Source: http://kenketchum.tripod.com/newyorkchristianlawlibrary/id40.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:37:38+00:00

Document:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1. The fourth Amendment provides that people should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Governmental seizures of persons, including arrests, are seizures within the scope of the Fourth Amendment and so must be reasonable.
2. The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy interests of people, not places. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
An important factor in determining the legality of a search under the Fourth Amendment is ascertaining the reasonable expectation of privacy by the person being subject to that search.
1.Arrests an arrest occurs when the police take a person into custody against his will for purposes of criminal prosecution.
b. An arrest warrant is generally NOT required for arresting a suspect in a public place.
c. An arrest warrant is required for a non-emergency arrest of a person in his home.
1. Stop and Frisk if police have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or involvement in a completed crime, supported by articulable facts, they may detain a person for investigative purposes.
Violated when prosecution uses at trial evidence of accuseds own incriminating words that were deliberately elicited after the commencement of adversarial proceedings in the absence of the defendants counsel.
Custodial interrogation refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after the person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in a significant way.
Demeanor of police officers (e.g., confrontational questioning) and the ratio of officers to suspects. Thompson v. Keohane.
Interrogations Interrogation is any direct or express questioning about the crime being investigatged. Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990).
Rule: Any statement, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a suspect as the result of custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect in a criminal trial, unless it is shown that the police provided procedural safeguards to secure the individuals Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Impeachment of defendant statements obtained inviolation of Miranda may be used nonetheless to impeach defendant at trial if he testifies inconsistently with the custodial statement.
The fruit-of-the-poison-tree doctrine does not apply to Miranda violations.
Rule: A statement obtained by police from a suspect as the result of coercion is inadmissible at trial in violation of the Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Whether deception was used to secure the confession. Spano v. N.Y. (1959).
If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him if he so desires.
Prior to an interrogation by the police.
Use of confession for impeachment Statements obtained in violation of the Miranda warnings may be used to impeach the defendants trial testimony, but may not be used as evidence of guilt. Subsequent confessions are valid.
May occur only after the full Miranda warnings have been given.
Prosecution must prove the validity of a waiver by a preponderance of the evidence.
Waiver may be expressly stated or implied by the accuseds words or conduct.
Public Safety need not be given in a situation where there is a threat to public safety.
Covert interrogation not required when the suspect is unaware he is speaking with a law enforcement officer.
Booking questions need not be given prior to routine questions.
Right to Counsel is provided under the amendment to the federal constitution.
When the prosecution can prove that evidence unlawfully obtained eventually would have been procured through a legal source, the deterrents function of the exclusionary rule has so little value that a court should admit the evidence.
Ex. Where police unconstitutionally elicit the location of a murder victims body from an accused, but the body would have been found by the search parties in any event, the evidence found on or near the body is admissible.
Ex: even if the police act in bad faith, the inevitable discovery exception applies.
*Distinction: In New York, the inevitable discovery and exception is only applicable to secondary evidence, not the evidence found in the course of an illegal search.
Federal Rule: Where officials acted in good faith when executing a search warrant issued by a judge but the warrant was totally found invalid for lack of PC, evidence seized is not suppressed.
The police observe the commission of the crime or circumstances exist to create PC.
a) Procedure: A motion to suppress physical evidence is made in the court where the action is to be tried and must be made within 45 days from defendant arraignment. The papers must state grounds of the motion and non-conclusory, sworn allegations of fact.
If the allegations of fact support the grounds alleged and there is a contested issue of fact, the court must hold a hearing. The motion can only be made buy a person with standing that is s**omeone party aggrieved by the unlawful acquisition of the evidence. The motion papers must set forth the many parties standing by alleging facts showing a reasonable expectation of privacy.
b) The Hearing: The prosecution (state) has the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct. When the prosecution alleges the search and seizure was consented to, it bears the burden of proving the consent was voluntary.
A civil case usually commences with the arrest of an accused. An arrest may be made with or without a warrant, but in either event there must be sufficient reasonable cause to believe the accused has committed the crime.
1. Written accusations stating the crimes alleged with a recitation of sufficient facts to make out the charges.
2. The accusatory instrument may be a misdemeanor complaint or felony complaint or any information.
3. A complaint may have hearsay in its recitation of the fact (informant).
4. It can only commence on action and will not serve as a basis for prosecution.
5. In order for a case to proceed further, either an information for a misdemeanor or violation on an indictment in superior court information for a felony, must be filed.
In New York, criminal proceedings must be instituted before the police can obtain an arrest warrant.
Within a reasonable time after a warrant-less arrest the accused must be bought before a local criminal court judge to be arraigned. The Federal Constitution allows a delay of up to 48 hours before the accused must be bought before a judge. See Riverside County v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S.Ct. 1661 (1991).
The McGlaughlin case specifically held that a P.C. hearing must be held in 48 hours of a warrantless period. The New York City Court of Appeals has found that a delay of more than 24 hours is presumptuously unreasonable. Thus, arrestees held in custody for more than 24 hours without arraignment are entitled to release unless an acceptable explanation for the delay is given.
D. The severity of the charges.
As a condition of any order of bail or release on recognizance (no bail) the court may issue a temporary order of protection for good cause shown ordering the defendant to stay away or refrain from bothering the victim or the victims family.
The 8th amendment prohibits excessive bail. There is no constitutional distinction between requiring excessive bail and denying bail altogether, absent legitimate reasons. The amount of bail required must normally not be more than is necessary to guarantee the defendants presence at trial.
The grand jury consists of not less than 16 nor more than 23 persons. They are selected at random in the same manner at petit jurors and must have the same qualifications and unbiased state of mind. Any racial discrimination with the selection of the grand jurors requires automatic reversal of any conviction. Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986).
The prosecution may call as a witness any person the DA believes possesses relevant information. The Grand Jury may direct the DA to subpoena any witness not called by the state. A defendant who has been arrested and arraigned on a felony has a right to testify before the grand jury hearing evidence prior to its filing the indictment, provided that the defendant serves written notice upon the DA that he or she wishes to testify. *A motion to dismiss an indictment on the ground that a defendant was deprived of the right to testify must be made within five days of arraignment on the indictment. People v. Richards, 128 A.D. 387 (1987).
On a motion to dismiss an indictment there must be a clear showing that the evidence before the grand jury was insufficient and the evidence must be examined in a light most favorable to the people. The operative test is whether the evidence before the grand jury, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a trial jury.
3. A defendant who wishes to exercise his right to testify before the grand jury may only testify if he waives his immunity.
Any witness appearing before the grand jury receives full transactional immunity and any accompanied proceeding and may not be prosecuted for any transaction in which his or her testimony implicates him or her.
The federal constitution requires that a grand jury witness receive only use immunity, which simply prohibits the government from directly or derivatively using the grand jury testimony against the witness.
The grand jury must be instructed by the DA on the law with respect to the matters before it. It need be given enough information to intelligently decide whether a crime has been committed and determine whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material element of crime. Se People v. Calbud Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389. A prosecutor is not required to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. Exculpatory statement s which are not part of a single statement in which inculpatory and exculpatory thoughts were expressed do not have to be presented to the grand jury.
b. any statement of the accused to any law enforcement official.
a. within 20 days of arraignment the prosecution may request that the defendant provide the names and addresses of any alibi witnesses, i.e., anyone who would place the accused somewhere other than the crime scene.
b. Requiring the defendant s to provide names of alibi witness is constitutional so long as the duty is reciprocal, whereby the prosecution must in turn disclose the names of the witnesses to abut the alibi.
There is not constitutional right discovery. If prosecution has a right to discovery, reciprocal right must be given to the defendant.
2. transcripts of defendants or co-defendants grand jury testimony.
3. any written scientific reports people intend to use at trial.
6. any tapes or electronic recordings which are intended to be used at trial.
1. statute of limitations this is the primary safeguard against delay prior to the commencement of the proceedings.
3. 6th amendment right to a speedy trial once a criminal action has commenced, the accused has a right to a speedy trial under this amendment. The right to a speedy trial does not have to wait for an indictment; it begins when the defendant is arrested prior to formal charges and restrained by incarceration or bail.
4. statutory speedy trial guarantee a defendant accused of a crime has a general right to a speedy trial.
A criminal defendant has an absolute right to be present, with counsel, whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his or her opportunity to defend against the charge.
A defendant is entitled to a jury trial in any matter where the maximum sentence allowed is more than six months.
Defendant can waiver his right to a jury trial but it must be done intelligently and clearly.
A waiver of a jury trial must be made by a written instrument in open court before and with the approval of the judge.
A waiver may be disallowed if the court feels it is a strategy used to obtain a procedural advantage.
Due process clause of the 6th amendment guarantees the right to an impartial judge or jury.
Prospective jurors are selected from the panel by lot and the court and both parties may question them about their qualifications.
2. they have a state of mind likely to prevent them from reaching a fair verdict.
Searches usually require a warrant to be valid under the Fourth Amendment, unless it is one of the valid warrantless searches allowed.
2. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy In order to contest a search, the person being searched must establish standing. Standing is established through the person showing that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy and that there was governmental conduct involved.
i. She owned a right to possession of the place searched.
ii. The place searched was her home whether or not she owned or had a right to possession of it.
iii. She was an overnight guest of the owner of the place searched.
b. Government conduct Constitutional guidelines for a reasonable search and seizure are limited to actions taken by a government agent. If a non-government agent enacted the search without authority from the state, then a challenge under the Fourth Amendment cannot be made.
i. If the crime is induced by governmental conduct that shocks the conscience, it violates the due process.
When right to counsel attaches in the above.
The following text may be duplicate text.
The test to determine if a suspect has been seized is what a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought had he been in the defendants position. A person has been seized only if a reasonable person would have believed that she was not free to leave. Simply asking the suspect to stop is not a seizure. Seizure does not occur until a suspect yields to the police. Thus where the police without reasonable suspicion or PC ordered a woman to stop but the woman ran away, the drugs she discarded during the chase would not be suppressed because they were not the result of an illegal seizure. See California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621 (1991). A person not handcuffed and with no show of force was taken to a crime if scene for identification is not under arrest.
Both in state and federal courts, if the evidence is obtained illegally, the evidence is excluded from trial. This is referred to as the exclusionary evidence rule. This was created by the courts to deter police misconduct in violation of the fourth amendment.
An illegal seizure that results in the police obtaining evidence, such as statements, will that evidence and render it inadmissible. Wong 371 U.S. 463.
What was the purpose and how flagrant was the official misconduct.
Where defendant is arrested in violation of the rule in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (have in notes under arrest) requiring an arrest warrant, consent or exigent or urgent circumstances to arrest a suspect in her residence, then a subsequent confession is treated differently under both federal and New York State law.
1. Independent Source Doctrine The ISD is another of the expanding exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The theory is predicated upon the subsequent warrant being based on a sufficient amount of evidence independent from what was seen and learned during the illegal entry. A warrant will be sustained under the ISD rule where despite an unlawful search, the search warrant is based upon information gathered by lawful means and sources independently of the illegal entry. Where law enforcement officers illegal conduct an illegal search, but subsequently search the same area pursuant to a valid warrant, the ISD doctrine would not suppress evidence. The as well as evidence discovered for the first time during the lawful search.
When the prosecution can prove that evidence obtained unlawfully eventually would have been found through a legal source, the deterrents function of the exclusionary rule has so little value that a court should admit the evidence.
a.. Where the police unconstitutionally elicit the location of a murder victims body from an accused, but the body would have been found by the search parties in any event, the evidence found on or near the body are admissible.
b. Even if the police act in bad faith, the inevitable discovery exception applies.
In New York, the inevitable discovery exception is only applicable to secondary evidence, not the evidence found during the course of an illegal search.
Where officers acted in good faith in executing a warrant issued by a judge but the warrant was later found invalid for lack of PC, evidence seized is not suppressed.
A motion to suppress physical evidence is made in the court where the action is to be tried and must be made within 45 days from the defendants arraignment. The papers must state the grounds of the motion and non-conclusory, sworn allegations of fact. If the allegations of fact support the grounds alleged and there is a contested issue of fact, the court must hold a hearing. *The motion can only be made by a person with standing, that is someone aggrieved by the unlawful acquisition of the evidence. The motion papers must set forth the moving partys standing by alleging facts showing a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The prosecution has the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct. When the prosecution alleges the search or seizure was consented to, it bears the burden of proving the consent was voluntary. Lastly, if the issue is whether there is an independent source for evidence alleged to be the fruit of the poisonous tree (tainted evidence) the prosecution the lack of taint by clear and convincing evidence which is a civil standard applied by the court.
A criminal case usually commences with the arrest of an accused. An arrest may be made with or without a warrant, but in either event, there must be sufficient reasonable cause to believe the accused has committed the crime.
3. A complaint may have hearsay in its recitation of the facts.
4. It can only commence an action and will not serve as a basis for prosecution.
5. In order for a case to proceed further, either an information for a misdemeanor or violation, or an indictment or superior court information for a felony, must be filed.
Within a reasonable time after a warrantless arrest, the accused must be brought before a local criminal court judge to be arraigned. The federal constitution allows a delay of up to 48 hours before the accused must be brought before a judge. See Riverside County v. Mclaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S.Ct. 1661 (1991).
The Mclaughlin case specifically held that a PC hearing must be held within 48 hours of a warrant-less period. The New York Court of Appeals has found that a delay of more than 24 hours is presumptively unreasonable. Thus, arrestees held in custody for more than 24 hours without arraignment are entitled to release unless an acceptable explanation for the delay is given.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.