CRJU 350 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Tom Tyler, Korematsu V. United States, Reasonable Suspicion
Korematsu v. U.S
- 5 years probations, conviction overturned b/c government concealed evidence
HERBERT PACKER’s Model
- Crime Control: repression of criminal conduct
- Due Process: protecting rights of individual
Procedural Justice: TOM TYLER
- Voice
- Neutrality
- Respect
- Trust
Retroactive of U.S Supreme Court Rule-making Decision
- Appeal still pending: new rule applies
- Appeal exhausted, old rule governs
Level of require proof
- Reasonable Suspicion: frisk
- Probable Cause: arrest
- Preponderance: automobile collision
- Clear & Convincing: take child from parent
- Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Chapter 3
Collection of Evidence
- Instrumentalities of crime: weapons
- Fruits of crime: money, jewelry, wallet
- Contraband: drugs
- Evidence of criminal activity: blood, DNA, clothing
- Incriminating Statements: overheard statements
Searches:
- Is an invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy
- Searches w/o warrants = unreasonable
- Katz v. U.S: attached microphone into phone booth, violated Katz’ expectation of privacy
- Black’s dissent: Originalist
Searches: balancing between individual privacy & public safety, and TOTC
Assuming the risk: when given info to another/third party, you assume the risk they’ll disclose it
Plain View Doctrine: officer may seize items w/o warrant if
- Lawfully present in location & see item in plain view
- Have Probable Cause to believe item is evidence of crime
- Cannot manipulate, plain feel, plain smell, plain hearing
Homes, Open fields, & Curtilage
- Open Fields: distant from home, no expectation of privacy, enter & seize item w/o
warrant or PC
- Curtilage: area immediately surrounding home, has expectation of privacy, need warrant
to enter & seize item
Document Summary
5 years probations, conviction overturned b/c government concealed evidence. Clear & convincing: take child from parent. Evidence of criminal activity: blood, dna, clothing. Is an invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy. Katz v. u. s: attached microphone into phone booth, violated katz" expectation of privacy. Searches: balancing between individual privacy & public safety, and totc. Assuming the risk: when given info to another/third party, you assume the risk they"ll disclose it. Plain view doctrine: officer may seize items w/o warrant if. Lawfully present in location & see item in plain view. Have probable cause to believe item is evidence of crime. Cannot manipulate, plain feel, plain smell, plain hearing. Open fields: distant from home, no expectation of privacy, enter & seize item w/o warrant or pc.
