bagley 1985 8 Applications of the materiality standard in other cases 9 the problem of determining what is exculpatory 10 the in camera solution B The Failure to Preserve Evidence Problem 1 difference from the Brady issue 2 higher standard of proof for D 3 Case California v Trombetta 1984 4 Case Arizona v Youngblood 1988 5 My Youngblood case 6 Tennessee39s Ferguson std quotwhether the trial conducted without the destroyed or lost evidence would be fundamentally fair Section VIII The Right to a Speedy Trial III Rationale for the Right A From D s perspective 1 minimize pretrial incarceration 2 minimize anxiety which comes from being charged 3 allow defense evidence to be preserved B Society s perspective 1 evidence is preserved so verdict more reliable 2 efficient use of time and money Triggering Event for the Right A Accusatory stage 1 triggered by formal judicial proceedings 2 reasons why begins here rather than earlier 3 applies to persons already doing time on other charges 4 court has not set fixed time limits B Protections for pretrial delay 1 statute of limitations 2 due process violation for intentional misconduct Factors in Consideration of Violation A Case Barker v Wingo 1972 B Factors 1 Length of delay with presumption of over 1 year 7 not count any time that charge is dismissed and then resumed Fatal Vision case 2 Reason for delay 3 D s assertion ofhis right 4 Prejudice or harm to the D 5 Case Doggett v US 1992 prejudice presumed Where delay is 8 12 yrs 6 But State v Wood Tenn 1996 u lnlvingzmznls bylhz Pol lmpovlznl concepts in Szzvch zndszizum law h h u Searmed andthtversansarthmgsta he mm A Theamendmentrtgmatesan vgwernmenta amvxtmsJarexamD eWhitf agents a raammateet c TheAmendmentragu ates searme 39and 52uure 39andDramhxtsthasethatare unrea anahequotand aHawsthasethatare rea anahe m m a a Damm ar a Prabah e usewhateverthat 57 5apparen yreqmredhrsameadmty Warrants have m be Suvvarted by Prahah e Cause and my math reasanah e emmmmmmmsakmammmmwwamauumrmmpmw Genera vthetaurt amva my Gavernmentran ammw Lcy meenranthe mm m k A y n N h m mlmsmn um pm 5 WM mas mauve Drabah e muse m EH mauer Drabah e cause The Peasanah eness Regmrement 11 reasanah e BUTsamwmes nan are newssaw 21 Naw et stake a aakmtathehr hurmun cases There is a twostep analysis that the courts use in determining whether these checkpoints are reasonable They are 1 Does the Government Activity 39 Advance the Interest over the citizens privacy 2 Is the Governments Interest Public Safety The Government will ask these two questions in each of the following cases What do you think the answers will be Is it a small issue a large issue or is it a huge issue A citizen is stopped at these checkpoints for only a few seconds Cases Where driver s challenge the Supreme Court ruling whether or not roadblocks are constitutional or not CaseMichigan Dept of State Police v SitzI 1990 ex DUI roadblocks constitutional though no individualized suspicion Remember twostep analysisThe Governments interest substantially outweighs the citizens privacy Does this road block advance getting drunk drivers off the road Yes Checkpoints get drunk drivers off the road and that is why they are valid under the 4th Amendment Case City of Indianapolis v EdmondI 2000 ex Drug interdiction crime control roadblocks not constitutional Remember twostep analysisNot so much in this case Indianapolis tried to stop motorist to look for drugs they would smell pot or see the drugs in the car or ask questions are you carrying drugs in the car Do you mind if we look This was challenged by Edmond twostep analysis Not much intrusion stop is short Break down How did this checkpoint substantially advance the governments interest in getting rid of drugs in this country Is there any evidence that drugs are floating around in vehicles in this country No drugs are at home or in clubs No reason to believe that the drug problem can be solved by having a roadblock Not enough evidence to prove this is beneficial Before a police officer stops someone they better have a huge interest in substantially advancing the governments interest Courts struck down drug checkpoints Case Illinois v Lidsterl 2004 Investigation roadblocks constitutional Automobile struck a bicyclist and kills the bicyclist Hit and Run Saturday night at 8 pm police set up road block for 23 days in the same location Questions were asked flyers pasted out Hey if you know anything let us know This is where Lidster who was drunk out of his mind swerves and hits police His augment was the checkpoint was no good He says no probable cause the Courts say quotYesquot because the government cares about 2 points in reason to advance The governments substantially advance of interest is huge because there was a death which outweighs the citizens intrusion and privacy primarily due to the closeness in time to the accident with the bicyclist and the police were looking for the person who killed the bicyclist This case would be much different had month gone by Question two would not have been met Case State v HicksI 2001 ex In Tennessee Driver s License checkpoints unconstitutional Glove Box Remember twostep analysisGood for the Citizen Driver license checkpoint Chattanooga Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol solely for the purpose of checking for valid driver s licenses Mr Hicks challenges the constitutionality of that particular roadblock Tennessee Courts has a search and seizure provision established that is similar to the US 4t Amendment the analysis is going to be the same TN is going through the balancing Here is what they say about the government s interest what is the augment only drivers with drivers licenses should be driving Citizen s interest outweighs the governments because it can t be proven that people with driver s licenses are better drivers than those without a license State of Tennessee could not prove this point Government could not prove having or not having a valid license was a public safety issue Citizen s Won The Law of Probable Cause Probable Cause In the US Criminal Court System probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been is being or will be committed The Law of Probable Cause 120 100 80 I Hunch 60 I Rs 40 l Pc I B R D 20 I CertaintleO Proof 0 Hunch zero proof Facts and circumstances leading an objectively reasonable officer to believe a crime took place and the defendant committed it Incapable of a precise definition or quantification quotReasonable grounds for belief in guilt Example ONE John Doe robs from SunTrust Bank RS and PC are used for the 4th Amendment Police Officer wants to get an arrest warrant SunTrust Bank 2 pm parole officer calls says John Doe is out on parole and kind of lost contact heard Bank was robbed No Where on the Scale Then another call John Doe rents a home not far from the bank officer investigates car dealer says he paid 12K cash for the carstill not enough evidence Another call from a lady and says she was atJohn Doe s house seen a bunch of money and now is about to leave town and hangs up Anonyms Now Hat matches and is similar to the one described at the scene of the crime might have PC but better make sure or gets case thrown out Example TWO Case Ma land v Prin Ie 2004 Maximadriven by Donny Partlow Leon Pringle and Otis it is 3 am outside of Baltimore stopped for speeding police walks to driver side ask for reg and license Partlow reaches over to glove box and gets necessary information and police notice lots of money in glove box They order all 3 of the guys out of the car Nothing wrong with information Police officer asks if any weapons or drugs said no I don t Then officer ask to search and he agreed Police look around and in the back set the arm rest in upright position and officer finds S baggies of cocaine All get arrested The issue raised when Pringle was charged with the drugs Where is the Pc as it related to me to take me downtown to begin with What was the Pc Wasn t money or consent or confession Court s opinion as to Pringle Pringle was in a small area and all would have to have knowledge or being present was enough for PC common association in a car This is how the courts look at automobiles Case State v RichardsI Tenn 2009 Franklin Tennessee Lt Clousey received a call from concerned citizen about drug deal activity at 144 Atkin Street the citizen informant drug deal between Trent and the girl from the drug court and a guy in the purple truck At a picnic table behind house and drinking beer Officer gets tips informant had given other information before Officer Trent Covington Head drives purple van informant doesn t identify Head Officer notifies Rose and Davis they thought drug use was occurring at the time left patrol cars out of site and walked to picnic tables behind the house As the officer approach all suspects were present Left is Head Covington is in the Middle and in a wheelchair and the female sited on the other side of Covington and another person is Marcus Richards when officers where 20 Yards from the table they witnessed sweeping off of the table Quarter baggy Officer Davis testifies all had that look about them Officer Rose approaches head gives dollar with cocaine use as it was tested Officer notice powder on ground table and field test was Positive Search no cocaine on them I Pc they have proximity ofdrugs on the table etc I PC does not attach to groups I Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not PC The belief of guilt must be particular to result to person seized I There is NO guilt by association Application of Concept Nonhearsay or direct sources presumed reliable Reliable hearsay for example a citizen informer Unreliable hearsay for example a confidential informant AguilarSpinequot Rule Police can use some hearsay creditable hearsay Confidential Informants Two things they must show 1 The truth of the informant 2 Does the C have bases of knowledge The problem with AquilarSpinelli cannot use anonymous source Cannot be used solely it has to be investigated Police Officer gets letter information says Lance and Susan Gates are drug dealers Sue Gates travels from Chicago to Miami Lance flies to Miami Lance then drives car back home To colabrate they find out information set up surveillance and pick up surveillance in Miami then Lance is on his way back home Gives Judge PC finds drugs on an appeal throws case out based on quotAnonymousquot Nothing given on criminal courts ask for a new standard for Pc Back to Probable Cause PC Two Major Types of Probable Cause 1 Direct Evidence what a police offer witnesses EX See suspect with ski mask 2 Hearsay what an officer learns about from another source That is good Ex of good hearsay TBI lab report and tells the officer courts have no problem with that kind of evidence Another example is where a citizen comes forward ex John Doe ask her the throw a ski mask away and tells girlfriend they are now wealthy She tells officers information this is good hearsay Bad Hearsay C I trade information for money or hearsay of an anonymous source To make C informant good to use must show two things Aguilarspinell Case Illinois v GatesI 19851 Police Officer gets letter information says Lance and Susan Gates are drug dealers Sue Gates travels from Chicago to Miami Lance flies to Miami Lance then drives car back home To collaborate they find out information set up surveillance and pick up surveillance in Miami then Lance is on his way back home Gives Judge PC finds drugs on an appeal throws case out based on llAnonymous Nothing given on criminal courts asks for a new standard for Pc PC Soup Federal Law Totality Test ln PC the more ingredients you have the more the Judge like it and will most likely will sign warrant If not get more information State of Tennessee uses Aguilar Spinell and NOT Totality Test The Exclusionary Rule Were police screw up evidence it will not be able to be used in a trial Not in constitutional documents Supreme Court ofTN came up for the police to follow the law Why Have This 1 It forces police to abide the constitutional Rights 2 The Rule is criticized because if the police screw up the rapist goes free Citizen loses out Citizen gets NO benefit of the rule The Rule has been gutted to great extinct The Standing Rule All aspects of the law before the courts listens to a party the party has to have some legal interest Ex Married couple doesn t like one another another person wants the marriage gone files with the court and judge says NO standards to the case Meaning it has to be one of the parties to file for the courts to hear the case not just an avg Joe 0 Just because you are charged with a crime does not mean you are in standing 0 Some legal standing will be thrown out while others continue based on the standing rule STANDING IN A CRIMINAL CASE Altima example Traffic Stop no consent to search each gets a lawyer they are all going to work to challenge to file a motion to exclude the drugs Before the Judge will want to make sure parties have sufficient illegal interest in the place that was searched The automobile if you don t have an interest in the automobile you don t have illegal standing so the only one who can is the drive because he has legal interest Hitchhiker cannot challenge the evidence Hitchhiker can argue that he knew nothing of the drugs The lawyers will try to get as much evidence thrown out if all evidence is thrown out no case No standing lDE Limitation on the Standing Rule Sometimes it s not clear exactly what evidence is in violation of the constitution Sometimes the fruits do not come from that tree Sometimes the evidence is uncovered in a different fashion and is not related to the violation of the constitution ssue about which acorn are from the poisonous tree the defendant is going to want to show all the acorns from the tree The DA will NOT The state is going to want to draw distinction An example is the Garcia case CASE State v GarciaTN 2003 J Martin rep Garia quotGlove Box case Cole was the office Garcia is Spanish swerving in the lane of traffic Cole was also part of the drug task force In Nashville she writes in Spanish earns he speaks English no speeding driving slowly no other violations But did pull Garcia over ask if tired and yes Garcia had not had much sleep Cole testified this information she was forthcoming Registration was good license Cole was going to write a warning citation Suggest rest area asks Garcia to wait in the car while she writes citation She radios for another police officer for a drug dog Cole tells him that the stop is over then she turns around and ask if she could ask him some more questions ask if weapons drugs Cole says his demeanor changed Nervous laughAsked to search the vehicle Meth was found Garcia is arrested Garcia argument I Bad Traffic Stop should have never been stopped I Meth Amp is a fruit from the tree and should be executed TN Argument 1 No violation illegitimate stop 2 The meth was not a fruit of the stop it was called consent to search Court says stop is no good Courts said stop was we hold no evidence or reasonable suspicion Three important things come out of this 1 How long did this traffic stop take place Timeframe one continuous factor no break in time 2 Were there intervening factors 3 What motivated the police pretext Cole was searching for a reason to search for drugs she was on the drug task force Fruits of poisonous tree Conviction was overturn by TN Supreme Court Another limitation of the Exclusiona Rule quotGood Faith Rule Protects a police officer but has engaged in a violation anyway Two Examples 1 Police Officer uses C goes before Judge feels like officer has enough evidence Judge signs off for the warrant The Judge screwed up by insufficient evidence But NO good Anyway because Heshe acted in quotGood Faith it sticks 2 Police Officer traffic stop Bob Smith calls in to dispatch finds warrants brings Bob Smith in searches car finds drugs get downtown wrong Bob Smith what happens to drugs now Government keeps drugs and officer acts in quotGood Faith The evident gets admitted Exclusionary Rule Reform ACT TN by law adopts quotGood Faith rule in 2011 Section V The Law of Interrogations and Confessions I Seizures of confessions and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy A confessions can be objects which are the subject of 43911 Amend Activity 1 w for example was such a case 2 Other examples police wiring agents to get statements from defendants 3 Taping of statements by a1restees in back of patrol car 4 Case State V Munn 2001 5 Issue as in all 4111 Amend Seizure relates to REP 6 Distinguish between Munn where court found REP and other situations 7 Wiring of agents no problem because Ds have misplaced their confidence II Coercion and Due Process violations A Totality test 1 is the statement by the D given freely and voluntarily or is it coerced by police activity 2 focus is on police conduct 1 physical force 2 trickery 3 threats 4 promises 5 psychological pressure 3 focus is on D s characteristics 1 age 2 mental issue 3 drug and alcohol issues 4 prior experience with system 5 education 4 Case Arizona v Fulminante 1991 5 Remember the requirement of some state action 6 Purely voluntary statements even by mentally ill people don t implicate the Constitution III Miranda Issues A Theory behind Miranda 1 selfincrimination protection 2 warnings 3 only prior to custodial interrogation B Custodial 1 different from 43911 Amend Custody 2 factors related to the objective test 1 length and form of questioning 2 time of questioning 3 number of officers 4 place of questioning 5 what D was told 6 physical force or show of authority by officers 3 the essence is was the atmosphere police dominated 4 Case Illinois V Perkins 1990 C Interrogation 1 direct questioning 2 functional equivalent of direct questioning 3 Case Brewer V Williams 1979 4 Case Rhode Island V Innis 1981 D Exceptions to Miranda 1 Case New York V Quarles 1984 public safety 2 Case PennsylVania V Muniz 1990 booking room 3 Case Berkemer V McCarty 1984 routine traffic stop E WaiVer Issues 1 knowing and Voluntary 2 silence as waiVer 3 Case Berghuis V Thompkins 2010 F Assertion or InVocation 1 Case DaVis V US 1994 assertion must be clear and unequiVocal quotMaybe I need a lawyerquot won t cut it 2 Silence 1 must be scrupulously honored 2 Case Michigan V Mosley 1975 3 different officer different crime and renewed Miranda 3 Counsel 1 no further communication 2 reinitiation issue 3 Case Maryland V Shatzer 2010 G The Problem of quotsetting upquot the statement 1 Case Missouri V Seibert 2004 IV Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Issues A When right attaches 1 initiation of formal judicial proceedings usually the committal on the arrest warrant B The Deliberately Elicited issue 1 once the right attaches police may not deliberately elicit incriminating info 2 Case State V Dodson 1983 3 The jail house snitch cases 1 the actiVe participant 2 the listening post Section IV Searching and Seizing Evidence Searching Plain Look of cer is on a public sidewalk and looks into the neighbor yard sees something it is observation Plain View allows an officer to seize without a warrant evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation Was there a search by the government ll REP Intrusion into a reasonable expectation of privacy lll REP TEST i Two questions the Courts will ask regarding REP TEST a Is the person truly trying to protect it privacy b Is society prepared to recognize that is TEST reasonable Katz case changed the old doctrine to the new doctrine making it REP OLD Doctrinea search to see if the police is trespassing technology allows now no trespassing for police lt s open to the public and whoever wants access REP is Reasonable Expectation of Privacy CASE Katz v US 119671 subjective expectation and objective expectation Of cers were watching Katz for some time but not enough evidence to get a search warrant so they got an idea to tap the phone The guy was in the public phone booth close the doors some of illegal action REP The court would ask was the police interfering with his privacy REP Court says this is a search and involution ofthe Constitution because REP has two parts ls society prepared to recognize this as privateGeneral searches have to be done with a warrant There was NO search warrant for the wiretap and evidence was thrown out CASE Kyllo v US Thermal imaging eguigment The detection of heat was discovered by using thermal camera suspecting that someone in the home was growing M The heat waves from the thermal camera could have been from other sources such as cooking body heat hot bath etc No trespassing the heat waves are coming out ofthe house They are starting in the house and the house is always being protected by the 4 h Amendment Rights On shaky grounds because you don t know what heat waves are being picked up and may not be any of your business This was intruding into REP NO warrant Case was thrown out CASE Illinois v Caballes 2005 Dog sniffing Case The use of a Drug Dog is not considered a SEARCH The Dog sniff case does not interfere with REP This case is different Two ways they are different than the Thermal Camera Case General dog sniff cases are in the public and on traffic stops 2 Use of a Drug dog is not considered a search Currently nothing on the books and is not in violation ofthe Constitution Case US v Jones 2012 GPS Tracking Of cer placed a GPS on the car and surveillance was on for 30 Days yes it was in the public this was deemed unconstitutionalbecause it was violation of privacy and because of the timeframe of the placement of the individual s car WARRANT RUL E Presumption that searches be done with a warrant Warrant process 2 3 Got to establish PIC determination as a thing and place and has to have a particular standard 4th Amendment Ri hts Search Warrant PIC 2 types Pc for the things you are looking for and the thing you are looking for will be found at a particular location More important constitutional requirements It keeps police officers fromjust going into places and looking for anything Particularity requirement Neutral and detached party Execution of the Warrant 1 2 Knock and announce reasonable amount of time 15 seconds is not unreasonable due to looking for drugs CASE U S v Banks 20031 In a 90 decision the US Supreme Court held that 1520 seconds was reasonable delay before police executed a forced entry after knockandannouncequot under the circumstances of the case Banks was a case where police was issuing a warrant for possession of cocaine which Banks could have had an opportunity to destroy if they waited any longer Reasonable force SCOPE WARRANT How scope applies to a particular of cers actions Scope of the Search Search Warrants You can look anywhere in the house 1 99gt O FJ 8 Reasonably related to the object of the warrant Plausible repositoryquothe smaller the item the larger the scope more places the of cer can go Frisks of persons on premises CASE Ybarra v Illinois 1 BAR CASE which is a search case Search warrant was for the bar and the bartender looking for drugs Notice several customers officer start to frisk him and leads to a plain feel of a cig Packet which turns out to have drugs in it is issue is whether the bar can be fn39sk or not on the premises Frisk at a bar is unconstitutional of cer frisk Ybarra but the warrant was for the Bar its reasonable if you believe they are armed Terry suspicion so it was NOT reasonable so outside the scope Detention of persons on premises CASE Michi an v Summers 1981 Detained on premises A 63 decision by the US Supreme Court which held for the 4 h Amendment purpose a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause carries with it the limited authority to detain people while a proper search is conducted Police of cers had a warrant to search summers house for drugs they detained him and found drugs in his basement Summers was charged with possession of heroin found on his person he moved to suppress the heroin as the product ofan illegal search in violation of the 4 h Amendment Decision It is okay to detain people associated with the property no fn39sk search was associated with the house and the detention was permitted Person is associatedquot to the Property Case Illinois v McArthur 12001 detained and restricted entry Extension of summer s case can a person is detained prior to getting a search warrant Division of property calls police to pack up her belongings at a Trailer they go into the home Motions for of ce to come outside Chuck has dope in there I see it and it is under the couch The of cer acting on this information Ask if he could look around Owner said NO Then he asks for another officer to go get a warrant and would not allow owner ofthe home to leave until he gets a warrant Is it reasonable Courts said YES didn t want evidence to get destroyed Case Muehlerv Mena 120051detained handcuffed and questioned Search of a house at night with gang activity They suspect is armed and dangerous Search warrant authorized for weapons and drugs Swap team issues warrant Women in bed handcuffed her All were handcuffed Search took several hours She wasn t charged but les a civil rights suit Police acted reasonable because of the dangerous activity They were not in violation of the constitution lll Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement a Searches Incident to a Lawful Arrest 1 Triggen39ng event Lawful Arrest What happened 2 Rationale Of cer safety and reduced REP To protect the officer 3 Scope i person ii personal effects and iii grab area where the officer can go 4 grab areaquot in a car is limited to passenger compartment CASE Arizona v Gant 2009 The Case involved Rodney J Gant who was arrested by police and charged with driving on a suspended drivers license Police arrested Gant in a friend s yard after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away Gant and all other suspects on the scene were then secured in police cars The of cers then searched Gant s vehicle After finding a weapon and a bag of cocaine they also charged him with possession of a narcotic for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia Suspect was not a danger no evidence SCOPE b Protective Sweep i Triggen39ng event of cer s reasonable beliefthat other persons on scene may present danger ii Rationale Of cer Safety iii Scope Area large enough to conceal a person may be Swept CASE State v Wilson 1985 Protective Sweep CASE Shulman s Case Wilson has a drug problem and lives in East Nashville high crime area and anytime there was a burglary he was looked at Wilson was a notorious bugler In this case A Burglary money was taken expensive luggage and a glass on the table Calls police and police nd a large nger print they use it They get a hit it is Wilson and they get an arrestwarrant Officer knew where to go House is in an area of crime and drug use Knock on door invites of cer in Of ce tells Wilson that he has to go downtown cuffs Wilson A Protective Sweepquot of the premises if there were other people around The case held that the of cers nding the stolen luggage were usable in the case against Wilson because he the of cer did the sweep aka search in order to protect himself a reason to have a search without seizure Officer sees a Chiffarobe and see the luggage Now there is evidence the nger print and possession of stolen property There is no grab area asked for a motion to suppress they have a hearing the of cer is asked questions and how is the area around East Nashville Taking about the grab area Of cer was stating that he was being threatened Then adopted the Protective Sweepquot Rule This rule is to protect our police officers When of cer opens the chiffarobe he sees the luggage and that is plain view not plain look Plain view is something that can beclearly seen Plain Look isjust observation Shul man tried to have Wilson s case appealed and the Supreme Court did not accept the appeal Consent Searches A waiver 1 Triggen39ng event voluntary consent by one with authority over place or thing 2 Rationale WaiverTheory 3 SCOPE A reasonable interpretation of the wording ofthe consent CASE State v Troxell enn 2002 Of cer asked Do you have any weapons in the vehicle Officer asked do you mind if I take a look No help yourself Searched car and didn t nd anything However office noticed something going on with the gas tank Contents were removed from the gas tank Was the search of the gas tank outside the search Decision the of cer search ofthe undercarriage and gas tank of the defendant s vehicle violated the 4 h Amendment and exceeded the scope of the defendant s consent and resulted in the prolonged and unreasonable detention of the defendant CASE Geor ia v Randol h 2006 Randolph was arrested for drug possession after police found cocaine in his home The police did not have a warrant to search the home but Randolph s wife consented to the search At trail his attorney argued that the search was unconstitutional because of Randolph s objection while the prosecution argued that the consent of his wife was suf cient The trial court ruled for the prosecution but the appellate court and Georgia Supreme Court both sided with Randolph finding that a search is unconstitutional if one resident objects even ifanother resident consents Buttom line you have to have all parties to agree to the consent to search for it to stick The both have to consent if the both are there if there is a split NOT reasonable but if one party is home the consent reasonable Automobile Searches Cars are in public all the police need is PIC cars are mobile so police need to act quickly Plain View Searches 1 Triggering event of cerlawfully in position to spot contraband 2 Contraband is in fact in plain view 3 Rationale person has lost any REP 4 Scope the seizure of the item 5 Distinguish between plain view and plain look School Searches School Officials don t have to have a warrant Triggering event reasonable belief that law or school rule is broken 2 Rationale in LOCO PARENTIS allowing a lot of searches 3 Scope minimal intrusion reasonably related to the information police don t need pc if the police has good evidence they don t have to wait for a warrant to keep everyone safe Automobile Searches 1 Triggen39ng event PC Cars are in the Public therefore you don t have privacy in automobile 2 Rationale mobility and reduce REP 3 Scope any PLAUSIBLE REPOSITORY object ofthe search including truck note difference from searches incident to arrest of car driver ASK Shul man for clan39tyWhat does this mean IF you are arrest for DUI the car will be towed Inventory Searches Triggering event Police lawfully seize personal property pursuant to nonarbitrary wn39tten policies 2 Rationale Protect against civil liability 3 Scope complete and thorough search of all areas including trunk must be reasonable ASK for Clarity Court Cases Furman v Georgia 1972 The determination of whether the penalty should be death or a lighter punishment was left by the State to the discretion of the judge or ofthe jury Facts 0 Victim awoke to find Furman burgling his house 0 Furman said that while trying to escape he tripped and the weapon he was carrying fired accidentally killing the victim D Furman was tried for murder and was found guilty based largely on his own statement he was sentenced to death Holding 0 The imposition ofthe death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment 0 Focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed often indicating a racial bias against black defendants D The Court39s decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner Woodson v North Carolina 1976 Following this Court39s decision in Furman v Georgia the North Carolina law that previously had provided that in cases of firstdegree murder the jury in its unbridled discretion could choose whether the convicted defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment was changed to make the death penalty mandatory for that crime Petitioners whose convictions of firstdegree murder and whose death sentences under the new statute were upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina have challenged the statute39s constitutionality Facts 0 4 men including Woodson robbed a convenience food store at gunpoint D The cashier was shot and killed and a customer was seriously wounded D The defendants were found guilty on all counts and as required by statute sentenced to death Holding 0 The death sentences imposed upon the petitioners under North Carolina39s mandatory death sentence statute violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and therefore must be set aside 0 The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is reversed insofar as it upheld the death sentences imposed upon the petitioners Gregg v Georgia 1976 Georgia had a bifurcated procedure wherein the trial hearing is separate from the sentencing hearing Facts 0 Gregg was found guilty of armed robbery and murder and he was sentenced to death 0 On appeal the Georgia SC affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction 0 Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder claiming that his capital sentence was a quotcruel and unusualquot punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments Holding 0 A punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances Coker v Georgia 1977 The main consequence of Coker was that the death penalty in the United States was largely restricted to crimes in which the defendant caused the death of another human being Facts 0 Coker escaped from prison broke into the Carver39s home and stole their vehicle 0 Convicted of rape armed robbery and other offenses D Sentenced to death on the rape charge after the jury found two aggravating circumstances prior capital felonies and that the rape was committed in the course of committing another capital felony 0 Georgia SC Upheld the death penalty Holding 0 The Eighth Amendment forbade the death penalty for the crime of rape of a woman Lockett v Ohio 1978 An Ohio law required that individuals found guilty of aggravated murder be given the death penalty The death penalty was mandatory unless D The victim had induced the offense 0 The offense was committed under duress or coercion D The offense was a product of mental deficiencies Facts 0 Lockett drove a getaway car for others in a robbery B One ofthe robbers shot the pawnbroker and Lockett put a gun from the pawnshop in her purse Holding 0 Sentencing authorities must have the discretion to consider every possible mitigating factor rather than being limited to a specific list of factors Payne v Tennessee 1991 Facts 0 Payne was sentenced to death by a jury on two counts of firstdegree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree 0 The victims grandmother testified about how the murder impacted the victims surviving son and the prosecutor referenced the surviving son when asking for the death penalty 0 Payne argued that the prosecution could not use testimony of how the victim39s death impacted family members when contending for the death penalty Holding 0 The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a capital sentencing jury from considering the impact that a victim39s death had upon surviving family members 0 Virtually no limits are placed on the relevant mitigating evidence a capital defendant may introduce concerning his own circumstances therefore the prosecution must be allowed to submit similar counter evidence Kennedy v Louisiana 2008 Facts Holding Baze v Rees 2008 Rummel v Estelle 1981 Salem v Helm 1983 Harmelin v Michigan 1991 Constitutional Issues Finals Notes 11 Capital Cases Most of the court39s death penalty cases are 8 h amendment related The court has strived to 0 Reduce the arbitrariness in capital sentencing Furman v Georgia Arbitrary depending on individual discretion as of a judge and not fixed by law Single trial systems with no guidance give juries too much discretion The impact of Furman v Georgia was nationwide States took all discretion away from the jury to satisfy the Furman mandate Woodson v NC Court ruled that this was not the answer States then went to guided discretion statutes The Court approved Gregg v Georgia Bifurcated hearings Aggravating AF and mitigating MF factors 7 Allows for important sentencing information to get before the jury Narrow the class of persons get the worst of the worst Aggravators serve this function The death penalty only applies to 15 degree murder cases Coker v Georgia Allow individualized sentencing for the capital defendant All relevant mitigation is permissible as long as it is related to the crime or the defendant Sentencing authorities must have the discretion to consider every possible mitigating factor rather than being limited to a specific list of factors Lockett v Ohio Still doesn39t allow for unlimited evidence 11 Tennessee39s Capital Scheme The prosecutor has the discretion to seek the death penalty If the prosecution wishes to seek the death penalty they must provide written notification to the defendant and provide aggravating factors only applied to 15 degree murder Case is really 2 cases 0 Guilt or innocence defendant must be convicted of murder 1 to qualify for the death penalty 0 Sentencing Two tracts of 15 degree murder case 0 Defense team 0 Mitigation specialist looks for mitigating factors to bring up during the sentencing hearing Extra resources are provided for poor people 0 The court will procure resources for all capital cases above and beyond normal The State must prove at least 1 aggravating factor then the defendant can offer mitigating factors D If the aggravating factors outweighs the mitigating factors a death sentence is issued by the jury D If the mitigating factors outweighs the aggravating factors a life sentence is imposed by the jury D All 12 jurors in TN must agree on sentencing or the hung jury must impose a life sentence Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 0 Aggravating Factors Victim is under 13 years old Murder which is particularly heinous ex torture Defendant has a prior criminal record involving violence Defendant is a mass murderer Has killed 3 or more people in the same crime or within 48 months Defendant has killed speciallyprotected people Such as police firefighters prosecutors judges etc Killing to eliminate a witness Ju Mitigating Factors Defendant has no serious criminal history Defendant was under influence of extreme mental or emotional distress Defendant acted with the codefendant and the defendant39s participation was relatively minor Victim was a participant in conduct leading to hisher death Defendant is acting under the influencedominion of another person Limitations Each state can create its own factors The prosecutor is limited to bringing up things established by the courts ex above factors The defendant can bring up anything that ties into the character ofthe defendant or the crime called nonstatutory Lockett v Ohio ry Verdict Juries are tasked with weighing the AF and MF Jury must find at least 1 AF to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt If not life is entered If yes the jury must then consider the MF raised by the evidence only Jury then weighs the AF against the MF lf AF gt MF death sentence lf MF lt AF life sentence with or without parole If the Jury is hung life sentence automatically TN gives 2 automatic appeals for capital cases Trial Court gt TN Court of Criminal Appeals gt TN Supreme Court 11 Special Issues Related to Capital Punishment Mentally retarded offenders Supreme Court says capital punishment for retards is unconstitutional because of evolving standards of decency Tennessee has always had statutes in place to protect retards from the death penalty Factors to prove mental capacity The defense must prove functional IQ is under 70 Cannot adapt cannot be trained Had mental retardation as a juvenile Juveniles Supreme Court recently changed its position and now claimsjuveniles under 16 are protected Tennessee has always had statutes in place to protect juveniles from the death penalty lnsa ne offenders Both Federal and State courts forbid the execution of insane offenders But the offenders may be medicated to obtain sanity It would be cruel and unusual punishment to execute someone who doesn39t know why they are being killed Accomplice liability It is ok but the offender must have the proper mental state The offender must act with reckless indifference to human life Discrimination Must prove purposeful discrimination effect or impact not enough Conviction prone juries Death qualification process for a jury Each potential jury member is asked if they are able to sentence someone to death Consider both punishments AntiDeath Juror ProDeath Juror Victim impact evidence 0 Historically you couldn39t talk about the victim39s character but is now allowed in a limited fashion 0 Payne v Tennessee Prosecution may introduce a limited amount of evidence on the impact placed on victims39 family State may introduce 1 witness who is a family member or close relative to testify about the impact of the victim39s murder Death penalty for rape D Coker ruling still in place 0 Kennedy v Louisiana Capital punishment is only issued for 15 degree murder cases Manner of execution 0 Lethal injection method is ok 0 Baze v Rees 11 Eighth Amendment Issues Not Related to Capital Cases Proportionality of punishment to crime 0 Stage 1 handsoff policy which prevents the Courts from interfering with state legislature39s policy Rummel v Estelle Rummel a pettythief gets life underthe habitual criminal statute Stage 2 introduced a 3part proportionality factor test under Solem v Helm Harshness of penalty and gravity of the crime Compare sentence given with sentences imposed on other criminals for thatjurisdiction Compare sentence imposed with the same crime in otherjurisdictions Stage 3 Harmelin v Michigan No opportunity to present MF Life wo parole is a disproportionate punishment Judge Scalia Constitution has no proportionality principle Stage 4 Ewing v California There is a proportionality requirement in the Constitution Is the sentence grossly unfair 13 Is it Speech Speech can be nonverbal ex flag burning Value of speec 0 Political speech of highest value 0 Hate speech of lowest value 0 Commercial speech in between Harm of speech 0 lncitement D lgnorant opinions Location of speech has an impact on whether the government can impose sanctions Public forums parks and streets Public nonforums malls and government buildings Private forums Morse v Frederick Bong hits for Jesus High school student created a banner advocating drug use Steps to analyze 1539 amendment issues What type of speech is involved and how much is it protected What is the government rulepolicy trying to do Standard from the Court39s opinion school39s regulations legitimately relates to teaching concerns Captive audience issue Can the audience turn and leave if not the government can regulate Reaching a juvenile audience government can regulate Concept behind the 1539 Amendment marketplace of ideasquot 0 Good strong ideas will survive whereas weak ideas will die out 13 Is the Government Intruding on Free Speech Content the message or what is said in a speech 0 Government cannot interfere with the content of a message Texas v Johnson flag burning protected quotI hate the policies ofthis countryquot Cohen v California quotfuck the draftquot jacket worn and Cohen arrested SC Ruled that the state arrested him for content of message and not the context like they claimed disturbing the peace Context the manner or wherehow it is said in a speech 0 Government may interfere with the context of a message The way in which the speaker is going about getting his message out Contentneutral rule government regulations must be contentneutral Generally unless the government has a compelling interest it may only regulate the context or manner and not the message Not the government39s business to pick and choose messages D If a message is contentneutral the government may impose reasonable time place and manner regulations on the speech 13 Unprotected Speech Clear and Present Danger Oldest type of unprotected speech recognized Generally involves protest against the government Government laws generally against sedition Ban and criminalize speech that advocates unlawful activity against the government Brandenburg v Ohio KKK leader called a meeting and says blacks should be sent to Africa and he39ll quotshow the Presidentquot if he refuses to comply Advocating lawless activity against the government Under the circumstances reasonably likely to result in immediate lawless activity against the government Brandenburg39s meeting speech was protected because there was no threat to the government Prior to Brandenburg mere advocacy was enough to be punished Fighting words Chaplinski v NH Jehovah39s witness protesting in NH Police called because the protest is drawing a crowd Mayor comes out and Chaplinski yells and him he is charged for inciteful speech Chaplinski argued 1539 amendment and the Court instituted fighting words Words spoken to another person that are insulting and demeaning Words of such a nature that they would cause a reasonable person to react violently Chaplinski was the only time the court upheld this doctrine Police must remain professional and ignore offensive speech even if a subject uses fighting words Obscenity Not nudity or offensive images Historical difficulty in defining it quotI know it when see itquot Miller v California 3part standard for obscene material Whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work taken as a whole find it appeals to the purient interest Whether the work depicts hardcore sexual conduct in an offensive way Whether the work as a whole lacks serious scientific literary artistic or political value Must prove all 3 parts to be true to prosecute for obscenity 13 Commercial Speech Middle ground on the scale when dealing with advertising Central Hudson test Must not be misleading or involve illegal activity Regulations must advance a substantial government interest Regulation must directly advance that interest Regulation of government must be no more than necessary to serve the government39s interest Florida Bar v Went For It Inc Lawyer advertising Total ban on advertising lawyers won Speech rights of attorney and of possible clients public are infringed Found unreasonable Advertising disclaimer required if attorney39s aren39t specialists state won Upheld as reasonable lnperson solicitation of business state won Ohio said no solicitation in a hospital within 30 days of a person39s admission Upheld as reasonable because the person may be medicated or not thinking clearly Solicitations through print media lawyers won Banned by state where questions was raised Higher courts ruled that states39 interest not as great or coercive as inperson Targeted directmail solicitation state won Banned directmail of accident victims and relatives within 30 days of the accident Court upheld the ban 14 Historical considerations Not specifically located in the text of the Constitution Controversial because ofthat according to literal interpretation ent Privacy the right to be left alone from Governm Areas of private choices behaviors and actions that are recognized as individual in nature Located initially in the Due Process quotlibertyquot clause Basket issues Educational choices Meyer v Nebraska taught German related privacy to due process Educational choices Pierce v Society of Sisters kids must go public school no private Procreating Skinner v 0K habitual criminals must undergo sterilization 0 Marriage Loving v VA crime for diff races to marry 14 Griswold v Connecticut Connecticut law that prevented married couples to receive birth control Made a crime to sell birth control to married couples Turning point bw liberty interest and right to privacy The totality of implied privacy rights in 1345 amendments create privacy 14 Current privacy issues states with compelling interests Ab rtion I O D Roe v Wade Court created the trimester approach which balances compelling interest with woman39s right 03 months womans right 36 reg Permitted 69 no abortion Planned Parenthood v Casey Court moved away from trimester and to the undue burden test viability is when abortion is illegal approved parental consent with override approved consent interview approved 24 hour waiting period did not approve spousal notification Right to die 0 Right to reject unwanted medical treatment approved Cruzan v MS Pub Hlth January 23 2013 CJA Cont Issues Lecture Notes for Exam 1 Section ONE Lecture Notes 39 39 39 Principles Inherent in the f Histom and Structure of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Constitution has 7 Articles we will be studying the first 3 Articles The purpose of the Constitution was to set up a New Government we have State Government and National Government known as our Federal Government The Constitution set up this NEW Government and the structure of our Governments The Articles are known as the Separation of Powers We have Three Branches of Government 1st Article the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government known as Congress The most specific and longest articlewhich could run for congress when Congress meets and what can Congress do 2quotd Article Sets up the Executive Powers the President it is not nearly as lengthy as the first Article but very important 3rd Article Powers of the Judicial Branch the setup of the Supreme Court 47 Articles are important due to Political Reasons not being studied at this time No mention of the Rights to an Attorney or Search and Seizure Rights were found in the Constitution until Amendments were introduced to the Constitution 2 Years after the Constitution was written The Amendments became the Bill of Rights 1215 Magna Carta was signed A lengthy document a contract signed by King of England King John and Wealthy Land Owners The land owners were tired of the treatment of King John they didn t like being taxed or having their workers follow orders of the King Therefore a group of wealthy landowners got together and had a meeting with the King The land owners convinced the King to sign a document which allowed the right to a jury trial habeas corpus the right to challenge incarceration if locked up it authorized land owners due process before their land was quot 39 This is the first time in History that a King was bond by the law That is why Magna Carta was so important Now no man is above the law and has created a 39 around the world 1606 The English first settled in America Primarily the English some French some Spanish How did people settle in America Some people came on their own some received Charters a contract which were issued by the King for the right to settle in America William Taft was one of the first to receive a Charter from the King for his rights to claim a particular piece of land in America Some land was purchased by Business Owners The Business Owners would purchase stocks and issuesell them to people who wanted to come to America The more and more people who came to America resulted in communities and due to the increase in population people started governing themselves Early colonies started governing and therefore started electing important people to roles with governing powers 1639 The Commonwealth of Maryland was one of the 13 colonies Maryland had already established a written Bill of Rights Maryland Act English Parliament one of the laws passed was called llQuarteringquot This law passed by Parliament required an America colonist to care for a British soldier should one appear at your door The requirement included feeding clothing and anything the British soldier requested Most were happy to do this because they were serving the King Remember during this time America s leader was the King of England The problem was if those colonists who didn t like the King of England felt that they shouldn t have to do what the King of England requested because they were on their own in a New World Those was opposed this stood criminal charges Another law that the Parliament passed was the law that prohibited colonist from settling west of the Mississippi The Stamp Act also was a law passed to tax goods purchased from England These taxes were outrageous Colonists were also taxed by making and receiving goods to England This got the Colonist thinking they didn t like these laws being passed by the Parliament in England 1760 Stamp Act passed by Parliament 1765 Stamp ActCongressgot together to talk about the Parliament laws the meeting consisted of 9 delegates from 13 Colonies The document was drafted in Massachusetts and presented in New York with a meeting between 13 delegates and the King s representatives The petition that was sent to the King from Congress was to stop the Stamp Act or else This importance of the Stamp Act was that it unified the colonist into working together and leads us into the creation of our Federal Government 17651770 marked a period of time where tensions escalate and brewing out of control on the grounds The colonists wanted independence from England A man name Thomas Paine started advocating for freedom from the British 1773 Boston Tea Party 1774 Conn Congress Meeting new representatives delegates from all colonies except for Rhode Island Rhode Island taxed all goods that would pass through there state Good for Rhode Island bad for everyone else Three things came out of this meeting 1 Agreement to Boycott any British Products 2Grievances sent to King George and 3Adopted resolution defining rights 1775 The first shots were fired and we are at war 1775 The 2nd Conn Congress meeting action was required by the delegates 1 a vote for Army to be established Vote was successful 2 Conn Congress seeks leader electing the tallest man in the room It was George Washington standing at 65 and had some military experience George Washington becomes Commander in Chief 3 Decision was to draft the Declaration of Independence The colonies became States The States were united 1777 A year after the meeting 2quotdConn Congress meets again and draftedArtices of Confederation States agree to a loosely formed Union The Articles gave power to control Indians Power to borrow moneyfor cost of War and the Power to wage War No power to tax No power to regulate trade 1781 Articles of Confederation Adopted We went from a loose federation to a New Government we had two political parties that began to be formed during this time 1 Federalists Party and 2 Anti FederalistsCore beliefs of each party 1 Federalist Believed that the articles of the confederation were too weak and that we needed something stronger We needed a New Federal Government Very forceful about to make their demands for a New Government Two reason why 1 To win the war and to keep the peace Had to have a strong Government to defend against possible attacks from other countries We needed a Strong Defense 2 They didn t trust the states to resolve their own conflicts An example is Maryland and Virginia were battling about who owned the Potomac River The figure head for the Federalist was George Washington the mouthpiece was John Adams brains was Alexander Hamilton Arron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton AntiFederalist were the Republicans were opposed to a strong central Government happy with a loose government Rational was because they didn t want a Monarchy Their figure head and mouthpiece was Jefferson The brains behind the AntiFederalists was Madison Iquot 1786 Sha s Rebellion a group of farmers that were very upset led by Shay was taxed for their share of war cost after the war They were very poor but were treated that they were going to lose their land and other property if they didn t pay Shay and others got together and raided a Federal Armory and seized armor goods and started an uprising the only way the upraising was put down was by paid militia organized and paid by the wealthy businessmen from the area The Con Army there was NO FEDERAL army to put these militia down So when word got back the Federalists said llHey this is what will happen if we don t have a strong defensequot 1787 Convention convened to reverse Article Case Marbu v Madison 1803 Judicial Review The power of the S CT to read and interpret Const S Ct s interpretation as the lllaw of the land all citizens bound The Landmark Case Establishing the Principle of the Judicial Review Judicial Review The power of a court to review the actions of a group in terms of lawfulness or constitutionality It is NOT specified in the US Constitution Election of 1800 s Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams to become the Nation s 3rd President Jefferson didn t take office until March 4th Adam s took full advantage of those last few weeks One of Adams actions was the Judicial Act of 1801 it established 10 New Court Districts expanded the number of circuit courts from 3 to 6 added additional Judges to each circuit most importantly gave the President the authority to appoint Judges and Justices of the Peace Marbury became what was known as the MIDNIGHT Judge Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commissions under explicit instructions from Jefferson Madison was to withhold Marbury s commission Jefferson s administration wanted to put an end to the practice of appointing llMidnight judgesquot The case went to the Supreme Court the court ruled 4 to 0 that Marbury had the right to commission but the courts could not force Madison to deliver it With that decision the Supreme Court reviewed prior decisions in this case the Judiciary Act of 1801 on the basis of constitutionality Judicial Review was BORN Federaismnote to self need clari cation The US as a system ofdual governments FEDERAL and STATE The fight overjurisdiction which government has the power to act Case McCulloch v Maryland 1819 US Constitution should the constitution be read narrowly or broadly to allow powers The case was about whether Congress had the power to create a NATIONAL BANK A National Bank was created in 1816 and the State of Maryland taxed the bank the bank refused to pay and the Maryland law was upheld by the Maryland courts The US appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States There were two political views on the Power of Congress to create a National Bank One view was the it was a good idea for the Federal Government to operate this bank for the welfare of the nation However the State Rights argued that it was not a good idea because the Federal Government were interfere in States Rights and that the powers would be too broad At the Con Convention James Madison argued that Congress should have power to charter therefore allowing the chartering of a bank The convention rejected this and Madison assumed that there were no such powers But Congress did include the quotNecessary and Prayer CIause Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other powersMcCulloch was the Cashier of the bank and after the depression loans were being cashed in and people were losing money the Federal Government needed to take action Sec of State Jefferson argued that Congress didn t have rights because it wasn t in the Constitution Alexander Hamilton said Congress had the power resulting as IMPLIED POWERS Case US v Lopez 1995 GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE ACT of 1990 Movement to States Right The case is about Alfonso Lopez and whether or not his rights were violated and has challenged the authority of Congress by asserting that the Gun Free School Zone Act exceeds the powers of Congress as stated in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The Supreme Court final ruling as to whether or not Lopez should be free The US Supreme Court finds that Lopez case is unconstitutional and is free to go Possession of a gun near school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity Section ONE Fundamental Principles Inherent in the Constitution Continues Federalism Case Gonzales v Raich 2005 Raich a caregiver sued the government for injunctive and declaratory relief to stop the government from interfering with their right to produce and use medical marijuana claiming that the Controlled Substances Act was not constitutional as applied to their conduct She claims she used mj to keep herself alive She and her doctor claimed to have tried several medications for multiple medical conditions which caused her to have allergic reactions to most Her doctor claimed that her life was at stake if she could not use medical mj The Controlled Substances Act does NOT recognize the medical use of mj Government argues that it effects the interstate market hence federal government may regulate and prohibit such consumption Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals states that the Controlled Substances Act is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress Commerce Clause authority Separation of Powers Legislative Executive and Judicial branches are separate but equal Three MAJOR bases for the Federal Government 1 Congress llmake lawsquot Article 1 2 President llEnforce Lawsquot Article 2 3 Courts llInterpret Lawsquot Article 3 and MarburyClerify Executive Orders and pass through each branch of Government One branch intrudes on another s branches powers periodically Subpoena President Clarify Remember something about the President can t be subpoena while in office Substantial InterferenceClarify Does the intrusion by the one branch llsubstantially interfere with the other branch s duties Case Clinton v Jones 1997 President Bill Clinton Case Clinton 1991 Government of AR State of AR Dept of Congress Conference Paula Jones employed was there helping out for the conference Ms Paula Jones said that the President Sexually Assaulted her claiming he made advances and filed several civil suits Clinton denies all allegations Then while President Clinton s Lawyers made Contractual Agreement that while President he didn t feel he should have to answer to Civil Suits For Substantial Interference one branch can show the other branches are being interfered with they must show llSubstantial Interference Clinton lost the augment and case went forward they settled out of court Clinton lost his Law License Section ONE Fundamental Principles Inherent in the Constitution Continues The political climate the Schiavo case and the assault on the judicial branch Clarify State Due Process and the Incorporation Problem Original Bill of Rights early on only applied to the Federal Government Bill of Rights protects us from the Federal Government Citizens had little to no protection against the various state governments 14 h Amendment specifically provided for the state due process States required providing citizens lldue process Incorporation What will be Incorporated llFirmly rooted in conservancy and traditions to be Fundamentalquot Supreme Courts have had to decide on a case by case bases which rights will provide Incorporated law What does state due process actually guarantee a citizen Right to counsel for the Poor 1944 Supreme Court got together They said llNOquot In 1963 the Supreme Court changed its option Incorporating specific protections as part of the state due process Selectively bringing the Federal rights to apply to the States a The standard and blueprint used to incorporate rights All rights quotincorporatedquot to the states except grand jury indictment Today Every Federal Bill of Rights applies to the States Bill of Rights except for the Grand Jury means clarify Section VI The Right to Assistance of Counsel 1 The Historical Legacy A Types of cases 1 Case Powell V Alabama 1932Court must appoint counsel in death penalty cases at this point the right is established under the Due Process clause not the 6th Amendment 2 Case Gideon V Wainwright 1963 Court must appoint counsel in state felonies 3 Case Argersinger V Hamlin 1972 Court must appoint counsel in state misdemeanors 4 Case Scott V 111 1979 Court appoints counsel to misdemeanants who only serve jail time is this not ass backwards as practical matter not a material change 11 quotCritical Stagesquot A De nition 1 those stage in the prosecution that represent signi cant eVents in the prosecution of the defendant a preliminary hearings b arraignments c plea entries d pretrial motions e trials f sentencing hearings g rst leVel of appeals through a due process rationale h other leVels discretionary with court based on case by case basis III WaiVer of Right and SelfRepresentation A quotfool for a clientquot but Court has recognized right of selfrepresentation B No right to speci c counsel of one s choosing C High standard for pr0Ving knowing and Voluntary waiVer of right D Case Indiana V Edwards 2008 r J and waiVer standards IV EffectiVeness of Assistance as Constitutional Requirement A PostconViction process discussed B Strickland standard 1 counsel39s performance was not obj ectiVely reasonable in that it fell below minimal professional standards 2 the poor performance prejudiced the outcome of the case C Case State V Abu Ali 1991 V Resources Required in Addition to Counsel A Due Process not 6th Amendment theory B Standard Are the resources ie psychiatrist substantially necessary to ensure that the defendant will receiVe a fair trial 1 Case Ake V Oklahoma 1985 2 my Schaeffer case Brief 5 Out of class part Lawrence V Texas US SCt 2003 Due date Monday Dec 7 Answer the following questions on one page 1 The Court had earlier in the Bowers case determined that states had the right to criminalize this type of behavior Explain why the Court changed its mind in this case 2 Pick one case cited and discuss in a few sentences why that case helped the Court in Lawrence to reach its decision Section III Arrests and Detentions I PoliceCitizen Encounters A Voluntary encounter 1 police may engage someone in a public place 2 good police work or harassment 3 citizen has a right to walk away or otherwise terminate the encounter 4 advantages from police perspective B Limited Detention 1 Case Terry V Ohio 1968 2 suspect may be required to offer identi cation after a Tm stop and prosecuted for failure to do so 3 Case Hibel V Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada Humboldt County 2004 4 Fourth Amendment now authorizes an intermediary type of encounter for a shorter duration on a lesser degree of evidence a reasonable suspicion b Case Illinois v Wardlow 2000 c quotstop and frisk requires the reasonable belief that suspect is armed 5 Case State v Simpson TnCrApp 1998 6 Case State v Day Tenn 2008 C Arrest 1 De nition a A show offorce by the police or a submission to an assertion of authority which would lead a reasonable person in the defendant39s position to feel he was not free to leave or terminate the encounter 2 Case Florida v Bostick 1991 D The quotBlue Lightquot Problem 1 Case State v Randolph Tenn 2002 2 Case State v Williams Tenn 2006 II The Traffic Stop Special Rules A Passenger may be ordered out of car just as driver may be 1 Case Ma land v Wilson 1997 B Passengers are quotseizedquot throughout the duration of a stop and may be frisked assuming Terry suspicion 1 Case Arizona v Johnson 2009 III Trouble Spots on the Playing Field A The problem with the detention not being limited 1 loss of evidence found during the detention 2 police gamble on keeping the citizen longer on the field B Factors for the court 1 duration of the encounter 2 physical force against or any movement of the suspect 3 officer39s activities related to the initial stop 4 Case State V Morelock Tenn 1992 IV Special Rules for Requiring a Warrant A The need for a quotneutral and detachedquot person to review P C B Based on location of the arrest 1 arrests in public generally don39t require warrants only probable cause a do require prompt appearance in front of magistrate who is neutral and detached 2 arrests allowed cross county with warrant 3 arrests not allowed across state lines unless officer is in quothot pursuitquot a extradition is proper method to retrieve defendant 4 warrant required for quotroutinequot felony arrest in suspect s home 5 search warrant required for quotroutinequot felony arrest of suspect in 3rd party home 6 quotnonroutinequot arrests dispenses with warrant requirement a hot pursuit b suspect is ight risk c suspect is danger to self or others i Case Brigham City Utah v Stuart 2006 ii Case Michigan v Fisher 2009 d evidence will be destroyed imminently iii Case Kentucky v King 2011 V Deadly Force A Reasonable Force is Rule B Case Tennessee v Garner 1985 l deadly force standard a officer must announce presence and intention b must be policy of last resort c only if either i reasonable belief that suspect has been involved in a violent felony or ii suspect is a danger to self or others Section VII Fair Trial Rights the Right to Knowledge of the State s Case Discovery Process Generally A Governed by statute state to state B No speci c Constitutional right guaranteeing discovery C Obligations on part of both parties D General obligations 1 Each side turns over physical evidence 2 Each side turns over reports exams 3 D gets any statements 4 Witness lists 5 NOT witness statements until at trial after direct E Sanctions l disallowing the evidence 2 contempt 3 continuance Constitutional Problems A Exculpatory evidence I evidence that shows D not guilty or otherwise favorable to him 2 Obligation to turn over material evidence when requested 3 Case Brady v Md 1963 4 Extends obligation to unrequested evidence if material 5 Case US v Agurs 1976 6 Extends to impeachment evidence 7 Case US v Bagley 1985 8 Applications of the materiality standard in other cases 9 the problem of determining what is exculpatory 10 the in camera solution B The Failure to Preserve Evidence Problem 1 difference from the Brady issue 2 higher standard of proof for D 3 Case California v Trombetta 1984 4 Case Arizona v Youngblood 1988 5 My Youngblood case 6 Tennessee39s Ferguson std quotwhether the trial conducted without the destroyed or lost evidence would be fundamentally fair Section VIII The Right to a Speedy Trial III Rationale for the Right A From D s perspective 1 minimize pretrial incarceration 2 minimize anxiety which comes from being charged 3 allow defense evidence to be preserved B Society s perspective 1 evidence is preserved so verdict more reliable 2 efficient use of time and money Triggering Event for the Right A Accusatory stage 1 triggered by formal judicial proceedings 2 reasons why begins here rather than earlier 3 applies to persons already doing time on other charges 4 court has not set fixed time limits B Protections for pretrial delay 1 statute of limitations 2 due process violation for intentional misconduct Factors in Consideration of Violation A Case Barker v Wingo 1972 B Factors 1 Length of delay with presumption of over 1 year 7 not count any time that charge is dismissed and then resumed Fatal Vision case 2 Reason for delay 3 D s assertion ofhis right 4 Prejudice or harm to the D 5 Case Doggett v US 1992 prejudice presumed Where delay is 8 12 yrs 6 But State v Wood Tenn 1996 Section II Infringements by the Police Important Concepts in Search and Seizure Law I Important Concepts Inherent in the Fourth Amendment A The amendment regulates only governmental activities for example police FBI agents B The amendment doesn t regulate purely private activities for example private security guards your roommate etc C The amendment regulates searches and seizures and prohibits those that are quotunreasonablequot and allows those that are quotreasonablequot D Apparently some activity requires a warrant whatever that is And apparently they must be speci c and particular III E Probable cause whatever that is is apparently required for some activity The Reasonableness Requirement A Generally government action requires a warrant or probable cause or reasonable suspicion to be reasonable BUT sometimes none are necessary B Concept of interest balancing need to protect public safety and ght crime as contrasted with the desire for public privacy 1 BUT where the public safety need is great and the intrusion into personal freedom is slight less and sometimes no evidence is necessary to support a seizure 2 Case Michigan Dept of State Police v Sitz 1990 i DUI roadblocks constitutional though no individualized suspicion 3 Case City of Indiannapolis v Edmond 2000 i drug interdiction crime control roadblocks not constitutional 4 Case Illinois v Lidster 2004 i investigation roadblocks constitutional 5 Case State v Hicks 2001 i in Tennessee driver39s license checkpoints unconstitutional The Law of Probable Cause A Definition 3 facts and circumstances leading an objectively reasonable officer to believe a crime took place and the defendant committed it 4 incapable of a precise definition or quantification 5 reasonable grounds for belief in guil 6 Case Maryland v Pringle 2004 7 Case State v Richards Tenn 2009 B Application of concept 1 different sources for the information i nonhearsay or direct sources presumed reliable ii reliable hearsay for example a citizen informer iii unreliable hearsay for example a confidential informant iv Cases AguilarSpinelli Rule Illinois v Gates 1985 State v Jacumin 1989 Section I7 Fundamental Principles Inherent in the Constitution 1 III History and Structure of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights A Important historical considerations 1 Magna Carta and Due Process 2 Colonial charters and state constitutions 3 War with England and Declaration of Independence 4 The movement to seek a central government 5 Federalists V AntiFederalists Republicans B The structure of the Constitution and Bill of Rights Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation A The need for interpretation Constitution as a broad document 1 Case Marbury v Madison 1803 2 Judicial Review the power of the SCt to read and interpret Const 3 SCt s interpretation as the law of the land all citizens bound 4 Case Martin v Hunter s Lessee 1816 5 SCt s power to interpret all federal questions even those arising in the states Federalism A The US as a system of dual governments Federal and State 1 The ght over jurisdiction which government has the power to act 2 Case McCulloch v Ma land 1819 3 The Necessary and Proper Clause and expansion of the Federal Govemment s power to act 4 Case US v Lopez 1995 movement to states rights 5 Case Gonzales v Raich 2005 6 The political climate Bush v Gore and the 2000 presidential election Immigration and health care issues and return to Federal power Separation of Powers A Legislative Executive and Judicial branches are separate but equal 1 One branch intrudes on another s branches powers periodically 2 Does the intrusion by the one branch substantially interfere with the other branch s duties 3 Case Clinton v Jones 1997 4 The political climate the Schiavo case and the assault on the judicial branch State Due Process and the Incorporation Problem A Original Bill of Rights early on only applied to the Federal government 1 Citizens had little to no protection against the various state governments 2 14111 Amendment speci cally provided for state due process 3 States required to provide citizens due process B Incorporation 1 What does state due process actually guarantee a citizen 2 Incorporating speci c protections as a part of state due process 3 Selectively bringing the Federal rights to apply to the states a the standard and blueprint used to incorporate rights 4 All rights incorporated to the states except grand jury indictment Section V The Law of Interrogations and Confessions I Seizures of confessions and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy A confessions can be objects which are the subject of 43911 Amend Activity 1 w for example was such a case 2 Other examples police wiring agents to get statements from defendants 3 Taping of statements by a1restees in back of patrol car 4 Case State V Munn 2001 5 Issue as in all 4111 Amend Seizure relates to REP 6 Distinguish between Munn where court found REP and other situations 7 Wiring of agents no problem because Ds have misplaced their confidence II Coercion and Due Process violations A Totality test 1 is the statement by the D given freely and voluntarily or is it coerced by police activity 2 focus is on police conduct 1 physical force 2 trickery 3 threats 4 promises 5 psychological pressure 3 focus is on D s characteristics 1 age 2 mental issue 3 drug and alcohol issues 4 prior experience with system 5 education 4 Case Arizona v Fulminante 1991 5 Remember the requirement of some state action 6 Purely voluntary statements even by mentally ill people don t implicate the Constitution III Miranda Issues A Theory behind Miranda 1 selfincrimination protection 2 warnings 3 only prior to custodial interrogation B Custodial 1 different from 43911 Amend Custody 2 factors related to the objective test 1 length and form of questioning 2 time of questioning 3 number of officers 4 place of questioning 5 what D was told 6 physical force or show of authority by officers 3 the essence is was the atmosphere police dominated 4 Case Illinois V Perkins 1990 C Interrogation 1 direct questioning 2 functional equivalent of direct questioning 3 Case Brewer V Williams 1979 4 Case Rhode Island V Innis 1981 D Exceptions to Miranda 1 Case New York V Quarles 1984 public safety 2 Case PennsylVania V Muniz 1990 booking room 3 Case Berkemer V McCarty 1984 routine traffic stop E WaiVer Issues 1 knowing and Voluntary 2 silence as waiVer 3 Case Berghuis V Thompkins 2010 F Assertion or InVocation 1 Case DaVis V US 1994 assertion must be clear and unequiVocal quotMaybe I need a lawyerquot won t cut it 2 Silence 1 must be scrupulously honored 2 Case Michigan V Mosley 1975 3 different officer different crime and renewed Miranda 3 Counsel 1 no further communication 2 reinitiation issue 3 Case Maryland V Shatzer 2010 G The Problem of quotsetting upquot the statement 1 Case Missouri V Seibert 2004 IV Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Issues A When right attaches 1 initiation of formal judicial proceedings usually the committal on the arrest warrant B The Deliberately Elicited issue 1 once the right attaches police may not deliberately elicit incriminating info 2 Case State V Dodson 1983 3 The jail house snitch cases 1 the actiVe participant 2 the listening post THE LEGAL BRIEF The following is a guide to assist you in the preparation of the legal briefs I assign this semester Briefing cases will give you some insight into how the law is made in this Country and will give you a sense of the history and flow of the way the Constitution has been interpreted and given life by the Supreme Court Briefing is a good way of summarizing according to the areas below what the case is generally about It will give the reader in this case me a quick idea of the major components of a Supreme Court case Unless I tell you otherwise you will brief only the majority opinion which is the opinion which has garnered a majority of the Court s votes and therefore has the force of law The majority opinion will always be the opinion which begins the case The major components of a case are FACTS In this section you will try to understand what has taken place in the case that has given rise to the original lawsuit or case Since most of the cases we will be dealing with are criminal cases you will learn about the underlying crime arrest and trial PROCEDURAL HISTORY In this section you will learn how the case eventually arrived before the Supreme Court In other words what other lower courts were involved with the case at trial and appeal and what rulings those courts made prior to the case arriving at the Supreme Court ISSUE Here you will search for and understand what the Court is being asked to decide There is generally one major issue we will be studying in these cases and the Court will let you know sometimes clearly sometimes not what that matter is Your task will be to understand that question and be prepared to eXplain it in a concise fashion Remember this is a course about the Constitution so the
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'