The exclusionary rule permits victims of an illegal arch or coerced confession to have the fruits of tho arches/confessions excluded from the procutor’s ca in chief. However, the exclusionary rule only applies to violations of a federal statute or the Constitution, and does not pertain to grand jury proceedings, civil proceedings, parole revocation proceedings, and may be ud to impeach the Defendant at trial. Federal law recognizes the good faith exception (judicial or statute valid at the time of the arch, but later declared unconstitutional or defective arch warrant to the exclusionary rule. A arch warrant is defective where the affidavit supporting the warrant is egregiously lacking in probable cau, particularity, an officer or the DA lied or misled the magistrate, or the magistrate is bias ed. New York rejects the good faith exception.
Under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine, all evidence obtained as a result of unconstitutional conduct is barred from the procution’s ca in chief, unless the “taint” is purged. A “taint” may be purcha by an independent (pure) source, by inevitable discovery, or by attenuation (free will restored by the passage of time). Although violations of Miranda will result in suppression of the statement, it does not bar physical fruits of unwarned, voluntary statements.水桶怎么画
Warrants are not required to make an arrest in public, or in one’s home in cas of emergency. Police need probable cau to execute de facto arrests (questioning or fingerprinting).
A 4th Amendment arch and/or izure requires three elements: state action, a reasonable expectation of privacy (standing), a arch warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement. State action may be evinced by publicly paid police (on or off duty), individuals acting at the direction of police or private police deputized with the power to arrest.
Premis owners, residents (e.g., les), and overnights do have reasonable expectations of privacy. Owners of property and tho legitimately on the premis may have REP. Under federal law, social guests, business guests, nor pasngers in cars have REP. However, in New York, pasngers may challenge the izure of weapons. There is no expectation in: “go away speedily or suffer plenty of pain” (garbage, account bank records, sounds of voice, open fields, style of handwriting, public airspace, odors, paint scrapings).
To be valid, a arch warrant must be supported by probable cau, particularity, issued by a neutral magistrate. Probable cau (“fair probability that contraband or evidence will be found in the area to be arched”). Hearsay may ud to support probable cau. Even anonymous tips may be the basis of probable cau, provided there is corroboration enabling the magistrate to make a “common n, practical determination of probable cau”. New York rejects the “common n” standard in favor of Aguilar-Spinelli’s “veracity/reliability of the source and basis of the informant’s knowledge”
(deficiency of one element may be made up by the other) test. To be “particular” the warrant must specify the place arched and items to be ized. If the Magistrate is bias ed, all warrants are invalidated and all evidence is lost.
There are eight exceptions to the warrant requirement: “ESCAPIST”. Exigent circumstances (evanescent: dissipating/disappearing evidence; hot pursuit: < 15 minutes, includes plain view items; community caretaking doctrine: nuisance, violence).
Search incident to [lawful] arrest, if contemporaneous and within the “wingspan”. Under the federal rule, clod (not locked) containers may be in the “wingspan.” This is a bright line rule, thus, if the arrestee is a recent occupant of the car, clod containers may be arched even if the suspect is in the squad car. In New York, arch of clod containers requires suspicion that the arrestee is armed (e.g., not a prostitute). Moreover, in New York, if the occupant is outside the car, police cannot arch clod containers or bags in the car.
Connt may validate a warrantless arch, provided it is voluntarily and intelligently made by someone with authority. In the ca of conflicting connt, the non-connting party trumps.
抢凳子游戏The Automobile exception to the warrant requirement requires probable cau that you will find contr
aband/evidence of a crime in the vehicle but is limited to places where that contraband/evidence might be (including the trunk) (e.g., speeding example).
Under the Plain view exception, where an officer had lawful access to e the item in plain view, lawful access to the item, and the criminality of the item is immediately apparent, an officer may ize the item without a warrant. In New York, obscene material requires prior judicial authorization.
Under the inventory exception, a arch may be conducted on a person prior to booking or an impounded car (reasonable), to safeguard items, protect officers, and guard against lost/mislaid property claims.
Under the special needs doctrine, law enforcement, government employers, and school officials have a relaxed standard. Warrantless drug testing of RR employees after an impact accident, of customs officials responsible for stopping drugs, school children in extra curricular activities and arches of students suspected of violating school (smoking) rules have been upheld.
肉三鲜Under the Terry doctrine, a police officer may STOP (briefly detain/izure) upon “reasonable, articulable suspicion”. A person is detained if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or decline officer’s request. However, so long as they do not prolong the stop, dog sniffs are not arch
es. Although a federal izure requires “submission” (stop) to authority, in New York, pursuit by police constitutes a izure. In addition, in New York, a car stop involves the izure of both pasngers and drivers (standing). To FRISK, police must suspect the detainee is armed and dangerous. However, if you can determine an item is contraband without manipulating it (crack pipe), you may ize that. In New York, you must believe it is a weapon (even if it winds up being a crack pipe) to ize it.
Under the 4th Amendment, and the “unreliable ear doctrine”, you assume the risk of being betrayed by your listener. With respect to wiretapping, both federal law and New York require warrants. However, in New York you must list suspects/targets, particularized description of the conversations, and time limit.
The Constitution requires only the core Miranda rights be conveyed (a card is ok). Miranda must be given to suspects who are: in custody and interrogated. Someone is “in custody” for Miranda purpos where, at the time of interrogation, they do not feel free to leave and the atmosphere is infud with police domination and coercion (so, would not apply to cop pretending to befriend the suspect in the interrogation room). Interrogation is any conduct police know/should know is likely to elicit an incriminating respon (not spontaneous incrimination). Miranda does not apply to non-testi
聊斋连城monial elicitations (barking with tape). After an administration of Miranda, police must obtain a waiver of Miranda prior to interrogation. A valid waiver is voluntary, knowing and intelligent (under stand the rights and the conquences of abandonment). Waiver may be express or implied. If a suspect does not waive or lawyers up, then the suspect must initiate any further interrogation regarding any crime (it is not offen-specific). In New York, a waiver may be jeopardized by the u of deception/concealment to keep a parent away from a child who is interrogated.
Once you are formally charged (an “information” or, in New York “indictment”), the 6th A right to counl attaches. It is offen-specific. In New York, the indelible right to counl can attach before formal charging, if the police know the person has counl (due to prior dealings), police can not interrogate you about anything unless the quence of events is: arrested, not formally charged, relead, picked up the next day on an unrelated charge, then the indelible right does not automatically attach.
If a pretrial identification is bad on a witness’ encounter with the defendant at the crime scene, it comes in. If the witness’ identification is bad on tainted procedures, then the identification won’t come in. A Defendant’s 6th A right to counl attaches at post-charging lineups and showups (but not photo arrays). Where a post-charging lineup occurs outside the prence of counl, followed b
危化品管理>新年展望
y an in-court ID, to avoid mistrial, the procution can avoid mistrial if it can establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the in court identification was bad on obrvation of the suspect other than the tainted lineup. In New York, if Defendant invokes his right to counl, and the police are aware that Defendant has counl, Defendant has a right to counl at pre-charging lineups.
New York’s charging process involves grand juries (proceedings determined to find probable cau that the individual completed the crime in question). If the grand jury does not return an indictment, Defendant can ask for a preliminary hearing. In New York, the procution must establish all elements of the crime and provide a reasonable cau to believe the accud committed the crime.
A Defendant has a right to an unbiad judge (no financial stake, no actual malice towards Defendant), a jury trial (maximum ntence is greater than or equal to six months). The constitution requires a unanimous six members to criminally convict; however, if you u twelve jurors (as in New York), the verdict need not be unanimous. Also, in New York, a Defendant can waive the 12-person jury requirement). The jury pool must reflect a cross ction of the community, although the actual jury can be a lect group. A party can exerci peremptory challenge to excu any juror without cau other than race or gender.
The procution has the burden to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant usually carries the burden of persuasion in regard to affirmative defens. Although Defendant has a right to effective counl, to prove ineffective assistance, Defendant must not only show deficient performance but also that effective counl would have made a difference (provide a colorable argument that they are not guilty). The Court views plea bargains as contracts, thus the strongest grounds to withdraw a plea is failure by one party to live up to the bargain. A plea bargain may also be withdrawn if there is something wrong with the procedure (Judge describes the nature of the charge, ntencing range, right to plead “not guilty”, the conquence of pleading guilty), lack of jurisdiction, ineffective assistance of counl, or procutor’s failure to perform.
规则近义词Cruel and unusual punishment is penalty that is grossly disproportionate to the riousness of the offen. Although the death penalty is not cruel & unusual, death penalty statutes must give Defendants the chance to provide mitigating elements and no statutes may automatically impo death.
Double Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial once the jury is sworn. In a bench trial, jeopardy attaches once the first witness is sworn. It does not attach to civil proceedings (SEC and DA). Offens are not the “same” for the purpos of jeopardy if each has an element the other does not (hit & run and
manslaughter). New York us the “Transaction Test”, which requires that the procution charge all offens arising out of a single event unless their elements are substantially different or the offens vindicate different harms (criminal posssion & u; different victim). Jeopardy precludes trial for a lesr included offens upon acquittal of the greater offen (unless battery/homicide exception). Jeopardy does not attach in instances of parate sovereigns and does not apply where there is a hung jury, mistrial for manifest necessity, retrial after successful appeal, breach in bargain by Defendant.
精明的反义词
The 5th Amendment may be asrted in any sworn proceeding (administrative, congressional, procutorial). You must asrt it at your first opportunity, or it is waived. If the statute of limitations on the crime has run, the 5th Amendment may not be asrted. The 5th Amendment does not apply to physical incrimination. The procution may bypass the privilege through u or derivative u immunity, however, any evidence obtained prior to the grant of immunity is still permissible.
