6A
Felony
Always right to counsel
US v. Wade
ruled that post-indictment lineups and show-ups are critical stages at which the 6A RTC applies
Katz
1. A person must exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and
2. Subjective expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” (objective).
Exceeded license
Can't let dog sniff inside someones house
US v. Drayton
the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 4A does not require police officers to inform bus passengers of their right to refuse a search when officers request consent to search
Felonies carry higher consequences, so RTC is necessary
Moore v. Illinois
the D was IDed by the complaining witness at a preliminary hearing at which he was not represented by counsel; the pre-liminary hearing marked initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings
Dunn Dunn
(1) Proximity to the home,
how close it is to the actual house
(2) Whether the area is included within an Enclosure surrounding the home;
Are they within a fenced area
(3) The activities / USE in the area
Is it more homelike? Grilling or open field with nothing
(4) Protective Steps taken by the resident from people passing by
Putting up shrubs, tress. etc
US v. Place
"sui generis" - dogs sniff tells us when it has contraband. does not expose non-contraband items
Brower v. County of Inyo
Seizure occurs when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.
Baldwin
Less than 6 months in jail = NO jury trial
Gilbert v. Wade
Standard for excluding evidence of ID at trial: DP review
Key: case by case basis if the government can show by clear and convincing evidence that the in court eye witness ID was based on other observations than the tainted lineup
Standard: whether there is a “very substantial likelihood of misidentification”…to meet this, the D must show:
Test: (1) the lineup procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and (2) the identification itself was unreliable under the TOC (Manson v. Brathwaite p. 144)
Factors to be considered for step 2:
(1) Opportunity of witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime
(2) Witness’s degree of attention
(3) Accuracy of witness’s prior description to the criminal
(4) The witness’s level of certainty about the identification
(5) The length of time between the crime and identification
WEIGH AGAINST: corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself
CA v. Ciralo
It's a bird, it's a plane in yo business
unreasonable to think plants which are visible to those who fly over are protected
Illinois v. Cabellas
Did not constitute search because it did not prolong stop.
CA v. Hoodari
The only issue presented here -- whether, at the time he dropped the drugs, Hodari had been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment -- must be answered in the negative.
Not seized until he was tackled
Douglas v. CA
DP and Equal Protection give you this 14A;
but no Constitutional right to a frivolous appeal
Kirby v. Illinois
the 6A right is not triggered yet because there is no initiation, and there is no RTC because not a critical stage
Florida v. Riley
Court ruled the cops did not need a warrant to fly a helicopter as long as it is flown from where levels civilians can fly
CA v. Greenwood
Outside the curtilage, anyone from the public can go through your trash
Brendlin v. CA
both P and Driver were seized when the car was unlawfully stopped; by staying in the car, P submitted to show of authority. Thus, the drugs were properly excluded as fruit of the wrongful seizure
Rothgery v. Gullespie
CS = proceedings between an individual and agents of the State (whether formal or informal, in court or out) that amount to ‘trial-like confrontations,’ at which counsel would help the accused “in coping with legal problems or meeting his adversary”
CS = all deliberate effects by the government to elicit incriminating information from the defendant—whether directly by asking questions or surreptitiously, as through the use of a confidential informant or remote-eavesdropping technology
Stovall v. Denno
the court found no violation of DP in this case because there was an “imperative” need to show the defendant to an eyewitness who was seriously injured during the crime and about to undergo major surgery
ruled that Wade and Gilbert applied only to lineups or show-ups occurring after those Court decisions, but prior lineups could still be evaluated as to whether they were “so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification” as to violate DP
Medenhall factors
1. Threatening presence of many cops
2. Display of weapon
3. Physical touching of the person
4. Use of language or tone (aggressive)