8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
1/25
I. INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS
a. Civil Cases
i. Private causes of action
ii. Remedy is compensation (usually)b. Criminal cases
i. Public Remedies in 99% of the cases
ii. The other 1% will be civil unless the "compensation" is so punitive as to be regarded as
criminal penalty1. Remedies
a. Generally fines AND/OR
i. If the statute says "fine" it is probably criminalii. If the statute says "civil fine" it is probably civil unless the civil
fine is for an extraordinary amount ("civil fine of 1,000,000,000")
b. Jaili. Jail is automatically criminal UNLESS
1. Sex offenders are in civil incarceration in order to provide
treatment2. Contempt
a. Civil-jail is not mandatory: only persuasive tool toenforce order of the court
b. Criminal-mandatory payment or jail-timei. COMPARE Clinton Hypo: mandatory
payment of fine for contempt was deemed
civilc. Incorporation Doctrine
i. Duncan v. Louisiana : Whether the right to a jury trial under the 6th Amendment is
incorporated through the 14th Amendment to apply to the states1. Majority view: (J. White)Selective IncorporationThe rights in the Bill of
Rights that are important to the American system of justice and other similar
rights not enumerated are incorporated to apply to the states2. Concurring: (J. Black)Total IncorporationAll of the rights in the Bill of
Rights, and no others, are incorporated to apply to the states
3. Dissent (J. Harlan)Federalism View14th Amendment involves liberty and
due process, ideas of fundamental fairness. As such, whether a right in the Bill ofRights applies to the states should be determined on a case-by-case basis with a
view to the principles and fundamental aspects of society
ii. Floor v. Ceiling1. The federal Constitution is a floor: grants only minimal rights
2. State Constitutions can be a ceiling: may grant more protection than the federal
Constitution.
II. THE FOURTH AMENDMENTTHE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSON, HOUSES, PAPERS AND
EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES SHALLNOT BE VIOLATED, ANDNO WARRANTS SHALL
ISSUE, BUTUPONPROBABLECAUSE, SUPPORTEDBYOATHORAFFIRMATION, ANDPARTICULARLYDESCRIBINGTHEPLACETOBESEARCHED, ANDTHEPERSONSORTHINGSTOBESEIZED.
a. Introduction
1
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
2/25
i. The government search and seizure of persons, houses, papers, and effects must be
reasonableii. Warrants shall have probable cause supported by oath/affirmation describing the searches
and/or seizures.
iii. The Reasonableness and the Warrant Clause1. Generally, for a search to be reasonable, there must be a warrant: otherwise, the
search or seizure is presumed unreasonable.
iv. "The People"
1. Fourth Amendment applies when a US government searches or seizes a USperson
v. Probable Cause
1. Minimum showing to support application for a warrantvi. State Action
1. Only a US government can be bound by the search or seizurethe state must act
2. Private action does not trigger Fourth Amendmenta. Other legal remedies are available (theft, larceny, etc)
3. IF private action is so closely related to the government so as to be regarded as
acting on the government's behalf, then the private actor may be subject to theFourth Amendment under the law of agency
vii. Remedies1. Suppressed evidence at trial for violation of the Fourth Amendment
b. Identifying Searches or Seizures: STEP ONE
i. Search occurs where
1. Subjective (Actual) expectation of privacy exists in the person searched
a. Steps taken to show private activity AND2. That is a reasonable expectation of privacy recognized by society as legitimate
a. KATZopens up telephone booth, closes door, pays money, and has a
conversation with another. Police placed listening device on booth. Katzhad an actual expectation of privacy because he closed the door behind
him, paid money, used the telephone, and there was no one else around.
At that time, society recognized closed phone booths as reasonably privatebecause it is not necessarily the public status of the phone booth but theactions and location that serve as the objective privacy expectation.
i. The Searchesconversation, opened briefcase and looked, wen
through papersii. The seizuresarrest, took briefcase (see next)
ii. Seizure occurs where
1. There is an interference with property rightsa. Seizure of the person (arrest) is an interference with personal freedom
iii. Open Fields DoctrineFails the objective privacy expectation of Katz
1. A person does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in an open field
a. Society is not prepared to recognize that as legitimatei. If property is open, it is not private
ii. The text of the Fourth Amendment states houses, papers, and
effectsb. OLIVERpot in the farm, argued Katz, held that there was no search for the
reasons stated above
c. Distinguish searches and seizures heresearch of the open field may beok, but if there it a seizure, then it must be reasonable
2. Curtilage in the open fieldmay meet the legitimate expectation prong of Katz
2
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
3/25
a. Proximity to the home
b. Enclosuresc. Use of the area within the curtilage
d. Steps taken to protect from passers-by
iv. Consensual Electronic Surveillance (Informant wears a wire)1. Assumption of Risk Test
a. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy against the police, bu
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy against non-police whom
people speak tothus, one "assumes the risk" of having that person relaymessages to the police
v. Bank Records
1. Where police request bank records, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy because the records are readily accessible to the bank employees. As such, a
person assumes the risk that the bank records will be accessed by others
including the policevi. Pen Registers telephone companies record the number dialed
1. A person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when dialing a
number because telephone records are voluntarily turned over to everyoneworking for the telephone company
vii. Pagers1. Where a person calls the pager and leaves a phone number, the person who leaves
the phone number has no reasonable expectation of privacy because they haveconsented to broadcasting their number on the display of the pageranyone can
read that number.
a. Similarity between pager display and caller I.D. BUT2. A person who possesses a pager has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
numbers stored inside
a. Similarity between numbers stored in pager and paper address book orprivate papers
viii. Trash
1. A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their trash because it isaccessible by the public, trash collectors, and the like.
a. Once trash is placed on the curb in front of a house, the result is virtua
consent that someone will take away the trash, even though not consent to
the police taking the trash away.2. Trash in an open filed
a. If the open field doctrine applies, there is no search BUT
b. Seizure must still be reasonablei. There is probably no seizure because a person gives up possession
of trash BUT
ii. If trash (e.g., burn barrel) within the curtilage, may be a search
ix. Public Areas1. Homeless persons
a. Reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of duffel bag and cardboard
box kept on public propertyi. Possessory interest in property
ii. Homeless want to protect their privacy
1. Distinguish trash cases where no expectation of privacyexists
b. No reasonable expectation where belongings stored on private property
3
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
4/25
c. No reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall where anyone
could observe from outside the stallx. Aerial Surveillance
1. Where public has access to viewing the area surveilled, there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy2. Person assumes the risk BUT
3. If overflight disturbs property, the search is too intrusive
a. Ciraolo 1000 feet above home in a plane was not a search
b. Dow Chemical Aerial photographs of industrial plant taken by the EPAwas not a search
c. Riley 400 feet above home in a helicopter was not a search
xi. "Plain Feel Searches"1. Manipulation of a bag (touching, feeling) in public bus is a search under Katz
a. Probing tactile examination of property is more intrusive than plain
viewingb. May be equally likely or unlikely for members of the public to touch bags
BUT touching has a different effect than viewing
i. Bond officer at border patrol felt 's bag then asked him to
search. gave consent and found drugs. Held: search.
actually expected privacy because the bag was closed and noeasily found on the top shelf. There is a reasonable expectation ofprivacy because even though others might have touch the bag the
same way, it was highly unlikely that other passengers would
manipulate the bag as the agent did.
2. Because of September 11, the outcome would probably differ.xii. Thermal Detection Devices
1. Kyllo police use thermo-imaging device to detect heat level from home and
discover marijuana. Held: search2. A device that detects heat levels from inside the home is a search
a. Subjective expectation of privacy regarding the home and the hea
therefromi. Just because technology can identify activities in your home does
NOT mean a person loses their subjective expectations of privacy
b. Reasonable expectation of privacy regarding technology
i. Availability to the general public1. More available to the general public, less likely it is a
search
2. Less available to the general public, more likely a searchii. COMPARE thermo device with eyeglasses
1. If police use eyeglasses to detect activity, not a search
because many members of the public have access t
eyeglasses2. If police use night vision goggles to detect activity
probably a search because not everyone has access to night
visionxiii. Police Dogs
1. Dog sniffing is not a search itself if all sniff reveals is presence of an illega
substance BUT2. Cannot be grounds by itself for opening bag, luggage, etc.
c. Reasonableness and Warrant Clauses
4
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
5/25
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
6/25
c. Police follow-up investigation
2. Standard for magistrate to issue the warranta. Fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found (common sense)
3. Standard for court reviewing magistrate's decision
a. Substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed (deferential tomagistrate)
4. Gates Anonymous letter with conclusory statements, police investigation
reveals criminal activity, police get warrant, search the car, trunk, and house
HELD: search valid because probable cause existeda. Under Spinelli, there was no veracity because the letter was anonymous
(informant never used before). There was corroboration but there was no
reliabilitythe letter had no real basis of knowledge because there wereonly conclusory statements. HOWEVER, the test is "probable cause" no
simply the Spinelli factors Therefore, under the totality test, there was
probable cause.iv. Persons giving information as basis for probable cause
1. Police are presumed truthful and reliable
2. Citizens are treated as upstanding citizenspresumption that they are truthfula. Eyewitnesses (bank employees)
3. Informants do not carry the same presumptionsa. Informants merely giving information
e. Nuts and Bolts: Place to be search and things to be seizedinformation in the warranti. Place to be searched
1. Warrant must be correct
a. Correct person, specific nameb. Correct address, correct place BUT
2. Test
a. Whether the officer make a good faith effort to accurately describe placeto be searched
ii. Things to be seized
1. Police can search places that could reasonably hold the "thing" to be seizeda. Proceeds/Fruits of crime
iii. Execution of the Warrant
1. Must be reasonable execution of the warrant
a. Example: swallowed a balloon of cocaine, warrant described the
particular place they were looking for BUT it would be unreasonable to
cut him open, conduct ultrasound etc. to search his bodyjust wait till he
shits it out.iv. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41
1. Federal magistrate or state court within district can issue warrant
2. Property/persons seized
a. Contrabanditems not lawfully possessedb. Property
c. Instrumentalities of crimed. Fruits of crime
3. 10-day limit on the life of the warrant ("staleness")
a. things/persons might move from the place to be searched4. Must be conducted in the daytime (before 10:00 PM)
a. This is part of the reasonableness requirement
5. Copy and receipt for property seized
6
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
7/25
6. Remedies for unlawful search/seizure
a. s can motion for a return of property if believed unlawfully seized OR
b. Motion to suppress evidence at trial
v. Magistrates: Must be Neutral and Detached1. No lawyer requirement
2. Judiciary must issue, not law enforcement officer
a. Magistrate cannot be employed as an officer
3. s can challenge the adequacy of the magistrate's ability to issue a warrant BUTa. it is very rare that they will win
b. The only exception is where a magistrate does something completely
ridiculous, like going along on the searches/seizuresf. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement
i. Arrests without a warrant (bright-line rules)
1. IF felony or misdemeanor in presence of officer THEN no warrant requirement toarrest
2. IF felony not in presence of officer AND probable cause THEN no warran
requirement to arresta. Watson informant says Watson has stolen credit cards, police set up
meeting between informant and Watson, Informant gives signal and policerush inWatson does not have them on his person, but consents to policesearch of car, they find credit cards in floor mat. Watson challenges the
arrest because the arrest caused the search. Heldno arrest warran
required
i. Probable cause was met because the informant was reliableevidence of credit card from informant and corroborated at the
meeting with the signal to police
ii. Felony in presence of officers (credit card fraud)iii. Reasons for foregoing the warrant
1. Plain view
2. Flight risk3. History and tradition in common law
b. Why get warrants?
i. Strengthen case
ii. Practicalityii. Arrests without a warrant for misdemeanor-fine only offense (Bright-Line Rule)
1. No arrest warrant required where misdemeanor is committed in the presence of an
officera. These are rare cases that won't happen often
b. Officers need bright line, clear rules so officers can understand and follow
2. Atwater Texas law allowed arrest without warrant for violation of seatbelt law
pulled over for no seat belt, then arrested, jailed, bailed, pled guilty, paid fine,and then sued under 1983 for violating her Fourth Amendment rights.
argues unreasonable seizureif BIG misdemeanor, officer needs PC and inpresence for warrantless arrest. If LITTLE misdemeanor, officer cannot arres
without a warrant. HELD: reasonable to arrest without warrant for misdemeanor
committed in presence of the officer.
3. Dissent Rule should be a balance of government interests with private interestsa. Extent of the intrusion v. government interest
iii. Arrests at the Home (Bright-line rule)
7
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
8/25
1. Arrest at the residence of a person requires a warrant AND
2. Reason to believe the suspect is there (not probable cause)a. Presumption in favor of reason to believe
b. Can be rebutted
3. Exigent circumstancesno requirement of an arrest warranta. Fleeing felon escapes into home = no warrant requirement
4. In the home
a. Inside door and opened voluntarily = warrant requirement
b. Outside of the door and opened voluntarily = no warrant requirement5. Payton police went to Payton's home based on probable cause to believe he had
murdered someone; they had no warrant; they entered and found a gun but not
Payton. HELD: arrest warrant was required6. Hierarchy
a. Home
b. Apartmentc. Hotel Arrest warrant will not be required as you move down
d. Office
e. Public
7. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4a. Arrest standardprobable cause to believe committed a crime
i. Arrest warrant issued OR
ii. Summons where no arrest is made
iv. Procedure after Warrantless Arrest
1. Due process requires that have a probable cause determination after his arrest(flexibility and specificity)
a. Probable cause determination must be made within 48 hours of the arrest
i. If so, the determination is presumed constitutional
ii. It is the 's burden to prove otherwise
1. Show that no delay was necessary
2. Show that they tried to collect evidence within that timeb. If probable cause determination is made outside of the 48 hour limit
i. The determination is presumed unconstitutional
ii. It is the government's burden to prove otherwise1. Show that there was no way to get them a hearing within 48
hours
c. Where evidence is obtained within the 48 hour span (exconfession)BUT government fails to give a hearing within 48 hours
i. The evidence obtained within the 48 hour span is NOT suppressed
UNLESS the delay caused the evidence to be obtained
2. Riverside v. McLaughlin local policy allowed for PC hearing to be conducted
up to seven days after arrest. Class action challenged the policy. Lower courtheld that determination must be made ASAPright after booking in every case.
Supreme Court reversedthat would be a fiscal burden on local government.Articulated the above rule.
v. Stop and Frisk (Terry Stop)Terry was one of three hoodlums casing a joint
suspiciously. Officer McFadden was an experienced copwalks over to the threewithout a warrant, he stops, frisks for weapons, and finds a gun on Terry. Held
reasonable
1. STOP AND FRISK STANDARD
8
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
9/25
a. (Stop) Reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot
i. Reasonably prudent police officer with his/her experienceii. Point to specific and articulable facts that justify the stop
1. Connection between officer's experience and facts present
iii. Free to leave standard
1. If is free to leave, only an encounter has occurredthus
no Fourth Amendment problem (see below)
b. (Frisk) Reasonable suspicion that poses danger to officer
i. Pat down for weaponsii. Search for safety of the officer NOT for evidence of a crime
2. Stop and Frisk after tip from Informant: Adamsinformant tells officer " has
gun and drugs" in a violent neighborhood; Officer reaches in 's car and finds
gun. HELD: reasonable stop and frisk
a. Stop and frisk standard is satisfied if an informant gives officer a tip abou
a . BUT COMPARE
3. Stop and Frisk after anonymous caller: Florida v. J.Lanonymous informer tells
police a black male with a plaid shirt is carrying a gun BUT there is no
information on the reliability and veracity. HELD: unreasonable stop and friskbecause
a. There was NO suspicious activity (As in Adams, i.e., high crime area)
b. No corroboration to the information received from the callerc. Police argued the "gun exception" anytime there is any reason to believe a
person has a gun, there should be an automatic stop and frisk because tha
is based on safety. HOWEVERd. There is no justification for an automatic rule
4. Stop and Frisk by officer for Moving Violation (traffic stop): Mimsofficer pulls
over and tells him to get out of the car; frisks and finds weapon. HELD
reasonable stop and friska. To stop car, must have reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation
b. To search driver, must have reasonable suspicion of danger
c. Usually, stop and frisk can be justified in patrol stopsi. Once the stop is legal, a pat down generally follows
5. Encounters
a. If there is a reasonable belief that the person is not "free to leave" then astop has occurred and the Fourth Amendment has been triggered (totality
of the circumstances)
i. Mendenhall DEA asks to give them his ticket, they give itback, they ask to go to office and get consent to search his bags
HELD: mere encounter, not a stop because could leave at any
time
ii. Royer DEA asks
for ticket, does not give ticket back, tells
he is suspected for drugs, tells "come with us" they get consent
to search his bags. HELD: stop, not an encounter because actions
of officers had the practical effect of preventing from leaving
took his luggage, ticket, and license
b. INS cases
i. Factory sweeps
9
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
10/25
1. Argument is that aliens do not have reasonable belief tha
they are free to leave BUT the court has held that they arefree to leave
ii. Working the busses
1. Same as abovec. Courts tend to favor police in this area
6. Profiling
a. Supplements experience to officers who do not have expertisegives
knowledge of the experts to nonexpertsb. May be used to justify a stop and frisk
vi. Search Incident to Arrest: Chimel v. Californiaarrest warrant for at home; afterarrest, they search his entire house for evidence of coin shop robbery. Held: invalid
search
1. Standard for search incident to arrest
a. After arrest, officer can search area within the arrestee's immediatephysical control (grab area and the person)
i. Grab areabroader than your person but narrower than your
"legal" control (e.g., not your legal property rights, etc but yourimmediate physical control)
1. Weapons2. Evidence
ii. Determined at the time of the arrest
1. Exofficer goes to arrest suspect, suspect reaches for
cabinet, before he reaches cabinet, officer arrests, cuffs, andtakes suspect away. Officer can return to the grab area and
search cabinet.
iii. Rationale
1. Officer safety AND2. Prevent destruction of evidence
2. Securing the premises
a. Permissible to search for safety NOTb. Production of evidence
3. Search incident to arrest applied to automobiles: (Bright-Line Rule) NY v. Belton
Four s stopped in car; officer orders everyone out after smelling pot; officer
searches interior of car, finds jacket, opens pocket, and finds cocaine. HELDReasonable search incident to arrest.
a. After arrest, officer can automatically search interior of car and any
containers thereini. Any part of the car that is reachable from the interior
1. Not the trunk
ii. Hatchbackas long as air can pass through
iii. Panelsas long as no damage is doneb. Containers
i. Any object capable of holding another object
c. If arrested in the car = search in the card. If arrested while about to get in car = probably can search in the car
e. If arrested while walking near the car = probably cannot search the car
4. Search incident to issuance of a ticket: Knowlesofficer pulls over and issues
ticket; then searches vehicle. Officer argues that automatic search after issuance
of ticket. HELD: no automatic search of interior because the justification for
10
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
11/25
search incident to arrest (protect officer and prevent destruction of evidence)
doesn't apply to issuing traffic citationa. Police officers must arrest if they want to search the interior o
automobiles
5. Search after patrol stop: Whrenpatrol stop in a high crime area; officer follows
suspicious car; car violates traffic law; officer pulls over and finds cocaine.
argued that no reasonable officer would have pulled s over and therefore it was
a pretext to investigate s. HELD: search was reasonable
a. Once there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a movingviolation, officer can pull over the car and proceed from there
vii. Plain View Doctrine (Exception to the Warrant Requirement for Seizures)
1. Elements
a. Police must be in the area lawfully ANDb. Incriminating character of the evidence in plain view is "immediate"
i. In other words, police have probable cause that the evidence in
their plain view at the time of the seizure is evidence of a crime
2. Horton Police had probable cause for proceeds of jewelry robbery and weaponsused there; Warrant authorized seizure of proceeds only; officers knew they were
looking for weapons; did not find proceeds but found weapons. HELD: PlainView doctrine justified the seizure of the weapons regardless if the officers didnot inadvertently find the evidence
a. Arguments against Plain View Doctrine
i. Evidence must be inadvertently discoveredii. Otherwise, plain view will sanction general warrants because no
particularity in the warrant will be required AND the doctrine can
be manipulated
3. Hicks officer entered run-down apartment and saw a very expensive stereopicked up stereo; looked at serial #; called it in, found out it was stolen, and seized
it. HELD: illegal search of the stereo and thus the seizure of the store was fruit of
illegal search: suppressed.a. Police MUST have probable cause to size something in plain view
BEFORE it is seized, not after it is examined
4. Variations of the Plain View Doctrinea. Plain touch (Similar to Terry Stop and Frisk)
i. Police must be lawfully conducting a stop and frisk AND
ii. If PC is established during such frisk, Police may seize the articleUNLESS
iii. The frisk is grossly probing
1. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a Terry frisk
against the police continue to feel around on the person
once when no weapons are foundiv. Dickerson Police stopped and frisked ; police found no
weapons, but felt a "pea-shaped object" in the pocket; felt it somemore, pulled it out, and it was crack-cocaine. HELD: unlawful
b. Plain Smell?
i. Smelling Pot, opium, etc. leads to probable cause
c. Plain Hearing?i. Examplebomb ticking (9/11)
viii. Automobiles and Movables
11
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
12/25
1. Automobile Exception: Elements (Carroll Doctrine)
a. Probable Cause to believe there is evidence of criminal activity in the carAND
b. Exigent circumstancesFederal: car is automatic exigencyPA: car i
not automaticmore exigency is requiredi. Car has mobilityevidence is on wheels
1. Threat of destruction of evidence and escape
ii. Carroll 1921, prohibitionsearch of a car in Michigan at a
roadblockcar is stopped based on prior contacts with theseparticular s. HELD: no warrant required
2. Search of automobile in police custody without a warrantChambersrobbery
of service station; employees tell police s had green shirt and trench coat and
description of car; officer pull over s shortly after, arrests, seizes car, takes to
station, then searched the whole car without a warrant. HELD: no warrantrequired
a. Since there is no difference, as far as privacy concerns go, between (1)
seizing the car and waiting for the warrant and (2) searching the inside of
the car without a warrant, no warrant is requiredb. Argument against (not the law)
i. No exigency because police already have custody AND there istime to get a warrant
ii. Where the car is on the road, there is exigency
iii. Where a car is in police custody, there is no exigency
iv. There IS a difference between stopping and waiting for the warranAND searching without a warrant
c. Some courts (probably state) require ACTUAL exigency
3. What is a vehicle subject to the exception?
a. Carsb. Airplanes
c. Motor Homes?
d. House Boats?4. Diminished expectation of PrivacyCarneymini-motor home; no warrant
a. People have a diminished expectation of privacy in their cars
i. Cars are open by nature (windows, etc.)ii. Cars are pervasively regulated
iii. Distinguished domestic living in the home with transportation: car
is used to transport; home is used to dwell and live5. Movables
a. Argument: Movables are subject to the same exception as cars because
they are movable BUT
b. The court has continuously held that the car exception does NOT apply to
movablesi. People have a higher expectation of privacy in movables than car
6. Movables within Automobiles: CONTAINERS
a. To search an automobile, police need probable cause
b. To search a container, police need probable cause and a warrant
i. Police can seize the container until a warrant is obtainedii. HOWEVER, what if a container is IN the car? Which rule
applies?
c. Test for containers within the car
12
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
13/25
i. Police can search containers within the car without a warrant i
they have probable cause to believe that there is evidence in thecontainer
1. Police have probable cause to search the vehicle
2. Container is found within the interiora. Anywhere reachable from inside the car (not closed
trunk)
3. Container can be searched without a warrant if there is PC
to believe the container has evidenceii. Always look for reasonable execution of the warrant
1. exampleif police search interior of car for a brown paper
bag in which they have PC to believe evidence is containedtherein, if they find another suitcase and search that, it may
be an unreasonable search
Warrant
Requirement
Probable Cause Scope Timing
Search
Incident to
Arrest
No warrantrequired
Probable Cause toArrest
Interior of Car (Not in theTrunk)
At arrest or reasonable time
thereafterAutomobile
Exception
No Warrant Probable Cause to
Believe that Evidence
is in the Car
Entire car where evidence
could be found
Can be searched at a
later time than
search incident t
arrest
Inventory
Search
No Warrant
Required
No PC required:
permissible if policecarry out caretaking
functions
Entire Car where property
could be found pursuant toneutral and universal police
procedures
Any time afte
propertylawfully taken
ix. Exigent Circumstances1. Escape
a. Hot pursuiti. If suspect flees to home, police can enter as an exception to the
warrant requirement
1. search for the person AND2. any weapons in the home (safety issues)
b. Test is totality of the circumstances to determine reasonableness
2. Endanger (Public Safety)a. Police do not need a warrant to search/seize if protecting the public or
other officers from harm
i. Police need an adequate basis to justify the emergency situation1. examplesfirefighters rushing in to save a cat from
burning
3. Evidence (Usually Drugs)
a. Drugsi. Totality of the circumstances
1. Type of evidence
2. Mobility3. Who's the suspect
13
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
14/25
a. Do police have prior knowledge of 's criminalityb. Crime Scene
i. Consent usually comes first (i.e., someone calls the police and lets
them in to the scene of the crime)
ii. Initial entry = no warrant requirement BUTiii. Police must get a warrant at some point
1. Usually, once the police conduct preliminary investigation
and everyone leaves, when police return, they need a
warrantc. Where Police Forbid Entry While They Obtain a Warrant
i. McArthur police did not allow entry into the 's home while
they obtained a warrant unless was with a police escort. Lasted
two hours. HELD: reasonable seizure of person and reasonable
constructive seizure of premises1. Reasonable because time and scope was limited
2. Souter (Concurring): police were actually more protective
because they obtained a warrant when all they could have
done was searched based on exigencyx. Administrative Searches
1. Former Test:a. Warrant ANDb. Reasonable Justification
2. Current Test
a. Totality of the circumstances ANDb. No warrant requirement
i. Special needs
ii. Purpose of the search
iii. Method of the search1. Reasonableness: balancing private and public interests
xi. Special Needs
1. Reasonable individualized suspicion test for search of student in schoola. Balance
i. School interests
ii. Student interests1. Both determine the reasonable execution of the search
a. Least intrusive means utilized
2. Balancing Test for Suspicionless drug testing (Skinner and Von Raab)a. Government Interests
b. Individual Privacy
i. Diminished expectation of privacy
ii. Assumption of risk of being subject to search
xii. Roadblocks1. Test: Primary purpose test
a. PURPOSE: Primarily enforcingpublic safety, not criminal law, thereforeno warrant and probable cause requirements
i. Balance government interests with private interests
ii. Reasonable Execution1. Police policy must take away discretion from police
officers
a. Examplecheck every third car
14
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
15/25
2. Level of Intrusion
a. ExampleFrightening individuals with maskedpolice officers
b. Mixed motives are permitted (Merrit)
i. Example: sobriety checkpoint AND drug sniffing dogsc. Pretextual Roadblocks may not be permitted (Huguenin)
i. Sign stated that roadblock was one mile ahead but was actually on
the off ramp right after the sign
d. Drug checkpoint alone is not permitted because primary purpose is nopublic safety but enforcing criminal law (Edmond)
i. When enforcing criminal law, traditional 4th amendment principles
apply1. Distinguish between specific crimes and general crimes
a. Specific Crimefleeing felon, roadblock set up, no
warrant or PC required because protecting publicfrom potential danger
xiii. Inventory Searches
1. Testa. Property is lawfully taken into custody AND
b. Inventory search carried out for caretaking functions pursuant to neutraguidelines or universal practice
i. Protect police officersii. Protect owner of property
iii. Avoid police liability
2. Containersa. Same test as above
b. What if the container is seized without a warrantcan the police conduc
an inventory search?i. Argument against inventory search
1. Purpose of inventory search is not present
ii. Argument in favor of inventory search1. It does not make sense to search everything except the item
that includes the evidence
c. Check the purpose of the search
i. Caretaking function or search for evidence3. Inventory of Person
a. Empty pockets, etc. for caretaking purposes NOT search for evidence
xiv. Consent (exception to the warrant AND probable cause requirements for a search)]1. Test
a. Consent voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances
i. Compare Waiver of Right with General Voluntariness
1. Waiver a. Knowingly and voluntarily relinquishing rights
(Bright-line rule)
ii. Factors to consider1. Warning
2. Officer conduct
3. Suspect's intelligence4. Custody
5. Tone of voice
15
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
16/25
6. Suspect's belief police will not find anything
7. OTHERSb. No warning required
c. Must be reasonable
2. Issuesa. Consent Denied?
i. Find another exception
b. Threats?
i. Argumentthreat takes away suspect's optionc. Godfather Deal?
i. Officer makes a deal to obtain consent ("I'm gonna make an offer
he can't refuse Marlon Brando, The Godfather).d. Road Stop
i. No requirement that officer must tell detainee they are free to leave
3. Third Party Consentapply agency lawxv. Undercover Operations
1. Tape Recording while talked with officer
a. Consensual conversation, therefore no searchi. Since officer could testify about the conversation, the conversation
was consensual, and the tape recording merely preserves thaconversation, tape recording is not a search
2. Tape recording while talked with undercover officer
a. Consensual conversation, therefore no search
3. There is no search when a private party buys drugs from 's house and turns theevidence over to the DA
a. No state action AND consented anyway
4. Officer goes to buy drugs as a private person and turns over to DA
a. Arguably no state action because officer was acting in his private capacity
AND consented anyway
5. Officer goes to buy drugs as an undercover officer
a. State action BUT consented anyway6. Scope of consent limits undercover officer's ability to search
xvi. Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
1. Title IIIa. Warrant requirement
i. Officer needs approval from chief law enforcement officer before
seeking judicially issued warrant
b. Warrant will not issue to conduct wiretapping if there are other means ofinvestigation available
i. Wiretapping is usually last resort
g. Exclusionary Rulei. Introduction
1. Procedural Remedy rather than substantive remedy
2. Violation of Fourth Amendment results in excluding evidence obtained by theviolation
ii. History
1. Prior to Weeks, who had their Fourth Amendment rights violated had to suethe police for trespass, replevin, etc.
2. Weeks Reasons for the Exclusionary Rule
a. Deter officers from violating the Constitution16
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
17/25
i. Prospective Deterrence
ii. NOT rooted in Constitution, only ENFORCEMENT ofConstitution
b. Government Should not benefit from its own wrongful conduct
i. Moral Justification based on policy from a practical standpointc. Where there's a right there is a remedy
d. Judicial Integrity
e. Administrability
i. Consistent Application of the Ruleiii. Although the Fourth Amendment applied to the federal government and the states, the
exclusionary rule applied ONLY to the federal government.
1. Why
a. should not avoid consequences of own illegal conduct
b. Practicalityprevents justice from being done in most extreme cases
c. FederalismTenth Amendmentd. Administrability
2. Wolf "Silver Platter Doctrine"
a. If the feds illegally searched and seized and obtained evidence, they wouldbe unable to use it in court.
b. As a result, the feds would hand over the case to the state on a "silve platter" and the state could then prosecute without exclusionary ruleapplicability
iv. Modern Law
1. Mapp v. Ohio extends the exclusionary rule to apply to the statesa. Deterrence
i. Constitution requires THIS remedy because it is the ONLY
remedy that prevents government from gaining by its own
misconductb. Judicial Integrity
i. Court should not be promoting illegality or sanctioning violations
of the Fourth Amendmentif no exclusionary rule, court would bedoing so
c. Invasion of Privacy
i. Court should not allow the continuing invasion of the FourthAmendment
ii. If prosecutors can use the evidence at trial, prosecutors
CONTINUE to invade the privacy of others AFTER the Fourth
Amendment has been violatediii. Exclusionary Rule requires the prosecution to give the property
back
2. Rule 12(b) Pretrial Motions in Criminal Procedure
a. Rule 12(b)(3) provides a motion to suppress evidence illegally obtainedh. Standing
i. Substantive Fourth Amendment Law1. TEST
a. Whether at issue had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place
searched OR
b. Whether has an individual property OR possessory interest in the thing
seized
c. Legitimately on PremisesLimited Application
17
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
18/25
i. If exercises CONTROL or AUTHORITY over the placesearched
1. Totality Test
a. Relationship between and owner
b. How much time spent at the place searched
c. Food, sleeping bag, pillow, other stuff brought to
the place searched
2. Rakas Rakas passenger in car. Officer stops car, searches car, finds and seizesbullets and shotgun, officer arrests suspects.
a. argues
i. He had a REOP in the carii. Target Theory
1. Target of the search automatically has standing
iii. Legitimately on the premises (car)b. HELD: no REOP in car b/c car by nature is diminished privacy
i. Target theory rejected
ii. Legitimately on premises test narrowly applied to the home AND
those who exercise CONTROL or AUTHORITY over the placesearched
1. was only a passenger, not operator of vehicle
iii. did not have standing for the stop and search of the car
iv. did have standing to challenge seizure of gun and shells BUT
1. Plain View Exception applies
a. Search was presumed legalb. Plain view allowed seizure
ii. Causation: Fruits of the Search
1. Introduction
a. Illegal search causes the seizure of itemsb. Illegal arrest causes the confession
i. If an arrest is illegal, the
is NOT excused from prosecution2. TEST
a. But-for the illegality, the evidence would not have been obtained AND
b. Illegality was the proximate cause of the evidence being obtained
i. Miranda warnings do NOT cure illegality (Brown)
ii. Independent free will of OR intervening event might break the
chain of causation
1. Look at facts of each case: time, place, type of crime, typeof defendant, Miranda warnings, etc.
c. Case Law
i. Brown unlawful arrest search incident to arrest officer
takes to station an hour later, confesses after Mirandawarnings seven hours later, again confesses after Miranda
warnings and is later convicted.
1. Prosecution argues that confessed under his own freewill because he was administered his Miranda warnings
2. argues "but for" the unlawful arrest, there would be noconfession
3. HELD: There was no intervening act that broke the chain
of causation: first statement given within 2 hours o
18
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
19/25
unlawful arrest tainted second statement and thus was NOT
product of own free will
ii. Wong Sun implicated by Toy, who was illegally arrested
After seven days, an arraignment, and release on own
recognizance, confessed.
1. HELD: acted under his own free will
3. Exceptions: Even if a violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs:
a. Independent Source Doctrine
i. If the search and seizure was INDEPENDENT from any violationof the Fourth Amendment, the evidence is admissible
ii. Murray FBI surveillance of warehouse see truck leave
arrest drivers and passengers, search car, and find pot officers
go back to warehouse and search w/o warrant (illegal) and find pot
bails of pot but do not search further they get a warrant and use
the truck arrest as evidence of PC, NOT the w'less search1. HELD: evidence obtained was independent of the illega
search because
a. Warrant did not mention anything about the illegasearch
b. PC based on other facts
iii. Compare Madrid with Murrayevidence during grossly invasiveillegal search was used to establish probable cause for the search
warrant
1. HELD: evidence obtained was suppresseda. Grossly intrusive police behavior
b. Officers chose to use illegally obtained evidence in
warrant application
iv. Problems with Independent Source Doctrine1. Opens the door to confirmatory searches
a. Confirmatory search without a warrant will tel
police whether they need a warrant or not BUTb. In practice, police don't do this because they do no
try to violate the Fourth Amendment
b. Inevitable Discovery Doctrinei. If the evidence would have INEVITABLY been discovered absent
the violation of the Fourth Amendment, the evidence is admissible
1. Inevitably means inevitably (pretty damn sure) would have
been discovereda. Show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
officers were already searching for the evidence in
the area where the evidence was b. Must inevitably discover evidence that links the
suspect to the crime
ii. Nix v. Williams illegal confession discovery of dead body
police called off search and went to where said body was to
obtain evidence
1. HELD: police successful in showing by a preponderance othe evidence that the body would have inevitably been
discovered
19
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
20/25
a. Police were already looking
b. Confession merely called off the searchc. What police were doing would have found the
body, and on the body, evidence linking to crime
i. Good Faithi. Evidence should not be suppressed IF
1. Officers reasonably rely on a seemingly valid warrant issued by a neutra
magistrate
2. Limitationa. Police cannot use false information in the warrant
b. Police must have probable cause, not just conclusory statements
ii. United States v. Leon Police investigate drug case and develop information about
police believed that there was probable cause; police go to magistrate and get warrant
magistrate found probable cause, but trial court suppressed because they found no
probable cause1. HELD: suppression was inappropriate
a. Weigh the costs and benefits of preventing the use of the evidence
obtained by officer who reasonably relies on neutral magistratei. Degree of government misconduct low
ii. Police acted reasonably, magistrate made mistakesiii. Deter ONLY police misconduct AND supervise magistrate
iii. Massachusetts v. Sheppard police used a form-warrant for controlled substances rather
than a warrant for a murder case; magistrate told police he would fix the warrant/cross
out information relating to controlled substances warrant allowed police to look forcontrolled substances EVEN THOUGH there was no probable cause for controlled
substances
1. HELD: evidence should not be suppressed because the officers could reasonably
rely on the magistrate AND the magistrate made the error of failing to cure thewarrant relating to controlled substances
iv. Some states reject the good faith exception in Leon
III. FIFTH AMENDMENT
a. Noperson shall be compelledin a criminal case to be a witnessagainst himself
i. "Person"1. Individual/Personal Right
2. One CANNOT rely on the Fifth Amendment for other people
a. Examplelawyer cannot claim fifth amendment for client3. Privilege does NOT extend to corporations, partnerships, or other types of lega
business entities EXCEPT
a. SOLE proprietorships
ii. "Compelled"
1. Voluntariness or involuntarinessiii. "Witness against himself"
1. Testimonial Evidence is Protected
a. Determined by whether the words spoken could punish for truth
falsity, or silence
b. Muniz police forced to talk and answer questions while he wasdrunk; at trial officer testified about content of answers and slurred speech
as proof that he was drunk
20
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
21/25
i. HELD: fifth amendment was violated because manner of speech
and choice of words were used against
2. Non-testimonial evidence is NOT protected by the privilege
a. DNA, photo lineup, fingerprints, handwriting samples, blood, speech
comparisonsb. Voice/Speech Comparisons
i. Probative effect must be the comparison, NOT the actual words
spoken
iv. "Criminal Case" is broad1. Fifth Amendment applies in any proceeding that is potentially preliminary to a
future criminal case
a. Silence cannot be used as evidence against in a criminal case BUT
b. Silence CAN be used as evidence against in a CIVIL case
i. Fact finder can draw "any reasonable inference" from the 's
silence in a civil case
c. Why in seemingly non-criminal cases? Avoid the cruel trilemma: 's
only options ARE
i. Default in civil action by confessing
ii. Confession in civil action would incriminate of a crime OR
iii. If lies about it to avoid criminal culpability, will commit
perjury2. Examples
a. Criminal Trial
b. Grand Jury Investigationc. Asset forfeitures
i. Civil or criminal (under the statute)
3. Other Examples where not clearly a criminal casea. Investigatory Congressional Hearings
b. Civil action where criminal case is pending on same facts
4. Where no criminal case can result
a. Either because past case ORb. Statute of limitations has lapsed OR
c. acquitted OR
d. Immunity (See below)v. "Against Himself"
1. Immunitytakes away Fifth Amendment Privilege because they will no longer
be testifying "against themselves"a. Transactional Immunity
i. Cannot be prosecuted for the alleged crime EVER
b. Use or Derivative Immunity
i. CAN be prosecuted for the alleged crime BUT the compelledtestimony CANNOT be used against them
b. Confessions and Due Process
i. Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment used to exclude involuntary confessions
ii. TEST: Whether, under the Totality of the Circumstances, the voluntarily confessed
1. Spano immigrant with junior high school education interrogated for many
hours, some interrogation by police officer friend; friend played pity on to
make him confess; police did not allow to see his lawyer; then gave
statement
21
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
22/25
a. HELD: statement was involuntary
iii. False Documentary Evidence is per se impermissibleiv. Promises of Consideration by Police
1. See if police have authority to give leniency (which only prosecutors can)
2. Reasonableness of leniencyv. Police misconduct controls, not the suspect's state of mind
1. Connelly heard voices that told suspect to confess; police did nothing
coercive
a. HELD: state action at issue because police must coerce suspectc. Self-Incrimination Clause in Police Interrogations: Miranda v. Arizona
i. Introduction1. Police must advise a suspect of his rights
a. Right to remain silent
i. Fifth amendment self-incrimination clause
b. Anything said can and will be used against you in courti. Not a right, but a law of evidence
ii. States consequences of failing to remain silent
c. Right to the presence of an attorney during questioningd. Right to have an attorney appointed if you cannot afford one
i. First three are MANDATORYii. If police KNOW you can afford an attorney, they need not ask you
2. When Given
a. Custodial Interrogation
3. To Whoma. EVERYONE
4. Purpose of administering Miranda Warnings
a. Advise every suspect of rights
b. Assure waiver of rights is voluntaryc. Put every suspect on a level playing field with the police, since
interrogation is an inherently coercive atmosphere
ii. Miranda warnings MUST be given before "custodial interrogations"1. Custody TEST:
a. Whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the suspect has been
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant wayi. Where person being questioned believes that he or she is free to
leave, there is NO "custodial" interrogation (Stansbury)
b. Arrest is generally custody
c. Interrogation at the police station is generally custody UNLESS they arevoluntarily there and can leave at any time (see above)
d. Terry Stops are NOT custody
e. Case law
i. Orosco was in custody where arrested and questioned in homeby four officers at 4:00 a.m. in the morning
ii. Beckwith was NOT in custody where IRS agents invited intohome at 8:00 and questioned at the dinner table
iii. Matthiason was NOT in custody where questioned in police
station since voluntarily went to station, informed that he wasnot under arrest, and left station after he made a confession
iv.
2. Interrogation TEST:
22
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
23/25
a. Express questioning
i. Even if direct question, if it's an exclamation it might not beinterrogation (example: what the hell's going on here!?) OR
b. Functional equivalent of express questioning
i. Any words and/or police actionsii. Police should know
iii. Is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from THIS
suspect
1. Intention of police not dispositive, but relevant2. Use facts about THIS suspect and compare to what police
should know
c. Case Law
i. Innis No "interrogation" where shotgun killer arrested; asks to
see lawyer; officers talk to each other about how awful it would be
if child finds missing shotgun; then told them where to find guniii. Exceptions to Miranda
1. Public Safety/Emergency Exception
a. TEST: Totality of the Circumstances
i. Danger to the public safety outweighs the 's Fifth Amendment
rightii. More compulsion is generally tolerated in such circumstances
although not freely admitted by the court
b. NY v. Quarles : officer says "where's the gun" immediately after an arrest
no warnings given, found gun and used in court
i. HELD: officer did not need to administer Miranda even though
was in custody (pointed gun at and was arrested) AND
interrogated (express question: where's the gun?)
c. Carillo officer says "any weapons or needles on you?" and responds"I don't use drugs, I sell them." Apart from being a complete knucklehead
was arrested and convicted.
i. HELD: public safety exception applied because officer safety atissue
iv. Waiver of Miranda Rights
1. TEST: Knowing AND voluntarily waiver of rightsa. Knowing
i. Full awareness of nature of the right AND consequences o
abandoning such rightb. Voluntary
i. Product of a free and deliberate choice
c. FOCUS is on the SUSPECTd. Silence is NOT enough to constitute a valid waiver
2. Case Law
a. Connecticut v. Barrett waiver valid where would not give written
confession but would give oral confession
b. Changing the Subject waiver valid if agrees to speak about X but not
about Y so long as police ask about X only
c. Elstad waiver valid even though police obtained defective confession bulater obtained valid confession
23
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
24/25
d. Moran waiver valid even though lawyer was trying to reach , but
did not know lawyer was trying to reach him
i. Unless the client asks for an attorney, attorney has no right of
access to his client
3. Waiver AFTER Invocation of Miranda Rights
a. TEST: police must "scrupulously honor" 's invocation of Miranda rights
under the totality of the circumstances
i. Time
ii. New Set of Warningsiii. Repeated Attempts (did you changer your mind yet?)
b. When Right to Silence is Invoked
i. Police may continue to interrogate UNTIL makes an express
unequivocal statement that the right to silence is being invoked
c. When Right to Counsel is Invoked
i. Once right to attorney is invoked, police MUST stop interrogationUNLESS
1. Communication is initiated by the suspect
ii. WHY1. Invoking the right to counsel does not make counse
magically appear at that instantattorney must be
contacted, arrive, and participate while is questions2. Right to Counsel is a higher right than the right to remain
silent
IV. IDENTIFICATIONS
a. Right to Counsel for Identifications
i. Right to counsel attaches when formal charges are brought
ii. A valid police lineup after formal charges have been brought against the accused requires
the presence and participation of accused's counsel (Bright-Line)1. Lineups are a "critical stage" of the proceedings
2. Minimizes the chance for "suggestive" lineups
iii. Since the Sixth Amendment does NOT attach until formal charges have been brought, thecourt conducts a balancing test to determine whether the identification was unreasonably
suggestive (Totality Test)
1. Balance the benefit to the individual in having counsel present WITH2. Burden on society to have counsel present at this identification
a. Examples
i. Practical mattersare we going to have counsel for every street ID
ii. Contrast affirmative ID (victim walking up steps in police station
sees suspect, and says, "That's him!") WITH police gatheringmany individuals and asking victim to choose one (more
suggestive)iii. Witnesses congregating and reaching a conclusion together rather
than individually
iv. Immediacy of circumstancesonly victim about to dieiv. Permissible Suggestiveness
1. Early Identification not unreasonable under certain circumstances
24
8/3/2019 Crim Pro Full Outline
25/25
a. Rationaleinnocent suspect has as much to gain from an early ID as his
guilty counterpart (exoneration while fresh in witness' mind)2. Independent Source
a. IF witness is able to ID WITHOUT any suggestiveness but from anindependent ability to identify the suspect, the evidence of identification isadmissible
3. Photographic Identification
a. Attorney is NEVER required at a photographic identification
i. Rationalephotos are trustworthy IF they are NOT undulysuggestive
V. SIXTH AMENDMENT
a. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counselfor the defense
i. The accused in felony cases have a fundamental right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright)
ii. The accused in misdemeanor cases have the right to counsel (Argersinger) IF benefits ofproviding counsel outweigh costs to society of providing attorney
iii. In other cases, accused has right to an attorney IF
1. Liberty is at stake (imprisonment) BUT NOT2. If money is at stake (fine)
a. PROBLEMi. Trial judge has two choices
1. Appoint counsel and be able to sentence to prison after
trial OR
2. Do not appoint counsel and be barred from issuing a prisonsentence
b. Scope of the Right to Counsel
i. Right to Counsel attaches at all "critical stages" of the proceedings
1. Part of the prosecution in which the right to an attorney attaches2. Interests of the accused will be harmed without presence of an attorney
a. Formal charges conclusion of trial (generally)
ii. Appeals1. Right to counsel attaches to the appeals "as of right" (after conviction)
2. Right to counsel does NOT attach to discretionary appeals (writ to Supreme
Court)
iii. Sentencing1. Right to counsel attaches ONLY IF issues of sentencing are in dispute
iv. Parole/Probation
1. Generally considered administrative proceedings, since the trial has concluded2. HOWEVER, right to counsel will attach in certain cases where the issues
presented require the presence and participation of an attorney
v. Juvenile Cases
1. Right to counsel attaches under a special circumstances analysisminors areunable to represent themselves
vi. Right to Experts
1. If the case requires additional resources, such as experts, to satisfy therequirements for competent representation, the Constitution requires it as well
c. Sixth Amendment also requires the "effective assistance of counsel"
i. Reasonably effective assistance1. Objective reasonableness AND
2. Prejudice to the defendant
Recommended