Criminal Procedure Flashcards

Officers stop a vehicle for a broken taillight. Upon approaching, an officer smells marijuana coming from inside the car. Without obtaining a warrant, the officers search the entire vehicle and find illegal weapons. The search is most likely:

Answer: Valid under the automobile exception if officers had probable cause to believe contraband was present

The automobile exception permits a warrantless search of a vehicle when officers have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The smell of marijuana provides probable cause, and the exception extends to the entire vehicle — including the trunk — if there is probable cause to believe contraband may be found anywhere in it.

Police arrest Defendant and, before administering Miranda warnings, ask him where he hid the stolen money. Defendant tells them it is under his mattress. At trial, the prosecution seeks to admit Defendant's statement. The statement is:

Answer: Inadmissible because police failed to give Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation

Miranda v. Arizona requires that before any custodial interrogation, police must inform the suspect of the right to remain silent, that statements may be used against them, and of the right to counsel. Custodial interrogation without these warnings renders any resulting statements inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, regardless of whether they were voluntarily made.

Police obtain a valid warrant to search Defendant's apartment for stolen jewelry. While executing the warrant, officers spot a bag of methamphetamine in plain view on the kitchen counter. The meth was not listed in the warrant. The drugs are:

Answer: Admissible under the plain view doctrine

The plain view doctrine allows officers to seize evidence not named in a warrant if: (1) the officer is lawfully present at the location, (2) the item is in plain view, and (3) its incriminating nature is immediately apparent. All three conditions are met here — officers were lawfully executing a valid warrant, the drugs were visible, and the incriminating character of methamphetamine is obvious.

Defendant is charged with a misdemeanor carrying a maximum sentence of six months in jail. He cannot afford an attorney and requests appointed counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment, Defendant:

Answer: Has the right to appointed counsel if the court actually sentences him to any period of incarceration

Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel extends to any offense for which the defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, even a single day. A court may not impose a sentence of incarceration unless the defendant was provided counsel or validly waived it — but if the court imposes only a fine, counsel is not constitutionally required.

Officers believe Defendant committed a serious felony and follow him to his home. Without a warrant, they knock, and when Defendant opens the door, they push inside and arrest him in his living room. Assuming no exigent circumstances existed and Defendant did not consent, the arrest is:

Answer: Invalid because the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless arrests inside a person's home absent exigent circumstances or consent

In Payton v. New York, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home to make a routine felony arrest. Even with probable cause, officers must obtain an arrest warrant (or face exigent circumstances or valid consent) before entering the home.

Defendant is tried for first-degree murder and the jury returns a verdict of not guilty. Investigators later discover compelling new evidence that Defendant did in fact commit the murder. The state may:

Answer: Not retry Defendant for any greater or lesser included homicide offense

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides an absolute bar to retrial after an acquittal. Once jeopardy attaches and a jury acquits, the state may not retry the defendant for the same offense or any lesser included offense, regardless of new evidence discovered afterward or alleged unfairness in the original proceeding.