4th Amendment
Protects against unreasonable search and seizures “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated”
In order to invoke 4th Amend protection, a defendant must have a legitimate expectation of privacy of the area searched (‘standing’)
Expectation of privacy is one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
-includ home and curtilage
Court must consider totality of circumstances to determine if defendant had legit expectation of privacy
general rule = passenger in car no legit privacy expectation
-unless under total circumstances person
Consent to Search
Search pursuant to consent is considered reasonable and valid
Prosecutor has burden to demonstrate that consent was freely and voluntarily given
A search by consent is unreasonable if consent given is not voluntary, given without authority or the search is beyond the scope of consent
- scope of consent defined by consenting party and is measured by object reasonableness
- -test is whether facts available to officer at the time would allow a person of reasonable caution to believe the consenting party had authority over the area
6th Amendment Speedy Trial
Equal to Michigan Art 1, section 20
Provides that people of this state and persons charged with crime are entitled to and shall have a speedy trial
-if violated defendant is entitled to dismissal of charge with prejudice
Right not triggered until institution of formal proceedings or defendant’s arrest following formal charges (not issuance of cmplt/warrant)
MI Four Part test:
1) length of delay
2) reason for delay
3) defendant’s assertion of right
4) prejudice against defendant
If over 18 months delay = prejudice presumed/burden shift to prosecutor to show no prejudice to defendant
–triggers inquiry into other factors to be considered in balancing competing interests
If less than 18 months delay = no need to inquire into other factors defendant has burden to show prejudice caused by pros
Miranda Warnings (long version)
Miranda v. Arizona 5th Amend prohibition against compelled self incrimination requires an accused subject to custodial interrogation to be given Miranda warning
- Only applies when accused is in custody and interrogated
- -if not custodial interrogation Miranda doesn’t apply
Custodial interrogation = questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
-test is whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as type of station house questioning
Custody = specifies circumstances that present a serious danger or coercion or product of compulsion
- test court must determine in light of objective circumstances of interrogation whether reasonable person would have felt he was at liberty to termination interrogation and leave
- -relevant factors include: location of q, duration, statements made during interview, presence or absence of physical restrains during q and release of interviewee at end of q
14th Amendment
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection fo the laws”
Right to Fair Trial
Fundamental Right under 14th Amendment
Integral component in that fair trial is accused is presumed to be innocent
- this includ being obligated to stand trial in jail or prison garb
- -can choose to be in these clothes but infringement of trial rights if forced to wear
- -also equal justice in 14th amend = wearing jail garb concerns unequal footing for those in jail/presumption of innocence
6th Amend Confrontation Clause
In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right to confront witnesses against him. This includes the right of cross-examination of the witness.
If: 1) the evidence is testimonial, 2) the declarant is unavailable, and 3) the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant = statement cannot be admitted or violates defendant’s 6th Amend right to confrontation.
-doesn’t matter if there is hearsay exception that would otherwise allow into court
testimonial statements:
- statements made during police interrogations
- laboratory reports and other scenic reports, affidavits, etc
non testimonial statements:
- not told for investigative purpose
- talking to friend at lunch
- statement by child when asked how got bruise
Defendant can forfeit right if he made witness unavailable to testify
- purpose of unavailability must directly relate to witness testifying in some proceeding against defendant
- has not forfeited right if accused of murdering victim
Miranda rights (short version)
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution provides that the defendant cannot be compelled to incriminate himself. Miranda was designed to safeguard this right. Miranda warnings are required only in cases involving custodial interrogations.
Custody = to determine whether a defendant was in custody at the time of the interrogation, we look at the totality of the circumstance with the key question being whether the defendant reasonably believed that he was not free to leave
