Criminal Procedure - Outline Part 1

Adams v. New York (1904) → Governmental misconduct (i.e., unconstitutional S&S) is a collateral matter in a criminal prosecution of one whom has been arrested by illegally obtained evidence – the individual is still guilty of the crime regardless of how the proof/evidence was obtained

• Court does not stop to inquire HOW the evidence was obtained, so long as the evidence proves guilt
• Remedy? → Replevin action for “criminal” to get the property back AND/OR civil trespass tort

Weeks v. United States (1914) → established the Exclusionary Rule

• Since a remedy is not explicitly prescribed by the Constitution for a 4^th Amendment violation, the Supreme Court MADE UP/IMPLIED the Exclusionary Rule remedy
• Exclusionary Rule: evidence obtained by the US and federal officials by an unconstitutional S&S is prohibited from being used in trial, i.e., the effect of the 4^th Amendment is to put the US and federal officials under limits and restraints to forever secure the people against unreasonable search and seizures.
• What happens with the evidence? → it is returned back to the individual (like replevin) and cannot be used in court
  • NOTE: at this point the 4^th Amendment ONLY applied to FEDERAL government, but did not apply to state and local government
  • Silver Platter Doctrine: b/c Exclusionary Rule ONLY applied to federal officials, local law enforcement could still obtain evidence unconstitutionally and deliver the evidence to federal officials “on a silver platter”

Wolf v. Colorado (1949) → Incorporated the 4^th Amendment to the states, BUT did not incorporate the remedy, i.e., the Exclusionary Rule, to the states since it is not found in the Constitution; gave the right but not the remedy

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) → overturns Wolf applying the Exclusionary Rule to the states as well as the federal government, i.e., all evidence obtained by S&S in violation of the Constitution is INADMISSIBLE in a STATE court as well as federal courts

• Incorporated the remedy for unconstitutional S&S to the states

1. Civil Liability – e.g., trespass tort for $ damages
2. Administrative Act – punishment by the police department of the individual agent
3. Criminal Liability
4. Exclusionary Rule – exclude the evidence

1. Deterrence – creates punishment for violation and incentive for police to not violate 4^th Amendment rights
2. Judicial Integrity (as stated in Mapp) – “The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence . . . If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

• ER applies everywhere post-Mapp
• IF 4^th Amendment violation, then file motion to suppress (Rule 12) – Waived if don’t make motion Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 12(3)(C)
  • NOTE: Motion in limine does NOT work

1. State Action Doctrine – the Bill of Rights, i.e., the 4^th Amendment guarantees, protect only against governmental, NOT PRIVATE, conduct
   • 4^th A NOT violated if private party (e.g., landlord, phone company) searches
     • UNLESS private party searches by request of the Government, then Private Party becomes “deputized” by State and becomes a State Actor
   • 4^th A implicated if police officer investigates, participates in, or requests a search
2. “People”, i.e., WHO? → US v. Verdugo-Urguidez (1990) - “The people” refers to a particular class of persons comprising a national community or else with such significant connections to this country that they are deemed part of that community.
   • Test: (1) Sufficient connection with national community and (2) Individual accepted some societal obligations
   • If US authority is involved in investigation of criminal activity in a foreign nation, then 4^th Amendment is loosely triggered and must go through procedures of that foreign nation (not US procedures if not in US)
     • US Government Involved in Foreign Criminal Procedure Against US “Citizen” → 4^th Amendment Protection
     • No US Government Involvement in Foreign Criminal Procedure Against US “Citizen” → NO 4^th Amendment Protection
     • US Government Involved in Foreign Criminal Procedure of NON-US “Citizen” → NO 4^th Amendment Protection
3. “Search”?
   • What? → “Secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures
   • Where? → “Persons, houses, papers, and effects (effects = wallet, phone, things on a person)

Question: What governmental conduct constitutes a search or seizure of a person, house, paper, or effect and, therefore, triggers Fourth Amendment protection?

1. Pre-Katz “Protected Places” Approach (Pre-1967)
   • Property-focused inquiry
   • A search of a defendant will be deemed to occur if the government physically intrudes on the defendant’s property
   • 4^th Amendment only protects certain places (usually limited to private property owned by the subject of the search)
2. Post-Katz “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” Approach (Post-1967)
   • Rule: “The 4^th Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection . . . But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”
   • Justice Harlan’s “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” 2-Prong Test
     1. a person exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and
     2. the person’s expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable” (objective)