This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Crim Pro- Outline I. 4 th Amendment The 4 th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, of people, property, and papers/effects. If the police want to search or seize, they need a warrant (or an exception). Searches need warrants, which are obtained through affiants and affidavits. The affiant has to lay out with particularity the place to be searched, what is expected to be found, or the person to be searched and what contraband or evidence of crime they expect to find. Seizures are different in that cops can stop ppl on lesser than PC; all that is required is reasonable suspicion. Further, Mendenhall says that police are allowed to engage in usual discourse with people; to be ‘seized’ under the 4 th amendment, one must feel as though he is not free to liberty (a significant interference with one’s liberty of movement). Search is a significant interference with one’s reasonable expectation of privacy, justifiable in that society is prepared to recognize this interest as reasonable. If my shit gets found by the cops in your house, and I get arrested, I have to show I have standing to claim a 4 th A violation (by showing that there was a 4 th A wrong as to ME personally). A. Search & Seizure 1) Search a) Probable Cause b) Exigent Circumstances c) Any other of 6 exceptions? 2) Seizure a) Objective test: free to leave? 3) Stop a) Terry Stop b) Mendenhall (Ok for O’s to ask questions b/c ok for conversing w/ ppl) Problem 1- I. Motion to Suppress MJ Do NOT go directly into Probable Cause Analysis; insert a “Connector” Connector from MJ to PC= MJ discovered by search of D’s pockets, the 4 th A says unreasonable searches are forbidden. A. Was this a SEARCH? 1. This was a Search (going into D’s pockets). 2. The word “Reasonable” in the 4 th A means that a Search w/o a SW is “presumed” to be unreasonable. a. However, there are many but there are Exceptions to the warrant requirement, allowing Police to search w/o a warrant when deemed reasonable. 3. No SW, must be exception…SIVA would apply IF arrest valid. a. For valid arrest, need PC.* B. Was there PC to Arrest? (TOC Gates test) 1. A brown bag? a. Pros-Yes, PC PC is at least a 51% of something happening- was there a 51% chance drugs were in the brown bag as opposed to candy, condoms, lunch. b. Cons- No, no PC i. Could be many other things (candy, condoms, lunch) 2. Officers’ Experience a. Pros-Yes, PC b. Cons- No, no PC 3. Area/Location a. Pros- YES, PC… b. Cons- NO, No PC b/c… Fact- MOST have resulted in conviction; “20 arrests in this area over past 1yr, Not ALL convictions” i. What/How many were wrong? Is it 49%+?? Are Cops over-arresting here? 4. Number’s of transactions seen by these Os a. Pros b. Cons 5. Character of transactions a. Pros b. Cons 6. D didn’t flee, No “Furtive” conduct a. Pros b. Cons 7. D did have Drugs O found a. Pros b. CONS (many will find drugs)....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 06/29/2011 for the course LAW 1 taught by Professor Cohen during the Fall '09 term at Golden Gate.
- Fall '09