CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I Professor Nancy S. Forster Fall 2017 Semester

Transcription

1 CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I Professor Nancy S. Forster Fall 2017 Semester This class will examine the constitutional principles governing the conduct of criminal prosecutions and the admissibility of evidence in those proceedings. The core federal constitutional amendments are the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth. We will examine the history of these amendments and the U.S. Supreme Court s interpretation of them. Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court case law will be critical to understanding modern criminal procedure. Required Reading Assignments: All cases reviewed in this class may be obtained on Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis. You are required to read the entire case unless otherwise directed. It is expected that students will be able to analyze carefully and engage in a critical discussion of these cases including procedural history of the case, prior holdings, facts, holdings and rationales. Class Participation: Participation in class is required and will be considered when grading. Each case will be assigned to a particular student for presentation in advance. That student will be expected to present the case and answer questions; however, students not assigned to present are still expected to read the cases and engage in class discussion. Should a student be unprepared for a particular class, he or she must notify me in advance of the class. Passing when called upon or stating that one is not prepared or otherwise providing an excuse for not being able to answer questions when called upon is not acceptable in this class. Continual unpreparedness for class discussion may result in the student being marked as absent from class. Attendance Policy: Class attendance is a primary obligation of each student whose right to continued enrollment in the course and to take the examination is conditioned upon a record of attendance satisfactory to the professor. A student who exceeds the maximum allowed absences (generally 20% of class sessions) as illustrated below may be compelled to withdraw from the course, or may be barred from sitting for the final exam. Students who are forced to withdraw for exceeding the allowed absences may receive a grade of FA (failure due to excessive absence). This policy is consistent with American Bar Association Standards for Law Schools. Regular Semester Hours Credit Hours Meetings Per Week 1

2 Course Website: absences 5 absences 3 2 absences 5 absences absences This course has a TWEN page that links to this syllabus, announcements, the class assignments, and other class materials. You are responsible for self-enrolling in the TWEN page and for checking it regularly for course information. Grades: Grades will be based upon the final exam (80%), case presentations (10%), and class participation (10%). Course Expectations: American Bar Association Standards for Law Schools establish guidelines for the amount of work students should expect to complete for each credit earned. Students should expect approximately one hour of classroom instruction and two hours of out-of-class work for each credit earned in a class, or an equivalent amount of work for other academic activities, such as simulations, externships, clinical supervision, co-curricular activities, and other academic work leading to the award of credit hours. Computers: Students may use laptop computers for class related purposes. Class Cancellation: If the instructor must cancel a class, notices will be sent to students via and posted on the classroom door. If there is inclement weather, students should visit the University of Baltimore web site or call the University's Snow Closing Line at (410) If the University is open, students should presume that classes are running on the normal schedule. Academic Integrity: Students are obligated to refrain from acts that they know or, under the circumstances, have reason to know will impair the academic integrity of the University and/or School of Law. Violations of academic integrity include, but are not limited to: cheating, plagiarism, misuse of materials, inappropriate communication about exams, use of unauthorized 2

3 materials and technology, misrepresentation of any academic matter, including attendance, and impeding the Honor Code process. The School of Law Honor Code and information about the process is available at Title IX Sexual Misconduct and Nondiscrimination Policy: The University of Baltimore s Sexual Misconduct and Nondiscrimination policy is compliant with Federal laws prohibiting discrimination. Title IX requires that faculty, student employees and staff members report to the university any known, learned or rumored incidents of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, stalking on the basis of sex, dating/intimate partner violence or sexual exploitation and/or related experiences or incidents. Policies and procedures related to Title IX and UB s nondiscrimination policies can be found at: Disability Policy: If you are a student with a documented disability who requires an academic accommodation, please contact Leslie Metzger, Director of Student Services, at or lmetzger@ubalt.edu. Contact Information: I may be reached by at any time at nsforster@gmail.com. My telephone number is between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. during the week or weekend. Please note that the gmail address must have an s before my last name. Part I: The Criminal Justice Process August 22, 2017 READING ASSIGNMENTS A. Regulation of State Criminal Processes B. Overview of Typical Criminal Process Part II: Police Practices August 24 29, 2017: A. The Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule 1. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) 3

4 B. Protected Areas and Interests: What is a search? 1. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) 2. Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170 (1984) 3. Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001) 4. Harris v. U.S., 568 U.S. 237 (2013) 5. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) 6. Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct (2014) 7. Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S.Ct (2015) 8. U.S. v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) August 31 September 5, 2017: A. Probable Cause 1. Spinelli v. U.S., 393 U.S. 410 (1969) 2. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) 3. Maryland v. Pringle, 124 S.Ct. 795 (2003) B. Arrest Warrants 1. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) 2. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) 3. Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) C. Search Warrants: Elements 1. Lo-Ji Sales Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979) 2. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976) 3. U.S. v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) September 7-12, 2017: A. Search Warrants: Execution 1. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) 2. U.S. v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003) 3. Illinois v. McArthur, 121 S.Ct. 946 (2001) 4. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) 5. Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) 6. Bailey v. U.S., 568 U.S. 186 (2013) 7. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2004) September 14, 19, 2017: 4

5 A. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Exigent Circumstances 1. Brigham v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) 3. Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct (2011) 4. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) B. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Searches Incident to Arrest 1. U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) 2. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct (2009) 3. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct (2016) 4. Florence v. Board, 132 S.Ct (2012) September 21, 2017: A. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Cars and Containers 1. Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925) 2. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1990) 3. Wyoming v. Houghton, 119 S.Ct (1999) B. Inventory Searches 1. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) 2. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) September 26, 28, 2017: A. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Plain View And Touch 1. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) 2. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) 3. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) B. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Consent 1. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) 2. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) 3. Georgia v. Randolph, 126 S.Ct (2006) 4. Fernandez v. California, 134 S.Ct (2014) October 3, 5, 2017: A. Lesser Intrusions: The Terry Doctrine 1. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1969) B. What is a seizure? Person 1. U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) 5

6 2. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S Calif. V. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) C. What is a seizure? Automobile Passengers 1. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) 2. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) October 10, 12, 17, 2017: A. Terry s Reasonable Suspicion Requirement 1. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2008) 2. U.S. v. Arivizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) 3. Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000) 4. Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S.Ct. 530 (2014) 5. Navarette v. California, 134 S.Ct (2014) 6. Rodriguez v. U.S., 135 S.Ct (2015) 7. Whren v. U.S., 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) B. Terry Frisk Following Lawful Seizure 1. Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. 781 (2009) C. Extending the Terry Doctrine 1. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) 2. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S (1983) October 19, 2017: A. Reasonableness in a Special Needs Context 1. Safford v. Redding, 129 S.Ct (2009) 2. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) 3. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) October 24, 26, 2017: A. Remedies for 4 th Amendment Violations: Standing 1. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) 2. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) 3. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) B. Remedies: Exclusionary Rule and Good Faith Exception 1. U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct (2012) C. Independent Source, Inevitable Discovery and Attenuation Doctrines 1. Murray v. U.S., 487 U.S. 533 (1988) 2. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 6

7 3. Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct (2016) PART III: POLICE INTERROGATION AND CONFESSIONS October 31, November 2, 2017: A. The Fifth Amendment Voluntariness Requirement 1. Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959) 2. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) 3. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) B. The Fifth Amendment and Miranda Self-Incrimination 1. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 2. Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) 3. Florida v. Powell, 130 S.Ct (2010) November 7, 2017: A. Miranda: When Does It Apply? 1. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) 2. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) 3. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) 4. Howes v. Fields, 132 S.Ct (2012) November 9, 14, 2017: A. Invocation of Miranda Rights 1. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) 2. Davis v. U.S., 512 U.S. 452 (2004) 3. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct (2010) 4. Bobby v. Dixon, 565 U.S. 23 (2011) 5. Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct (2013) B. Waiver of Miranda Rights 1. Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990) 2. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) 3. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) 4. Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S.Ct (2010) November 16, 21, 2017: A. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel: When Does It Apply? 1. McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) 7

8 2. Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 128 S.Ct (2008) B. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel: Invocation 1. Montejo v. Louisiana, 129 S.Ct (2009) 2. Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001) 3. Luis v. U.S., 136 S.Ct (2016) C. Waiver of Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel 1. Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344 (1990) 2. Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) 8