Criminal Procedure Final Exam

The "hot pursuit" exception to the warrant requirement allows law enforcement officers to enter a premises without a warrant if they are actively pursuing a suspect who is believed to have committed a crime. This exception is based on the idea that the urgency of the situation and the need to apprehend the suspect quickly outweighs the requirement for a warrant.

Terry v. Ohio is the correct answer because it is the landmark Supreme Court case that established the rule allowing officers to conduct a frisk when they have a reasonable belief that a suspect is armed and dangerous. In this case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows for a limited search for weapons when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and poses a threat to their safety. This ruling set the precedent for the "stop and frisk" practice used by law enforcement officers today.

Inevitable Discovery refers to the situation where the officer must prove that even without the use of illegally obtained evidence, the officers would have eventually discovered the same evidence through legal means. This concept is often used in legal cases to determine the admissibility of evidence that was obtained unlawfully. It establishes that the evidence would have been discovered inevitably, regardless of the illegal actions taken by the officers.

The right to counsel in your defense is not a 4th Amendment Protection. The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and ensures that warrants can only be issued with probable cause. The right to counsel, on the other hand, is protected under the 6th Amendment, which guarantees the right to legal representation in criminal cases.

When an officer uses physical force or shows authority to restrict a person's freedom, it is referred to as a seizure. This can occur when an individual is detained, arrested, or otherwise restrained against their will. The term "seizure" is commonly used in legal contexts to describe the act of taking control over someone's liberty.

All of the above factors are needed for a special needs search of kids in school. Reasonable suspicion that a student has something against the law is necessary to justify a search. Individualized suspicion means that the suspicion is specific to a particular student and not based on generalizations. The search must also be initiated by a school official, ensuring that it is conducted by someone with the authority to do so. Therefore, all of these factors are required for a special needs search of kids in school.

Miranda warnings fall under the 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination and guarantees due process. Miranda warnings, also known as Miranda rights, are a set of rights that must be read to individuals who are in police custody before they are questioned. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. The purpose of Miranda warnings is to ensure that individuals are aware of their rights and can make an informed decision about whether to exercise them during police interrogation.

extends only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found, and may last only as long as necessary to dispel the RS of danger.”

A warrant is required only when arresting someone inside someone's house. This is because the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment states that a warrant must be obtained from a judge, based on probable cause, before law enforcement can enter and search someone's home. This ensures that citizens' privacy rights are protected and prevents arbitrary intrusion by law enforcement. In other situations, such as stopping someone to question them, a warrant may not be necessary as long as there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop.

This describes probable cause, which is a legal standard that refers to having enough specific facts to lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a fair probability of criminal activity. It is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, which only requires an officer's reasonable belief.

The statement "A target of a search automatically has 'standing'" is false. In legal terms, standing refers to the right of an individual or entity to bring a case to court. In the context of a search, standing would mean that the target of the search has the legal right to challenge the search or its results in court. However, simply being the target of a search does not automatically grant standing. Standing is determined by various legal factors, such as whether the individual's rights were violated or if they have a direct and personal interest in the outcome of the search.

The reason "check for drugs or weapons" is not a legitimate reason for inventory searches. Inventory searches are conducted to protect the property of detainees and ensure that their belongings are properly accounted for. They are not meant to be used as a means to search for drugs or weapons. This type of search would require separate legal justification, such as probable cause or a search warrant.

The correct answer is "Free to leave test." The Free to Leave test was established in the Florida v. Bostick case, which determined that a seizure occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or terminate the encounter with law enforcement. This test is used to determine if a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred during a police encounter. It assesses whether a person's freedom of movement has been unreasonably restricted by the actions or behavior of law enforcement officers.

A probationer cannot be searched for any reason whatsoever. While probationers have fewer privacy rights compared to individuals not on probation, their Fourth Amendment rights still apply. Therefore, a search of a probationer must be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, just like any other search.

The remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel is a new trial. When a defendant receives inadequate legal representation that significantly affects the outcome of their case, they can request a new trial to ensure they receive fair and competent representation. This allows them the opportunity to present their case with the assistance of a more competent attorney and potentially achieve a different outcome.

Reasonable suspicion is used when there are specific and articulable facts that give rise to a particularized and objective basis for suspecting an individual of criminal activity. It is a lower standard than probable cause and allows law enforcement officers to briefly detain and question individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. This standard is used to balance the need for effective law enforcement with protecting individual rights and privacy.

In adversarial judicial proceedings, the state is not required to actively seek or elicit information from the defendant. This is because the nature of adversarial proceedings is based on the idea of two opposing parties presenting their arguments and evidence to the court. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and they are responsible for gathering and presenting evidence to support their case. The defendant has the right to remain silent and is not obligated to provide any information that may incriminate them. Therefore, during adversarial judicial proceedings, the state may not deliberately elicit information from the defendant.

In Arizona v. Fulminante, the case established that if a confession is obtained through force or coercion, the statement is considered involuntary. This means that the confession was not given freely and willingly by the individual, but rather was a result of external pressure or intimidation. The court recognized that such confessions are unreliable and unjust, and therefore should not be admissible as evidence in court.

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to the Massiah right to counsel option. This doctrine states that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure, or in violation of the defendant's right to counsel, is also considered tainted and inadmissible. In the Massiah case, the Supreme Court held that any incriminating statements made by a defendant during a secret government wiretap after the right to counsel had attached were in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Therefore, any evidence derived from those statements would be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and inadmissible in court.

Michigan v. Long discusses the legality of conducting a protective sweep of a vehicle during a lawful arrest. A protective sweep is a limited search that is conducted to ensure the safety of law enforcement officers by checking for hidden weapons or potential threats. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a protective sweep of a vehicle is permissible if there is a reasonable belief that the suspect may be armed and dangerous, and if the search is limited to areas where a person could hide. This decision clarified the circumstances under which law enforcement officers can search a vehicle for their own safety.

Roommates cannot give third-party consent to a search of an entire house because they share equal rights and responsibilities for the property. Third-party consent typically applies when one person has legal authority or control over the property, allowing them to give consent on behalf of others. In the case of roommates, they have equal rights and control over the house, so one roommate cannot grant consent for a search without the consent of the other roommate.

Double jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn in because it refers to the constitutional protection that prevents an individual from being tried again for the same offense after they have been acquitted or convicted. Once the first witness is sworn in and the trial has officially begun, the jeopardy attaches and the defendant is protected from being tried again for the same offense in the future.

A judge-made rule to deter unlawful police conduct.

In the case of Montejo v. Louisiana, it was determined that the defendant must explicitly request legal counsel before any appointment is made. This means that the defendant cannot simply assume or expect to be provided with a lawyer, but must actively and formally ask for one.

The burdens of proof in criminal proceedings include reasonable suspicion, specific and articulable facts (evidence), preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. These different burdens represent the varying levels of proof required at different stages of a criminal case. Reasonable suspicion is the lowest burden, requiring only a minimal level of evidence to justify a brief detention. Specific and articulable facts refer to the evidence needed to establish probable cause for an arrest. Preponderance of the evidence is the burden in civil cases, requiring the evidence to be more likely true than not. Clear and convincing evidence is a higher burden, requiring a high degree of certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden in criminal cases, requiring the evidence to be so strong that there is no reasonable doubt of guilt.

To obtain a warrant, it must be signed by a neutral and detached magistrate. This ensures that the decision to issue the warrant is made by an impartial authority. Additionally, the warrant should be limited in scope and time, meaning it should specify the specific area to be searched or the items to be seized, and it should have a defined time period during which it is valid. Finally, there must be probable cause (PC) at the time the warrant is issued, meaning there must be sufficient evidence or information to believe that a crime has been committed and that the search or seizure will uncover evidence of that crime.

The Plain View Doctrine consists of two elements. First, the officer must be standing in a location where they have a legal right to be present. This means that they cannot be trespassing or unlawfully entering a private property. Second, it must be immediately obvious to the officer that the object they see is evidence of a crime or contraband. This means that they cannot conduct a search or seizure based on mere suspicion or speculation. Both of these elements must be satisfied for the Plain View Doctrine to apply.

The term "Miranda" refers to the Miranda rights, which are the constitutional rights that individuals must be informed of when they are taken into custody and before they are questioned by law enforcement. To waive Miranda means to voluntarily give up or surrender these rights. The answer "Knowing, Intelligent, voluntary" suggests that in order to waive Miranda, the individual must do so with full understanding of their rights, with the ability to comprehend the consequences of waiving those rights, and without any coercion or force.