Criminal Procedure Flashcards

Police attach a GPS tracker to a suspect's car without a warrant and monitor it for 28 days. Under United States v. Jones, this conduct is:

Answer: A search, because the physical trespass to the vehicle to obtain information triggers the Fourth Amendment

Jones held that physically installing a GPS device on a vehicle to gather information is a Fourth Amendment search under a trespass theory.

A defendant seeks to suppress evidence found in a friend's apartment where he was merely a short-term visitor present for a business transaction. Under Minnesota v. Carter, the motion should be:

Answer: Denied, because a brief commercial visitor lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in another's home

Carter held that short-term visitors present solely for business purposes lack standing to challenge a search of the premises.

At a lineup conducted after indictment, the defendant is not allowed to have counsel present, and a witness identifies him. The in-court identification by that witness is admissible only if:

Answer: The prosecution shows by clear and convincing evidence an independent source for the identification

Under United States v. Wade, an in-court identification following an uncounseled post-indictment lineup requires proof of an independent source.

Defendant is charged in Oklahoma with a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, and the judge intends to impose only a fine. Under the Sixth Amendment, a jury trial is:

Answer: Not constitutionally required, because petty offenses with a maximum of six months or less carry no federal jury right

The federal jury right attaches only to serious offenses, generally those punishable by more than six months' imprisonment.

After a defendant's conviction is reversed on appeal for trial error, he is retried, convicted again, and the same judge imposes a harsher sentence, citing new evidence of post-trial misconduct on the record. Under North Carolina v. Pearce, the harsher sentence is:

Answer: Permissible, because the presumption of vindictiveness is rebutted by objective new information on the record

Pearce's presumption of vindictiveness can be overcome by objective, on-the-record information justifying the increased sentence.

Officers respond to a 911 call, enter a home, and see a suspect through a window actively beating another occupant. They enter without a warrant. The entry is:

Answer: Lawful under the emergency aid exception, because officers may enter to protect an occupant from imminent injury

Brigham City v. Stuart permits warrantless entry when officers reasonably believe an occupant faces imminent serious injury.

A defendant waives his Miranda rights and confesses, but police obtained an earlier unwarned confession in a deliberate two-step interrogation designed to undermine Miranda. Under Missouri v. Seibert, the second confession is:

Answer: Inadmissible, because midstream warnings in a deliberate two-step interrogation do not effectively convey the right to remain silent

Seibert condemns the deliberate question-first tactic, holding that midstream Miranda warnings are ineffective in such circumstances.