May 11th Notes

Criminal Law
May 11, 2010

Warrant-less Search and Seizure

Vehicle Searches
-tremendous amount of law comes from car stops due to police stops
-they are following hunches and reacting

1. Expectation of Privacy in Vehicle
    -driver sitting in your car
    -4th Amendment Law
    -First question to ask: Do you have an expectation of privacy?
        -if not, the police can do whatever they like up to a point
        -But you do have expectation of privacy in your car
            -federal law: stolen vehicle you do not have an expectation of privacy
            -state law: WA more protection than 4th amendment
            -Gunwall case: State v. Stroud
                -even if it's stolen, automatic standing to object to unwarranted searches

-primary reason to decriminalize the traffic code was that cops were making too much money
    -working traffic and citations were criminal
    -every time you contest a ticket, went to court, you needed cops testimony
        -5th and 6th to trial
    -only certain ones are crimes now

-civil traffic infractions now
    -no probably cause to detain or arrest
        -What can they do?
            -general rule is: once you arrest someone, you can search
    -they can search the area of control
        -its never been defined
        -eliminates the possibility that the perp can access evidence or weapons
        -gets unusually once the perp is in handcuffs or in the police car, can not access
       
Evolution of the rules
-NY v. Beltron
    -Supreme Court case 1986
    -first case that authorized search of vehicle even though perp was handcuffed in police car
    -Ringer Case: if they are locked up, no search incident to arrest (1983 law)
    -1986 overruled Ringer Case and took up Beltron Case
        -now, Ringer Case is law

-picking cases to change law

Pretext stop
    -situation where a police officer uses a traffic code to stop someone to see what's going on
    -not interested in enforcing traffic code
    -it is an unlawful stop and search and seizure
        -federal law it is but not with state law

-passengers have rights
-driver alone is responsible
    -does not establish the right to search everyone

Federal law looks objectively
    -conducting a traffic stop, who are we to question as long as it appears legal

Exceptions
    -license problems, mechanical problems, traffic violation
    -none of them involve evidence
    -even if it's a criminal violation

State v. Patten
    -article 1 section 7
    -warrant-less search can only be done if the perp is free and has access to the car and contents

State v. Grande
    -2008 pot smoke pouring out of car case

Questions that you have to know about your client:

Do they have a standing for privacy?
    -remember that question when dealing with searches and seizures

Did the client give consent?
    -consent gives the police power

Search Warrants
    -CRR 2.3 search warrant needs to be signed by objective judge not in case
    -normal routine:
        -police goes to judge with affidavit of probable cause
        -probable cause : evidence found in a specific location and a specific time
            -depends on crime, what you are searching for
            -confidential informant can be used (CI) to establish
    -the information has to be timely
   
Paperwork Required:
1. warrant itself
2. probable cause affidavit
3. search warrant return: filed with court following search
4. inventory: internal use

-cop can phone the warrant in too

3 Types of Identification Procedures
1. Show up
2. Montage
3. Line Up

Due process issues
    -identification procedures must be fair, can not be tainted by police
    -not so much of an issue now as it used to be

Miranda Rights
-police don't have to advise you of your rights
    -has to be custodial interrogation
    -has to be to illicit incriminating statements
-if the defendant waived Miranda, then the statement violates 5th Amendment
    -there are exceptions

-you must know the right you are waiving
-government has to be involved in governmental action

5th Amendment
-no rights to blood, hair, dna samples
-production of documents
    -incriminating evidence