14 - Criminal Procedure
Criminal Procedure Topics
- Search and seizure
- Probable cause
- Good faith exception
- Warrant requirement
- Automobile searches
- Double jeopardy
- Cruel and unusual punishment
—
Questions to guide us for search and seizure
What is the nature of a right “against unreasonable searches and seizures”? How should that right be protected?
If search warrants require probable cause, what is probable cause? When is a warrantless search still reasonable?
How should stare decisis factor into constitutional interpretation, particularly when federal and state precedents are intertwined?
—
Probable Cause
People v. Griminger
524 N.E.2d 409 (N.Y. 1988)
State v. Tuttle
515 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2017)
—
Aguilar / Spinelli Test
To establish probable cause, a search warrant affidavit must demonstrate:
- the basis of the informant’s knowledge, and
- the credibility of the informant or the reliability of the information.
Gates Test
To determine whether an affidavit establishes probable cause, a magistrate should consider the totality of the circumstances.
—
Good Faith Exception
State v. Koivu
272 P.3d 483 (Idaho 2012)
Commonwealth v. Edmunds
586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991)
—
State v. Koivu
272 P.3d 483 (Idaho 2012)
—
History of federal exclusionary rule
Weeks v. United States (1914) — Federal exclusionary rule.
Wolf v. Colorado (1949) — Fourth Amendment applies to states, but remedy up to states to decide.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) — Exclusionary rule applies to the states.
Stone v. Powell (1976) — Exclusionary rule not a constitutional right but designed to deter police misconduct.
United States v. Leon (1984) — Good faith exception
—
Idaho Precedents
State v. Arregui
(Idaho 1927)
State v. Rauch
(Idaho 1978)
—
Commonwealth v. Edmunds
586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991)
—
Pennsylvania’s Analytic Framework
For state constitutional law issues, litigants should analyze:
- Text of the state constitution
- History of the constitutional provision, including case law
- Related case law from other states
- Policy considerations
—
Warrant Requirement
State v. Earls
70 A.3d 630 (N.J. 2013)
State v. Bryant
950 A.2d 467 (Vt. 2008)
State v. Leonard
943 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. 2020)
—
What constitutes a search?
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.
—
Contrast
State v. Earls
70 A.3d 630 (N.J. 2013)
with
United States v. Jones (2012)
Police installation of a tracking device on defendant’s car constitutes a trespass, therefore a a search warrant was required.
—
Reasonable expectation of privacy
- Defendant had an expectation of privacy
- This expectation of privacy is one that society finds reasonable
—
Contrast
State v. Bryant
950 A.2d 467 (Vt. 2008)
with
Florida v. Riley (1989)
A defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy from a police helicopter flying above their home, therefore no search warrant is required.
—
State v. Leonard
943 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. 2020)
—
Reasonable expectation of privacy
- Defendant had an expectation of privacy
- This expectation of privacy is one that society finds reasonable
—
Automobile Searches
State v. Cora
167 A.3d 633 (N.H. 2017)
State v. Villela
450 P.3d 170 (Wash. 2019)
State v. Arreola-Botello
451 P.3d 939 (Or. 2019)
—
State v. Cora
167 A.3d 633 (N.H. 2017)
“Every subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions…”
New Hampshire Const., Part I, Art. 19
—
Federal automobile exception
If police have probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle, the police can search every part of the vehicle without a warrant.
New Hampshire’s limited automobile exception
If police have lawfully stopped a vehicle AND have probable cause to believe a plainly visible item is contraband, then the police can enter the vehicle to seize the contraband
—
State v. Villela
450 P.3d 170 (Wash. 2019)
—
State statute RCW 46.55.360
Police must impound a vehicle any time they arrest its driver for driving under the influence.
Art. 1 §7 Analysis
- Did police action constitute a disturbance of one’s private affairs?
- Did authority of law justify the intrusion?
—
State v. Arreola-Botello
451 P.3d 939 (Or. 2019)
“No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.” Oregon Const. Art 1, §9.