POLS 4720 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Jury Trial, Reasonable Suspicion, Misdemeanor
5 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
1. EITS
-Reasonable suspicion from US v Katz Harlan: Subjective (whether person exhibits an
actual personal expectation of privacy) & Objective (Is society prepared to recognize as
reasonable)
-Third party doctrine: People who voluntarily give info to 3rd parties including email
servers have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Allows police to obtain info from
third parties without warrant and without violation. Smith v Maryland: Person has no
legitimate expectation of privacy information he voluntarily turns over to third parties
2. Moron
-With Miranda rights, the 2 reqs are custody and questioning. Moron is in custody
because he was arrested. Custody is determined by 2 circumstances in Berkemer v
McCarthy (overall circumstances & Formal arrest or restraint on freedom). For
questioning, under Rhode Island v Innis, questioning refers to any words or actions of
the police that elicits an incriminating response from the suspect. In this situation,
Moron does not make any incriminating responses and therefore not questioned.
Because he was not questioned, he did not have to be read his rights. Also he did not
waive his rights anyways because under Berghuis v Thompkins, the invocation of the
right to remain silent or for an attorney must be ambiguous.
-Usig US Patae, the eidee foud as a result of Moro’s stateets a also e
used in court because as long as those statements were not coerced, they are
admissible.
-Moron asked for a jury trial and under Duncan v Louisiana, the court held that under
the Sixth Amendment, the right of trial by jury in criminal cases was fundamental to the
Aeria shee of justie. Although Moro’s rie as a isdeeaor, his rie
allows for a sentence up to one year and/or $1000 fine. This does not fall under a petty
crime, therefore he gets a jury trial.
3. Supersad
-Supersad gave consent to the search of his bag and marijuana was found. Officer Smith
arrested him and he was in custody (#2) and was questioned. Supersad made
incriminating statements without being read his Miranda rights and there was a 20
minute break. When officer came back, S was read his rights. He waived his rights with a
waiver form and S repeated. Under Oregon v Elstad, a post warning confession is
inadmissible when a two step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to
undermine the Miranda warning. Like Missouri v Seibert, because in this case the
questioning took place in the same place with the same officer who did not advise that
prior statement could be used against, these circumstances challenge the efficacy of the
Mirada arigs to the poit that a reasoale perso i the suspet’s shoes ould
have understood them to convey a message that they retained a choice about
continuing to talk. A strategic two step interrogation was used, therefore intentionally
leaving out Miranda. The court should consider the completeness and details of the
answers in the prewarning interrogation, overlapping content, timing and setting,
continuity, and degree to which the second interrogation was treated as a continuation
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Reasonable suspicion from us v katz harlan: subjective (whether person exhibits an actual personal expectation of privacy) & objective (is society prepared to recognize as reasonable) Third party doctrine: people who voluntarily give info to 3rd parties including email servers have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Allows police to obtain info from third parties without warrant and without violation. Smith v maryland: person has no legitimate expectation of privacy information he voluntarily turns over to third parties: moron. With miranda rights, the 2 reqs are custody and questioning. Moron is in custody because he was arrested. Custody is determined by 2 circumstances in berkemer v. Mccarthy (overall circumstances & formal arrest or restraint on freedom). For questioning, under rhode island v innis, questioning refers to any words or actions of the police that elicits an incriminating response from the suspect. Moron does not make any incriminating responses and therefore not questioned.
