Prior to start of Criminal Procedure (Summer 2013), you will need to pick up the Syllabus from Ms. Briggs Room 183B (or download it below). In this Syllabus you will find required materials, along with First Assignment instructions due prior to start of first day of class. You may email Ms. Briggs at aabriggs@uark.edu if you have any questions.
Also, please forward your email to Ms. Briggs a.s.a.p. You will most likely have daily emails with attachments.
Bailey CrimPr Summer 2013 Syllabus (CORRECTED – 10 May 2013)
The previous syllabus had a mistake on page 4. Please download this new syllabus with the corrections.
Crim Pro First Assign – Summer 2013
Please purchase Criminal Procedure Investigation and Right to Counsel – 2nd Edition. The bookstore should have this new edition available no later than 1st week of classes. The Supplement is NOT required!
Hypothetical Citizen X – Additional Facts
New York Times Readings
Fourth Amendment Readings
The circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourth Amendment indicate the nuances in the language used cannot readily be construed as clear evidence of the framer’s intent. It appears that the House never consciously agreed to the present form of the Amendment. As proposed by the Committee of eleven, the provision read:
“That right — to be secured in their persons, papers, houses, and effects shall not be violated by warrants issuing —.”
That was corrected to read:
“The right — to be secure — against unreasonable searches and seizures not be violated by warrants issuing.
At that point, Mr. Benson objected to the words, “by warrants issuing” as not being sufficient. His proposal that they be altered to read: “and no warrant shall issue” lost by a considerable majority. However, Benson, as Chairman of the Committee appointed to arrange the Amendments, reported his version (the rejected version) of the Amendment. His alteration was never noticed and was subsequently agreed to by the Senate and ratified by the states in that form.
A. What is a “Search?”
- Boyd v. United States
- Olmstead v. United States
- Katz v. U.S., p. 349
- U.S. v. White, p. 368
- Protecting Arkansas Citizens from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
Ark. Const. Art. 2, s 15 (2008)
s. 15. Unreasonable searches and seizures.
The right of the people of this State to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.
- Oliver v. U.S.
- Footnotes from Oliver
- U.S. v. Dunn
- Hester v. U.S.
- California v. Ciraolo
- Florida v. Riley, and p. 361
- California v. Greenwood, and p. 374
- Smith v. Maryland, p.387 note #1
- Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S.
- Kyllo v. U.S., Kyllo holding, and p.387
- U.S. v. Karo, p. 379
- U.S. v. Jones
- Florida v. Jardines
- U.S. v. Bond
- Illinois v. Caballes
B. Probable Cause
- Probable Cause and the Warrant Process, p. 420-21
- Draper v. U.S.
- Aguilar v. Texas
- Spinelli v. U.S.
- Illinois v. Gates, p. 426
- State version of Gates
- Ornelas v. U.S., p. 437
- Maryland v. Pringle, p. 442
- Massachusetts v. Upton
- The Warrant Process, p. 377-78
- Wilson v. Arkansas, and p. 452
- U.S. v. Banks, p. 453
- Notes # 4 & 5, p. 457
- Hudson v. Michigan
- Wilson v. Layne, p. 458
- U.S. v. Grubbs
C. The Exclusionary Rule – What happens if the 4th Amendment is violated?
- General Considerations, p. 334
- Weeks v. U.S.
- Wolf v. Colorado
- Wolf v. The People
- Mapp v. Ohio, p. 326
- U.S. v. Leon
- Does it HELP or HURT the Leon majority?
- Herring v. U.S.
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington
- Franks v. Delaware
- Hill v. California
- U.S. v. Lowery
- Lives Altered article
D. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement – “Exigent Circumstances”
- Police Reports
- Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, and p. 299
- Kentucky_v._King_10-2010.pdf
- Mincey v. Arizona, and p. 463
- Brigham City v. Stuart p. 100 (2010 Supp) or p. 460 2nd Ed.
- Michigan v. Jeremy Fisher
- Ryburn v. Huff
- Vale v. Louisiana
- Segura v. U.S.
- Segura, Part IV
- Notes on exigent circumstances, p. 404-13
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, p. 470
- Illinois v. McArthur, p. 475a>
- Special Facts – Is this an Exemption to the Warrant Requirement?
E. Exigent Circumstances and the Automobile
- Facts_in_Carroll.docx
- Carroll v. U.S.
- Chambers v. Mahoney
- Cardwell v. Lewis
- California v. Carney I
- California v. Carney II
F. Containers
- U.S. v. Chadwick
- Arkansas v. Sanders
- U.S. v. Ross
- Wyoming v. Houghton, and p. 503
- Virginia v. Moore
- California v. Acevedo, and p. 493
- U.S. v. Johns
G. Police Discretion and Profiling
- High Crime Area Definition
- Text – “Pre-textual” Search, Whren v. U.S., and p. 597
- Chicago v. Morales, p. 609
- State v. Sullivan
- Explanation of Sullivan I and II
H. “Plainview” Exception
- Horton v. California, p. 485
- Arizona v. Hicks, and p. 480
- U.S. v. Jacobsen
I. Public Arrest and Arrest in Suspect’s Own or 3rd Party’s Home
- Casebook, p. 509-15
- U.S. v. Watson, and p. 511
- Atwater v. Lago Vista, and p. 518
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington
- Gerstein v. Pugh
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, and p. 515
- Payton v. New York, and p. 516
- U.S. v. Santana
- Steagald v. U.S., p. 517
- Washington v. Chrisman
J. Standing
- Casebook, p. 697-98
- Minnesota v. Olson, and p. 698
- Minnesota v. Carter, p. 698
- Rakas v. Illinois, and p. 698
- Simmons v. U.S.
- Rawlings v. Kentucky
K. Search Incident to Arrest
- Chimel v. California, and p. 532
- Maryland v. Buie
- U.S. v. Robinson, p. 538
- Knowles v. Iowa, and p. 550
- Gustafson v. Florida
- New York v. Belton, and p. 541
- Thornton v. U.S., and p. 541 (then to opinions – then to latest slip opinions)
- Arizona v Gant
- More Arrests article
L. Consent Searches
- Bumper v. North Carolina
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, p. 668
- Ohio v. Robinette, p. 678
imeno- U.S. v. Matlock
- Georgia v. Randolph
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, and p. 676
- Ornelas v. U.S., p. 437
M. “Reasonableness” — less than Probable Cause to “Stop”
- Camara v. Municipal Court
- Terry v. Ohio, p. 557
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nevada
- Loitering
- Illinois v. Wardlow, p. 583
- Adams v. Williams
- Florida v. J.L., p. 578
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, and p. 575
- U.S. v. Sharpe, and p. 574
- Michigan v. Long, and p. 576
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, and p. 577
- New York v. Burger, p. 656
- Dunaway v. New York, p. 570
- Hayes v. Florida
N. Test for “Articulable Suspicion”
- U.S. v. Cortez
- Alabama v. White, and p. 578
O. Profiles, Consensual or “Terry” Stops (“Seizure”)
- U.S. v. Mendenhall
- U.S. v. Place, p. 366
- Illinois v. Cabelles
- Florida v. Royer, p. 571
- INS v. Delgado, and p. 401
- U.S. v. Sokolow, p. 590
P. “Seizure” of Person — “Chase” Context
- Brower v. County of Inyo, p. 405
- Michigan v. Chesternut
- Florida v. Bostick, and p. 394
- U.S. v. Drayton, p. 399
- California v. Hodari D.
- Brendlin v. California
- Tennessee v. Garner, p. 658
- Graham v. Connor
- Scott v. Harris
Q. Search and Seizure of Persons — Special Conditions
- Ybarra v. Illinois
- Michigan v. Summers
- Bailey v. United States
- New Jersey v. T.L.O, and p. 624
- Safford v. Redding
- Vernonia School District v. Acton, p. 641
- City of Ontario
- Ferguson v. Charleston, p. 643
- Casebook (other “Special Needs” cases), p. 612-15
R. Inventory Searches
- Cady v. Dombrowski, and p. 468
- South Dakota v. Opperman, and p. 550
- Illinois v. Lafayette
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington
- Colorado v. Bertine
- Florida v. Wells
- Welch v. State
- State v. Kelley
- Benson v. State
S. Road Blocks
- Border and Highway Safety Regulation, p. 804-13
- Delaware v. Prouse, and p. 625
- Michigan v. Sitz
- City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
T. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
- Wong Sun v. U.S., p. 709
- Brown v. Illinois
- U.S. v. Ceccolini, and p. 718
Misc.
Fifth Amendment Readings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamouse crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
A. Scope of the Fifth Amendment
- Brown v. Walker (dissent), p. 753-54
- Counselman v. Hitchcock, p. 754
- Brown v. Walker, p. 757
- Kastigar v. U.S., p. 762
- Schmerber v. California, p. 291
- Missouri v. McNeeley
- New Jersey v. Portash, p. 786
- U.S. v. Afflebaum, p. 787
- California v. Byers, p. 789
- Baltimore City Dept. of Social Services v. Bouknight, p. 791
B. Police Interrogation – When Does the Fifth Apply? (The Sixth Amendment Option)
- Bram v. U.S., p. 806
- Brown v. Mississippi, p. 807
- Massiah v. U.S., p. 813
- Escobedo v. Illinois, p. 817
C. Massiah in “Custody” or in Jail
- U.S. v. Henry
- Maine v. Moulton, p. 931
- Kuhlman v. Wilson, and p. 930
D. The Rule and the Familiar Warnings
- Miranda v. Arizona, p. 819
- Missouri v. Seibert, and p. 906
- Chavez v. Martinez
- California v. Prysock, and p. 859
- Duckworth v. Eagan, p. 859
- Florida v. Powell
E. What is “Interrogation”
- Rhode Island v. Innis, p. 845
- Illinois v. Perkins, p. 851
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, p. 756
F. What is Custody?
- Orozco v. Texas, and p. 841
- Berkemer v. McCarty, and p. 842
- Minnesota v. Murphy, and p. 843
- Howes, Warden v. Fields (Latest Slip Opinion)
- Warren v. Fields
G. Invoking Miranda’s Second Level (Silence or Counsel)
- Michigan v. Mosley, p. 861
- Edwards v. Arizona, and p. 863
- Maryland v. Shatzer
- Minnick v. Mississippi, p. 870
- Fare v. Michael C., and p. 870
- Oregon v. Bradshaw, p. 866
- Wyrick v. Fields
- Davis v. U.S., p. 868
- Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
- Michigan v. Jackson, p. 932
- Montejo v. Louisiana
- Patterson v. Illinois, p. 937
- McNiel v. Wisconsin, and p. 937
- Texas v. Cobb, and p. 941
- Blockburger Test
- Right-to-Counsel Equations
H. Waiving Miranda Rights
- Waiving Miranda Rights
- North Carolina v. Butler, and p. 872
- Moran v. Burbine, p. 874
- Colorado v. Spring, p. 873
I. Waiving Massiah Rights
- Brewer v. Williams, p. 920
J. Inevitable Discovery
- Nix v. Williams
- Murray v. U.S., p. 719
K. “Public Safety” Exception to Miranda
- New York v. Quarles, and p. 891
- U.S. v. Patane, p. 915
L. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Miranda
- Oregon v. Elstad, and p. 892
- Bobby v. Dixon
- Florida v. Jimeno
M. Admissibility of a Confession While a Citizen is Under Arrest or is “in Detention”
- 18 U.S.C.S. Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 5
- 18 U.S.C.S. § 3501
- Gerstein v. Pugh
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin
- Corley v. United States
N. “Free Will” and Waiver of Miranda Rights
O. “Harmless” Constitutional Error
P. Impeachment with a Product of a Miranda Violation
- Walder v. U.S.
- Harris v. New York
- Doyle v. Ohio, p. 905 note #7
- Jenkins v. Anderson, p. 905, note #7
- U.S. v. Havens
Q. Miranda Revisited
- Dickerson v. U.S., and p. 893
Sixth Amendment Readings
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
A. The Right to the Assistance of Counsel – Guilt Determining, Sentencing, & Revocation Proceedings
- Powell v. Alabama
- Betts v. Brady
- Gideon v. Wainwright, p. 117
- Original Petition of Clarence Earl Gideon
- U.S. v. Gonzales-Lopez
- Argensinger v. Hamlin, p. 125
- Scott v. Illinois, p. 129
- Baldasar v. Illinois, p. 131 note #10
- Alabama v. Shelton, p. 133
- Nichols v. U.S., p. 132, note #10
- Coleman v. Alabama, p. 168
- Mempa v. Rhay, p. 167
- Hamilton v. Alabama, p. 168
- Morissey v. Brewer, p. 168
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, p. 168
B. Right to Counsel on Appeal – Appeal of Right
- Griffin v. Illinois, p. 139
- Douglass v. California, p. 139
- Ross v. Moffitt (Discretionary Appeal), p. 140
C. Right to Counsel – Where the Penalty is Only a Fine
- Mayer v. City of Chicago, p. 158
- U.S. v. MacCollom, p. 159
- Williams v. Illinois, p. 161
- Tate v. Short, p. 161
- Bearden v. Georgia, p. 162
D. Indigent Defendant’s Right to an Expert
- Ake v. Oklahoma, p. 166
E. Effective Assistance of Counsel
- Stickland v. Washington, p. 170
- Wiggins v. Smith, and p. 186
- Crawford v. Washington
- Nix v. Whitside, p. 188
- Martinez v. Ryan
- Missouri v. Frye
- Lefler v. Cooper
F. Multiple Representation
- Casebook, p. 196-99
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, p. 200
G. Pro Se Representation
- Faretta v. California, p. 215
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, p. 231
- Morris v. Slappy, p. 238
- Anders v. California, p. 238
- McCoy v. Ct. of Appeals of Wisconsin, p. 239
- Penson v. Ohio, p. 238
H. Implications of Forfeiture Statutes
- Caplin & Drysdale Chartered v. U.S., p. 241
I. The Right to counsel at Lineups, Showups, and Photographic Arrays
- Critical Stage Proceedings, p. 239-40
- Stovall v. Denno
- U.S. v. Wade
- Kirby v. Illinois
- U.S. v. Ash
- Perry v. New Hampshire
J. The Due Process Approach – Revisited
K. Entrapment – Scope of the Rule
- Jacobson v. U.S., p. 972
- U.S. v. Russell, p. 983
