Criminal Procedure Protections

1. Criminal Procedure Protections

2. Fourth Amendment • 1. “the right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures, Shall not be violated…” • Interpretation: • Neither people’s homes nor individuals themselves may be searched without reason.

3. Fourth Amendment • 2. “No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” • Interpretation: • Police must show probable cause to get a search warrant.

4. Fourth Amendment • 3. “…describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” • Interpretation: • The warrant must name the place or person that police will search, as well as what they are looking for.

5. Fifth Amendment • 1. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital…crime unless on a presentment or indictment of by a Grand Jury.” • Interpretation: • People held for (charged with) a serious crime must be indicted (formally accused) by a Grand Jury.

6. Fifth Amendment • 2. “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb. • Interpretation: • People may not be put on trial more than once for the same crime

7. Fifth Amendment • 3. “No person…shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” • Interpretation: • People do not have to give evidence that may make them appear guilty

8. Fifth Amendment • 4. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” • Interpretation: • The rules must be followed when a person is accused of a crime, being tried for it, or facing punishment for it.

9. Fifth Amendment • 5. “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” • Interpretation: • The government cannot take things from people to give to the community unless it pays the owner a fair price.

10. Sixth Amendment • 1. “The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.” • Interpretation: • People accused of crimes have the right to a trial by jury in a timely and open manner

11. Sixth Amendment • 2. “(the accused shall) be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” • Interpretation: • People must be told what criminal act theya re accused of committing.

12. Sixth Amendment • 3. “To be confronted with witnesses against him.” • Interpretation: • People accused of crimes have the right to a trial by jury in a timely and open manner.

13. Sixth Amendment • 4. “…to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…” • Interpretation: • Defendants have the right to present witnesses who might help their case

14. Sixth Amendment • 5. “…and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” • Interpretation: • Defendants have the right to a lawyer to help defend them

15. Eighth Amendment • 1. “Excessive bail shall not be imposed…” • Interpretation: • Bail cannot be unreasonably high

16. Eighth Amendment • “…nor excessive fines imposed.” • Interpretation: • Bail can’t be unreasonable

17. Eighth Amendment • 3. “…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” • Interpretation: • Punishments may not be brutal or bizarre

18. Criminal Procedure Review A grand jury decides only if a person should be accused of a crime or not. Anyone with information about a crime may be asked to be present at the trial/court. If the accused person has no money, the government must provide an attorney/lawyer for him or her. An accused person must be told what crime he or she has ben accused of committing. A person may not be tried more than once for the same crime.

19. Criminal Procedure Review 6. Bail is the money an accused person gives the court until the trial. When he or she comes to the trial, the money is returned. 7. A search warrant must list the people/persons or place to be searched. 8. People are not required to give evidence/testimony/information that might make them seem guilty. 9. In a trial for a serious crime, a Jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not proven guilty. 10. If the government needs a person’s property for the good of the community (for example to build a school) the owner is entitled to a fair price/compensation/money.

20. Criminal Procedure II • Mapp v. Ohio 1961 Then the police find evidence illegally, that evidence may not be used against the defendant in court • Groh v. Ramirez 2004 An incorrectly written search warrant could result in any evidence obtained being excluded from trial • Griswold v. Connecticut The Supreme Court found a “right to privacy” by virtue of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendment • United States v. Katz Evidence gained by listening to and/or recording a conversation without the person’s permission or without a warrant many not be used in court, because people have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

21. Criminal Procedure II Cont’d • Kyllo v. United States 2001 The Court found that using a heat-sensing device to try to find heat lamps used to grow illegal plants was unconstitutional without a warrant. • Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada 2004 People must give their names to police officers investigating a crime • Veronia School District v. Acton 1995 Schools may force athletes to be tested for drugs at random. • Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls 2002 Any student who participates in extra-curricular activities many be tested for drug use

22. United States v. Banks 2003 • For: • Banks could not hear the knock while in the shower • There was too little time to answer the door (unreasonable) • Against: • Police do not want to give time to destroy evidence • Weapons may be used if police do not use surprise • Warrant allows entry to search • Opinion of the Court: • The police may enter without a knock, “if reasonable suspicion that…announcing presence…would allow destruction of evidence…We think that after 15 to 20 seconds without a response, police could fairly suspect that cocaine would be gone if they were reticent any longer.”

23. Maryland v. Pringle 2003 • For: • There was no evidence that the money and drugs were Pringle’s and not the other occupants’ • Car owner should not have given permission to search-harmed Pringle • Against: • Car owner did give permission for search • Money and drugs belonged to at least one occupant • Pringle confessed

24. Maryland v. Pringle 2003 Opinion • Opinion of the Court: • The Court held “Because the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle, the arrest did not contravene the 4th and 14th Amendments…Here, it is uncontested that the officer, upon recovering the suspected cocaine, had probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed…As it is an entirely reasonable inference from the facts here that any or all of the car’s occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine, a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly.”

25. Illinois v. McArthur 2001 • For: • Tera McArthur had reason to lie about the drugs-she was moving out of the home and could reasonably be assumed to be angry with him and want to get him in trouble • The officer had no right to enter the trailer, even the doorway, to watch McArthur • Against: • Tera McArthur saw the drugs. She used to live there and could know if her husband used the drugs • McArthur likely would have destroyed the drugs without supervision • McArthur was kept out of his house for a relatively short time and even then, was allowed to enter the house twice, with the officer in the doorway

26. Illinois v. McArthur 2001 Opinion • “We conclude that the restriction at issue was reasonable and hence lawful, in light of the following circumstances, which we consider in combination. First, the police had probable cause to believe that McArthur’s trailer home contained evidence of a crime and contraband, namely unlawful drugs. The police had had an opportunity to speak with Tera McArthur and make at least a very rough estimate of her reliability. They knew she had had a firsthand opportunity to observe her husband’s behavior, in particular with respect to the drugs at issue…Cont’d

27. Second, the police had good reason to fear that, unless restrained, McArthur would destroy the drugs before they could return with a warrant…Third, the police made reasonable efforts to reconcile their law enforcement needs with the demands of personal privacy, They neither searched the trailer nor arrested McArthur before obtaining a warrant…Fourth, the police imposed the restraint for a limited period of time, namely, two hours…As far as the record reveals, this time period was no longer than was reasonably necessary for the police, acting with diligence, to obtain the warrant.”

28. Law and Order • Murder vs. Manslaughter • Cross Examination • Extradite • Stockholm Syndrome • Duress • Prejudicial Key Terms: • Indictment • Miranda • Perjury • Double Jeopardy • Felony vs. Misdemeanor

29. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) • Gideon was charged with robbing a pool hall in Florida by stealing change from a vending machine. • He didn’t have money to hire a lawyer, so he asked the court to appoint one. • His request was denied and he was convicted and sentenced to a 5 year term. • Gideon petitioned the Supreme Court for a retrial of his case & they agreed, stating he was not given his due process based on the Fourteenth Amendment and giving him the right to counsel.

30. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) • Danny Escobedo was picked up for questioning in the death of his brother-in-law. • While being questioned, he asked to see his attorney several times. • The requests were refused and he made several damaging statements. • His statements were used against him in court and he was convicted of murder. • Later, the Supreme Court released him from prison since he was not allowed to see his attorney and they did not advise him of the right too refuse to answer their questions.

31. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda Warnings: • The guidelines set by the Supreme Court establishing the Miranda rules, which require that criminal suspects be informed of their rights at the time of arrest. • In 1984 the Court ruled police do not have to read suspects their rights when “public safety” is at risk. In order to find a loaded gun, the police could questions a suspect before advising him of his right to remain silent.

32. Miranda Rights • You have the right to remain silent. • Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. • You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned. • If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish one.

33. Key Terms • Indictment: A formal finding by a grand jury that there is sufficient evidence against a particular person to warrant a criminal trial • Perjury: The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath • Double Jeopardy: The act of putting a person through a second trial for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted or convicted.

34. Key Terms Cont’d • Cross Examination: Law To question (a witness already examined by the opposing side). • Extradite: To give up or deliver (a fugitive, for example) to the legal jurisdiction of another government or authority. • Duress: Constraint by threat; coercion: confessed under duress. • Prejudicial: . Causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions: Jurors were told not to read the newspapers to avoid being exposed to prejudicial publicity for the defendant.

35. Key Terms (Handouts) • Probable Cause • Self-Incrimination • Cruel & Unusual Punishment • Exclusionary Rule • Inevitable Discovery

36. Misdemeanor vs. Felony • Misdemeanor: • A criminal offense less serious than a felony • Examples: petty theft , traffic violations, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault, disorderly conduct • Felony: • A serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. The penalties range from one year in prison to death. • Examples: Murder, Robbery, Rape, Assault, Burglary, Financial Fraud, Computer Trespass, Poss. of drugs with intent to distribute

37. Murder v. Manslaughter • Murder: to kill (someone)unlawfullywith premeditation or during the commissionofacrime • Manslaughter: theunlawful killing of a human being without malice a forethought. • Homicide: Killing

38. Stockholm Syndrome • an emotional attachment to a captor formed by a hostage as a result of continuous stress, dependence, and a need to cooperate for survival.