PROF. CARLTON BAILEY	FALL 2010

Robert A. Leflar Professor of Law

Office Hours: Whenever Professor is in his office and not otherwise occupied!

Office Phone: 575-5615

Office Room #: 315 (Professor C. Bailey)

E-Mail Address: cbailey@uark.edu

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

COURSE NO. 4173

SYLLABUS*

INDEX

Page

I.	First Assignment: Reading, First Class	2-3

II.	First Assignment: Textbook, Supplementary Reading List, & Syllabus	4

III.	A Guide to Case Analysis	4

IV.	Grade, Classroom Attendance, Class Participation,

Extra Points Based on Film Clips, Professor's Expectations,

Professor's Responses to answers given in class, Attendance Policy	5

• Prof. Bailey's Office Hours, Telephone, and E-Mail Address	7

V.	Sample Scantron	8

VI.	Sample Bluebook Cover Page	9

VII.	Exemplary Queries of a Criminal Procedure Examination	10

•	Part I - Multiple Choice	10

•	Part II - Short Answer Query	10

VIII.	Arkansas Bar Examination Questions	Law School's Web page (law library)**

IX.	Facts in Multiple Slayings Case	11-11

X.	Incorporation	12-17

XI.	Fourth Amendment - (Reading List)	18-24

XII.	Fifth Amendment - (Reading List)	25-28

XIII.	Sixth Amendment - (Reading List)	29-31

XIV.	Cases, Codes Annotated on the Web:

(See pp. 2-5 for a list of all cases on the Web)

**To the Web page: First: Home page for the University of Arkansas School of Law; Second: Young Library - Link; Third: Reserve Materials - Link; Fourth: Carlton Bailey - web resources; Fifth: Criminal Procedure - Link

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I.	FIRST ASSIGNMENT

READ: Every line of infra pages 2-11 of this Syllabus.

What is a "search"?

(a)	BOYD v. UNITED STATES — Prof. Bailey will lecture — (on the Web)

(b)	OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES — (on the Web)

(c)	KATZ v. U.S. — P. 349 CB

(d)	U.S. v. WHITE — P. 368 CB

(e)	OLIVER v. U.S. — (on the Web)

(f)	FOOTNOTES FROM OLIVER — (on the Web)

(g)	HESTER v. UNITED STATES — (on the Web)

(h)	U.S. v. DUNN — (on the Web)

(i)	CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO — (on the Web)

(j)	FLORIDA v. RILEY — (on the Web and p. 361 cb)

(k)	CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD — (on the Web and p. 374 cb)

(l)	SMITH v. MARYLAND — P. 378 CB Note #1

(m)	KYLLO v. UNITED STATES — (on the Web and p. 387 cb)

(n)	UNITED STATES v. KARO — P. 379 CB

(o)	DOW CHEMICAL v. U.S. — (on the Web)

(p)	UNITED SATES v. BOND — (on the Web)

(q)	ILLINOIS v. CABALLES — (on the Web)

FIRST CLASS

Be prepared to discuss the cases (a)-(j) assigned above. You will be asked to apply [what you have read] the principles, reasoning and language from those cases to a Film Clip to be shown on the First Day of Class. AND, please submit upon entering class the answers for the Hypothetical Scenario found on pages 2-4 of this syllabus. Please submit your answers on the form found at page 4 of this syllabus. Points (see page #6) earned from this exercise will count as Bonus Points toward your Final Examination Score.

Hypothetical Scenario

On the afternoon of Wednesday, June 16, 2010, officers from the University of Arkansas Police Department (UAPD) and the Fayetteville Police Department (FPD) met at the UAPD office to discuss plans for drug enforcement and interdiction on or near the University of Arkansas campus. Although there has only been one notable arrest (former athlete arrested for snorting cocaine in an SUV near Dickson Street) for illicit drug use in the past two years, the officers worried that the growth of the student population and the influx of new and diverse populations would signal an up-tick in illicit drug distribution and associated crimes.

As a result, both departments decided to set-up plain clothes police surveillances at various city and University restrooms. The departments would setup two (2) person teams. Each team would consist of an officer from each department. One team member would be a "spotter" and the other would be the "observer". The "spotter's" job involved patrolling the entrance and exit to the restroom. Using a radio microphone on his/her collar and a receiver in his/her ear, the "spotter" communicated the descriptions (and the number) of persons entering and exiting the restroom to the "observer". In turn, the "observer" communicated to the "spotter" about the activities of those persons who entered the restroom. If those persons engaged in illegal activities the "observer" would send a message to the "spotter" and to the UAPD office for "back-up".

On the University's campus the "observers" were all located in the restroom's "plumbing access area". The University's "plumbing access area" lies between the men's restroom and the women's restroom. The men's room and women's room are located back-to-back with the commodes linked to a common plumbing "tree". That plumbing "tree" covers much of the space in the "plumbing access area". As a result, this area affords accessibility to the plumbing running from each individual commode through the wall of the men's and women's rooms respectively. The "observer" had cut out a camouflaged (could not be detected by a person in the stalls or any other part of the restroom) "peephole" that allowed the "observer" to monitor activities in each restroom stall and those in the "open" restroom area.

So, on June 18, 2010, Officer J. Crane was acting as a "spotter" at the law school restrooms, his "observer" was Lt. Martin Banks. At 11:30 a.m. the officers were "spotting" and "observing" the restrooms on the second floor near the courtroom - Room 240. At about 11:35 a.m. Officer Crane saw a short (5'5") white male wearing a green baseball cap with white "CELTICS" lettering on its front panel enter the men's restroom. Ten (10) seconds later, Lt. Banks confirmed that a man fitting that description had entered stall #6 (the furthest stall from the entrance). Each stall was enclosed by three walls and a door. The guy in the Celtics cap closed his door.

A few minutes after the guy in the Celtics cap entered stall #6, Officer Crane alerted Banks that a tall (6'5") bearded man wearing a red cap with "HOGS" in white lettering on its panel was entering the restroom. Lt. Banks answered, "Roger that! I see him." The tall man went to stall #6 and knocked 3 quick times, paused, and knocked one more time. Lt. Banks saw the short man open the door. Once inside the stall with the shorter man, the tall man closed the stall door. Lt. Banks saw the tall man pull up his shirt. Around the tall man's waist was a money belt. He took the money belt off his waist and opened a compartment on it. Inside Lt. Banks could see 10 or 12 small plastic bags filled with small white rock-like substances. In the meantime, the shorter man had produced an envelope filled with Big Head hundred dollar bills. Lt. Banks alerted Officer Crane that a drug transaction was "going down!" Officer Crane called the UAPD office for back-up. As the tall man stepped out of the stall he was greeted by Officer Crane and two fellow officers.

The tall man (Arthur Pennington) and the short man (Bradley Noland) were arrested, handcuffed and searched. Pursuant to this search the police found (1) 25 baggies of crack cocaine on Pennington; (2) an unregistered gun; (3) a key to a public storage facility (inside that storage unit the police found 2 dead bodies and a photograph of a smiling Pennington with these words, "Yeah, I killed both of them, signed, Arthur Pennington"); and (4) $65,000 in cash, all Big Head Hundreds. On Brad Noland the police found: (a) five baggies (exactly like the ones possessed by Pennington) of crack cocaine; (b) an unregistered handgun; and (c) a list of persons who would receive the five baggies.

First Written Assignment

[Copy this form, Complete it and Submit it to Professor Bailey on the First Day of Class - place in the envelope entitled, "First Written Assignment".]

A.	Were the Fourth Amendment Rights of the "Short man" (B. Noland) implicated in this scenario?

2 ½ points	1.	Yes________ or No________

2 ½ points	2.	Cite a (only one (1)) case that supports your answer to A.1. above.

_______________________________________________________

B.	Were the Fourth Amendment Rights of the "Tall man" (A. Pennington) implicated in this scenario?

2 ½ points	1.	Yes________ or No________

2 ½ points	2.	Cite a (only one (1)) case that supports your answer to B.1. above.

_______________________________________________________

C.	Does this scenario implicate the Fourth Amendment Rights of any other members of the law school community?

2 ½ points	1.	Yes________ or No________

2 ½ points	2.	Cite a (only one (1)) case that supports your answer to C.1. above.

_______________________________________________________

II.	TEXTBOOK, SUPPLEMENTARY READING LIST, AND SYLLABUS

Criminal Procedure (Investigation and Right to Counsel)

by Allen, Hoffman, Livingston and Stuntz. [REQUIRED]

Cases on the Web!! [REQUIRED]

Syllabus: By Professor Carlton Bailey [REQUIRED]

Please collect the Syllabus room 183B.

Supplementary Reading List:

LaFave and Israel, Criminal Procedure (West) [NOT REQUIRED]

Saltzburg, American Criminal Procedure (West) [NOT REQUIRED]

(Your selection! Whatever works for you!)

III.	A GUIDE TO CASE ANALYSIS

After reading each case in the casebook the following questions should be answered:

1.	What are the facts of the case? (Include the procedural facts). What was the court's holding?

2.	What rule(s) may be extracted from the appellate court's holding? What are the exceptions to that rule?

3.	How did the rule develop and why did it develop? What are the vital policy considerations behind the court's ruling? (What policies are frustrated by the rule?)

4.	Are there conflicting policy considerations?

5.	Is the rule to be limited to the facts of this case or do the underlying policy considerations permit use or expansion of the rule to other fact situations?

6.	Is the rule sound (practical)?

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

IV. GRADE AND CLASSROOM ATTENDANCE POLICIES*
A. FINAL GRADE COMPONENTS – A TOTAL OF 600 POINTS
The final grade in the course will be based on:
1. Final Examination----------------------------------------------------	-350 Points
a) Long Fact Pattern-------------------------------------------	-100 Points
b) Multiple Choice---------------------------------------------	-250 Points
2. Answer to True/False Query***-----------------------------------	-100 Points
3. Film Clips, Writing Assignments, Responding

(or failing to respond) to questions during class-----------------

-150 Points
4. Redoing First Film Clip or redoing the First

Written Assignment (not both!!) }by Sept. 15, 2010
5. Ambassadors----------------------------------------------------------	------------?
6. Attendance/classroom participation (or lack

thereof). See E attendance policy, pp. 6-8 of syllabus.----------

------------?
7. Exceeding the number of times allowed to write

"I am unprepared today"
TOTAL	600 points

B.	CLASSROOM PARTICIPATION POLICY*

(Film Clip on first day of class = IV.A.3. ____ points!)

(Query after Elstad on the web = Bonus ____ points!)

(Due no later than noon, Monday, October 18, 2010)

Students are expected to be fully prepared for each class. A student who is unprepared faces the possibility of a grade reduction. Failing to respond when called on is an example of being unprepared. A student may be excused from Classroom Participation by signing the "not prepared today" sheet before class begins. A limit of two (2) Excuses!

C.	***True/False Query

Recent United States Supreme Court opinions have provided needed clarity and specificity to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement.

1.	True _____ or False _____

Please submit a response to office # 183-B, no later than noon, Monday, October 18, 2010. Your response should not exceed 150 words.

*CLASS DISCUSSIONS/LECTURES MAY NOT BE TAPE RECORDED!

** Please see and understand pages 6-8 of the Syllabus!

D.	PROFESSOR'S EXPECTATIONS FOR CLASSROOM DISCUSSION

Students may contribute to class discussions and earn classroom participation points by:

1.	Providing a statement of essential facts;

2.	Identifying issue(s) to be decided by the court;

3.	Identifying the test(s), precedent(s), or rule(s) the court used to resolve the issues or the ones the court should have used;

4.	Explaining whether that test/precedent/rule was followed specifically, modified slightly, modified a lot - [Is it the same rule?];

5.	Identifying any other basic (Black letter law) principles or any other insights gleaned from the opinion;

6.	Answering the professor's invitation to cogitate on this. . . ;

7.	Posing a question to your professor in the "I still don't get it" file (available each day in the class);

8.	Reading an excerpt from an assigned case and then interpreting the meaning of that passage.

E.	PROFESSOR'S RESPONSES TO ANSWERS GIVEN IN CLASS:

1.	"KUDOS" - Can't get much better. (Very insightful - potential to teach own class!);

2.	"EXCELLENT" - Accurate, a tad insightful;

3.	"GOOD OR ABSOLUTELY" - Accurate though not insightful;

4.	"OK" - Satisfactory;

5.	"YOU DON'T MEAN THAT?" - Less than satisfactory;

6.	"UNPREPARED OR FAILING TO ANSWER" - See V.B. p.4.

F.	ATTENDANCE POLICY

Students are expected to attend classes regularly. Excessive absenteeism will result in grade reduction.

After a fourth (4th) absence, the Professor may subject the student to a single grade reduction. More than five (5) absences may result in a full letter reduction. Students who are absent seven (7) or more times will receive a failing grade. Excuses must be submitted to Professor Bailey's assistant in Room 183B no later than 48 hours after the missed class. Excuses are accepted only after the fourth (4th) absence and then only in the Professor's discretion. [Excuses will not be evaluated until after the final examination.]

PROFESSOR BAILEY'S GENERAL INFORMATION

Students are encouraged to visit Professor Bailey at any time during the semester to discuss their classroom performances, film clips, or any other aspect of the course. You may also e-mail queries to Professor Bailey. (Try to keep them short!)

OFFICE HOURS:	9:00 - Noon on Wednesday or Friday or whenever you find the Professor in his office, # 315.

OFFICE PHONE:	575-5615

E-MAIL ID:	cbailey@uark.edu

BEFORE/AFTER CLASS:	Students may submit Questions/Comments/Suggestions

(See the Query Form on the web)

"I STILL DON'T GET (??)":	File folder will be available at Professor Bailey's assistant desk in room 183B and a folder will be available at each class session.

If you claim any disability that you believe will preclude you

from complying with the requirements of this course, please see Associate Dean for Students, James Miller in office #194 or call him at (575-5618).

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

VII. EXEMPLARY QUERIES OF A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EXAMINATION

(These queries are based on the newspaper article concerning Cassandra Small, See infra pp. 16 of Syllabus)

PART I - MULTIPLE CHOICE

Brock has asked the court to exclude any references to the Wal-Mart employee's out-of-court identification and Scooter's identification or the dog's apparent reaction to him during the lineup. In determining whether to sustain Brock's objection and motion to exclude these out-of-court identifications, Judge Storey must consider:

(a)	whether Brock was formally charged;

(b)	the effect of both the dog and the Wal-Mart employee making simultaneous identifications;

(c)	whether either had previously identified Brock; or

(d)	the nature and gravity of the criminal offense.

Of these four (4) considerations, the ones most applicable under present law include:

1.	(a) and (d) only

2.	(d) only

3.	(a) and (c) only

4.	None of the alternatives as presented in 1-3 above.

PART II - SHORT ANSWER QUERY

What case or cases best inform Judge Storey about whether he should permit the Wal-Mart employee to make an in-court identification? Explain.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

1788 - (In the Beginning)

Criminal Defendant

THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

(1)	The power of Congress to punish counterfeiting securities (government bonds), current coins, piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the United States (Art. I, Sec. 8, 9);

(2)	the preservation of the writ of habeas corpus (Art. I, Sec. 9);

(3)	the prohibition against bills of attainder (conviction without trial) and ex post facto laws (making criminal acts retroactive) (Art. I, Sec. 9--repeated in Art. I, Sec. 10 against state powers);

(4)	providing for trial by jury and venue (Art. 3, Sec. 2--later strengthened by the 6th Amendment);

(5)	the power of Congress to punish treason and the evidentiary requirements (Art. 3, Sec. 3);

(6)	the requirement that citizens of each state be afforded all the privileges and immunities by the other states (Art. 4, Sec. 2); and

(7)	the extradition provision (Art. 4, Sec. 2).

1789 - (James Madison Bill of Rights)

BILL OF RIGHTS

Contained within the 462-word Bill of Rights are approximately 25 constitutional guarantees; of these, 12 rights directly apply to the criminal process. For your convenience, a list of these guarantees appears below:

(1)	no unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment);

(2)	grand jury indictments required for capital and infamous (felony) crimes (5th Amendment);

(3)	the prohibition against double jeopardy (5th Amendment);

(4)	the privilege against self-incrimination (5th Amendment);

(5)	the right to a speedy trial (6th Amendment);

(6)	the right to a public trial (6th Amendment);

(7)	the right to a jury trial (6th Amendment);

(8)	the right to confront prosecution witnesses (6th Amendment);

(9)	the right to present defense witnesses (6th Amendment);

(10)	the right to counsel (6th Amendment);

(11)	no excessive bail or fines (8th Amendment);

(12)	no cruel or unusual punishments (8th Amendment).

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

BARRON v. BALTIMORE, 7 Peters 247 (1833)

5TH AMENDMENT

" ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

1866 - (The Fourteenth Amendment)

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

The 39th Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1866. Section 1 of that Amendment contains three (3) important clauses, chiefly composed by Representative John A. Bingham of Ohio:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States [the privileges and immunity clause]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [the due process clause]; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [the equal protection clause]."

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES, 16 Wallace 36 (1873)

[Privileges and Immunity Clause]

HURTADO v. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)

5th Amendment requirement of grand jury indictments.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PALKO v. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)

5th Amendment double jeopardy — "... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"

"Implicit in a concept of ordered liberty"

(1)	"To abolish [certain rights] is not to violate a 'principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental'." (Text)

(2)	"Is that kind of double jeopardy to which the [Conn.] statute has subjected [Palko] a hardship so acute and shocking that our polity will not endure it?" (Text)

(3)	"Does [this kind of double jeopardy] violate those 'fundamental' principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions?" (Text)

NO INCORPORATION

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TOTAL

SELECTIVE

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

NEO

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

READING LIST

FOURTH AMENDMENT

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.

I.	FOURTH AMENDMENT

A.	What is a "Search"?

1.	Boyd v. United States	Prof. Bailey lectures - case on the web

2.	Olmstead v. United States	(on the web)

3.	Katz v. U.S.	p. 349 cb

4.	U.S. v. White	p. 368 cb

5.	Oliver v. United States	(on the web)

6.	(Footnotes from Oliver)	(on the web)

7.	U.S. v. Dunn	(on the web)

8.	Hester v. United States	(on the web)

9.	California v. Ciraolo	(on the web)

10.	Florida v. Riley	(on the web and p. 361 cb)

11.	California v. Greenwood	(on the web and p. 374 cb)

12.	Smith v. Maryland	p. 387 cb Note #1

13.	Dow Chemical Co. v. United States	(on the web)

14.	Kyllo v. United States	(on the web and p. 387 cb)

15.	United States v. Karo	p. 379 cb

16.	United States v. Bond	(on the web)

17.	Illinois v. Caballes	(on the web)

B.	Probable Cause

18.	Probable Cause and the Warrant Process	pp. 420-21 cb

a. (What is this about?)

19.	Draper v. United States	(on the web)

20.	Aguilar v. Texas	(on the web)

21.	Spinelli v. United States	(on the web)

22.	Illinois v. Gates	p. 426 cb

23.	Bornelas v. United States

24.	Maryland v. Pringle	p. 442 cb

25.	Massachusetts v. Upton	(on the web)

26.	The Warrant Process	p. 377-78 cb

27.	Wilson v. Arkansas	p. 452 cb & (on the web)

28.	United States v. Banks	p. 453 cb

29.	Notes # 4 & 5	p. 457 cb

30.	Hudson v. Michigan	(on the web)

31.	Wilson v. Layne	p. 458 cb

C.	The Exclusionary Rule — (What happens if the Fourth Amendment is violated?)

32.	General Considerations	p. 334 cb

33.	Weeks v. United States	(on the web)

34.	Wolf v. Colorado	(on the web)

35.	Mapp v. Ohio	p. 326 cb

36.	United States v. Leon	p. 683 cb

37.	Herring v. United States	(on the web)

38.	Franks v. Delaware	(on the web)

39.	Hill v. California	(on the web)

D.	Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement - ("Exigent Circumstances")

40.	Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden	p. 299 cb & (on the web)

41.	Mincey v. Arizona	p. 463 cb & (on the web)

41(a)	Michigan v. Fisher	(on the web)

42.	Vale v. Louisiana	(on the web)

43.	Sequra v. U.S.	(on the web)

44.	Notes on exigent circumstances	pp. 404-413 cb & (on the web)

45.	Welsh v. Wisconsin	p. 470 cb

46.	Illinois v. McArthur	p. 475 cb

E.	Exigent Circumstances and the Automobile

47.	Carroll v. United States	(on the web)

48.	Chambers v. Maroney	(on the web)

49.	United States v. Ross	p. 492 cb

50.	Cardwell v. Lewis	(on the web)

51.	California v. Carney	. (on the web)

F.	Containers

52.	U.S. v. Chadwick	(on the web)

53.	Arkansas v. Sanders	(on the web)

54.	U.S. v. Ross	p. 492 cb (better statement of facts) & (on the web)

55.	Wyoming v. Houghton	p. 503 cb & (on the web)

56.	California v. Acevedo	p. 493 cb & (on the web)

57.	U.S. v. Johns	(on the web)

G.	Police discretion and Profiling

58.	Text - "Pre-textual" Search Whren v. U S	p. 597 cb & (on the web)

59.	Chicago v. Morales	p. 609 cb

60.	State v. Sullivan (I)	(on the web)

61.	Explanation of Sullivan I and Sullivan II	(on the web)

H.	"Plainview" Exception

62.	Horton v. California	p. 485 cb

63.	Arizona v. Hicks	p. 480 cb & (on the web)

64.	United States v. Jacobsen	(on the web)

I.	Public Arrest & Arrest in Suspect's Own or 3rd Party's Home	pp. 509-15 cb

65.	U.S. v. Watson	p. 511 cb & (on the web)

66.	Atwater v. Lago Vista et al	p. 518 cb & (on the web)

67.	Virginia v. Moore	(on the web)

68.	Gerstein v. Pugh	(on the web)

69.	County of Riverside v. McLaughlin	p. 515 cb & (on the web)

70.	See Part M infra at page 26 of syllabus - Fifth Amendment

71.	Payton v. New York	p. 516 cb & (on the web)

72.	United States v. Santana	(on the web)

73.	Steagald v. U.S.	p. 517 cb

74.	Washington v. Chrisman	(on the web)

J.	Standing	p. 697-98 cb

75.	Minnesota v. Olson	p. 698 cb & (on the web)

76.	Minnesota v. Carter	p. 698 cb

77.	Rakas v. Illinois	p. 698 cb & (on the web)

78.	Simmons v. United States	(on the web)

79.	Rawlings v. Kentucky	(on the web)

K.	Search Incident to Arrest

80.	Chimel v. California	p. 532 cb & (on the web)

81.	Maryland v. Buie	(on the web)

82.	U.S. v. Robinson	p. 538 cb

83.	Knowles v. Iowa	p. 550 cb & (on the web)

84.	Gustafson v. Florida	(on the web)

85.	New York v. Belton	p. 541 cb & (on the web)

86.	Thornton v. United States	p. 541 cb & (on the web)

87.	Arizona v. Gant	(on the web)

L.	Consent Searches

88.	Bumper v. North Carolina	(on the web)

89.	Schneckloth v. Bustamonte	p. 668 cb

90.	Ohio v. Robinette	p. 678 cb

91.	Florida v. Jimeno	p. 678 cb

92.	United States v. Matlock	(on the web)

93.	George v. Randolph	(on the web)

94.	Illinois v. Rodriguez	p. 676 cb & (on the web)

95.	Ornelas v. U.S.	p. 437 cb

M.	"Reasonableness" — less than Probable Cause to "Stop"

96.	Camara v. Municipal Court	(on the web)

97.	Terry v. Ohio	p. 557 cb

98.	Hiibel v. 6th Jud. Dist. Ct of Nev., Humboldt City	(on the web-"Larry Hiibel")

99.	Illinois v. Wardlow	p. 583 cb

100.	Adams v. Williams	(on the web)

101.	Florida v. JL	p. 578 cb

102.	Pennsylvania v. Mimms	p. 575 cb & (on the web)

103.	United States v. Sharpe	p. 574 cb & (on the web)

104.	Michigan v. Long	p. 576 cb & (on the web)

105.	Minnesota v. Dickerson	p. 577 cb & (on the web)

106.	New York v. Burger	p. 656 cb

107.	Dunaway v. New York	p. 570 cb

108.	Hayes v. Florida	(on the web)

N.	Test for "Articulable Suspicion"

109.	United States v. Cortez	(on the web)

110.	Alabama v. White	p. 578 cb & (on the web)

O.	Profiles, Consensual or "Terry" Stops ("Seizure")

111.	U.S. v. Mendenhall	(on the web)

112.	U.S. v. Place	p. 366 cb & (on the web)

113.	Illinois v. Caballes	(on the web)

114.	Florida v. Royer	p. 571 cb

115.	INS v. Delgado	p. 401 cb & (on the web)

116.	United States v. Sokolow	p. 590 cb

P.	"Seizure" of Person – "Chase" Context

117.	Brower v. County of Inyo	p. 405 cb

118.	Michigan v. Chesternut	(on the web)

119.	Florida v. Bostick	p. 394 cb & (on the web)

120.	United States v. Drayton	p. 399 cb & (on the web)

121.	California v. Hodari D	(on the web)

122.	Brendlin v. California	(on the web)

123.	Tennessee v. Garner	p. 658 cb

124.	Scott v. Harris	(on the web)

Q.	Search and Seizure of Persons – Special Conditions

125.	Ybarra v. Illinois	(on the web)

126.	Michigan v. Summers	(on the web)

127.	New Jersey v. T.L.O.	p. 624 cb & (on the web)

128.	Safford v. Redding	(on the web)

129.	Vernonia School District v. Acton	p. 641 cb

130.	Ferguson v. Charleston	p. 643 cb

131.	Text cb (Other "Special Needs" Cases)	pp. 612-615 cb

R.	Inventory Searches

132.	Cady v. Dombrowski	p. 468 cb & (on the web)

133.	South Dakota v. Opperman	p. 550 cb & (on the web)

134.	Illinois v. Lafayette	(on the web)

135.	Colorado v. Bertine	(on the web)

136.	Florida v. Wells	(on the web)

137.	Welch v. State	(on the web)

S.	Road Blocks

138.	Border and Highway Safety Regulation	p. 804-13 cb

139.	Delaware v. Prouse	p. 625 cb & (on the web)

140.	Michigan v. Sitz	(on the web)

141.	City of Indianapolis v. Edmond	p. 626 cb

142.	Illinois v. Lidster	p. 635 cb

T.	Fruit of Poisonous Tree

143.	Wong Sun v. United States	p. 709 cb

144.	Brown v. Illinois	(on the web)

145.	United States v. Ceccolini	p. 718 cb & (on the web)

U.	Miscellaneous Cases and Acts

146.	Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act	(on the web)

147.	Protect America Act	(on the web)

148.	42 U.S.C. § 1983	(on the web)

149.	Bivens v. Sic Unknown	(on the web)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

FIFTH AMENDMENT

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous 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.

[MAKE SURE YOU READ THE WEB VERSION OF THESE CASES!]

II.	FIFTH AMENDMENT

A.	Scope of the Fifth Amendment

1.	Brown v. Walker (dissent)	p. 753-54 cb

2.	Counselman v. Hitchcock	p. 754 cb

3.	Brown v. Walker	p. 757 cb

4.	Kastigar v. United States	p. 762 cb

5.	Schmerber v. California	p. 291 cb & (on the web)

6.	New Jersey v. Portash	p. 786 cb

7.	United States v. Afflebaum	p. 787 cb

8.	California v. Byers	p. 789 cb

9.	Baltimore City Department of Social

Services v. Bouknight	p. 791 cb

B.	Police Interrogation - When Does the Fifth Apply? (The Sixth Amendment Option)

10.	Bram v. United States	p. 806 cb

11.	Brown v. Mississippi	p. 807 cb

12.	Massiah v. United States	p. 813 cb

13.	Escobedo v. Illinois	p. 817 cb

C.	Massiah in "Custody" or in Jail

14.	U.S. v. Henry	(on the web)

15.	Maine v. Moulton	p. 931 cb

16.	Kuhlman v. Wilson	p. 930 cb & (on the web)

D.	The Rule and the Familiar Warnings

17.	Miranda v. Arizona	p. 819 cb

18.	Missouri v. Seibert	p. 906 cb & (on the web)

19.	Chavez v. Martinez	(on the web)

20.	California v. Prysock	p. 859 cb & (on the web)

21.	Duckworth v. Eagan	p. 859 cb

E.	What is "Interrogation"?

22.	Rhode Island v. Innis	p. 845 cb

23.	Illinois v. Perkins	p. 851 cb

24.	Pennsylvania v. Muniz	p. 756 cb

F.	What is Custody?

25.	Orozoco v. Texas	p. 841 cb & (on the web)

26.	Berkermer v. McCarty	p. 842 cb & (on the web)

27.	Minnesota v. Murphy	p. 843 cb & (on the web)

G.	Invoking Miranda's Second Level (Silence or Counsel)

29.	Michigan v. Mosley	p. 861 cb

30.	Edwards v. Arizona	p. 863 cb

31.	Minnick v. Mississippi	p. 870 cb

32.	Fare v. Michael C.	p. 870 cb & (on the web)

33.	Oregon v. Bradshaw	p. 866 cb

34.	Wyrick v. Fields	(on the web)

35.	Davis v. United States	p. 868 cb

36.	Michigan v. Jackson	p. 932 cb

37.	Montejo v. Louisiana	(overrules Michigan v. Jackson)-(on the web)

38.	Patterson v. Illinois	p. 937 cb

39.	McNiel v. Wisconsin	p. 937 cb & (on the web)

40.	Texas v. Cobb	p. 941 cb & (on the web)

41.	Blockburger Test	(on the web)

42.	Right to Counsel Equations	(on the web)

H.	Waiving Miranda Rights

43.	North Carolina v. Butler	p. 872 cb & (on the web)

44.	Moran v. Burbine	p. 874 cb

45.	Colorado v. Spring	p. 873 cb

I.	Waiving Massiah Rights

46.	Brewer v. Williams	p. 920 cb

J.	Inevitable Discovery

47.	Nix v. Williams	(on the web)

48.	Murray v. United States	p. 719 cb

K.	"Public Safety" Exception to Miranda

49.	New York v. Quarles	p. 891 cb (on the web)

50.	United States v. Patane,	p. 915 cb & (on the web)

L.	Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Miranda

51.	Oregon v. Elstad	p. 892 cb & (on the web)

M.	Admissibility of a confession while a citizen is under arrest or "in detention"

52.	18 U.S.C.S. Fed. R. Crim. P. 5

53.	18 U.S.C.S. § 3501

54.	Gerstein v. Pugh	(on the web)

55.	County of Riverside v. McLaughlin	(on the web)

56.	Cortez v. United States	(on the web)

N.	"Free Will" and Waiver of Miranda Rights

57.	Colorado v. Connelly	(on the web)

O.	"Harmless" Constitutional Error

58.	Arizona v. Fulminante	(on the web)

P.	Impeachment With a Product of a Miranda Violation

59.	Walder v. United States	(on the web)

60.	Harris v. New York	(on the web)

61.	Doyle v. Ohio	p. 905 cb Note #7

62.	Jenkins v. Anderson	p. 905 cb Note #7

63.	U.S. v. Havens	(on the web)

Q.	Miranda Revisited

64.	Dickerson v. United States	p. 893 cb & (on the web)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

READING LIST

SIXTH AMENDMENT

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.

III.	SIXTH AMENDMENT

A.	The Right to the Assistance of Counsel - Guilt Determining/ Sentencing/ Revocation Proceedings

1.	Powell v. Alabama	(on the web)

2.	Betts v. Brady	(on the web)

3.	Gideon v. Wainwright	p. 117 cb

4.	United States v. Gonzales-Lopes	(on the web)

5.	Argensinger v. Hamlin	p. 125 cb

6.	Scott v. Illinois	p. 129 cb

7.	Baldasar v. Illinois	p. 131 cb Note #10

8.	Alabama v. Shelton	p. 133 cb

9.	Nichols v. United States	p. 132 cb Note #10

10.	Coleman v. Ala.	p. 167 cb

11.	Mempa v. Rhay	p. 167 cb

12.	Hamilton v. Ala.	p. 168 cb

13.	Morissey v. Brewer	p. 168 cb

14.	Gagnon v. Scarpelli	p. 168 cb

B.	Right to Counsel on Appeal – Appeal of Right

15.	Griffin v. Illinois	p. 139 cb

16.	Douglass v. California	p. 139 cb

17.	Ross v. Moffitt (Discretionary Appeal)	p. 140 cb

C.	Right to Counsel - Where the Penalty Is Only A Fine

18.	Mayer v. City of Chicago	p. 158 cb

19.	United States v. MacCollom	p. 159 cb

20.	Williams v. Illinois	p. 161 cb

21.	Tate v. Short	p. 161 cb

22.	Bearden v. Georgia	p. 162 cb

D.	Indigent Defendant's Right to An Expert

23.	Ake v. Oklahoma	p. 166 cb

E.	Effective Assistance of Counsel

24.	Strickland v. Washington	p. 170 cb

25.	Wiggins v. Smith	p. 186 cb & (on the web)

26.	Crawford v. Washington	(on the web)

27.	Nix v. Whitside	p. 188 cb

F.	Multiple Representation

28.	Text	pp. 196-99 cb

29.	Cuyler v. Sullivan	p 200 cb

G.	Pro Se Representation

30.	Faretta v. California	p. 215 cb

31.	McKaskle v. Wiggins	p. 231 cb

32.	Morris v. Slappy	p. 238 cb

33.	Anders v. California	p. 238 cb

34.	McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin	p. 238 cb

35.	Pennsylvania v. Finley	p. 239 cb

36.	Penson v. Ohio	p. 238 cb

H.	Implications of Forfeiture Statutes

37.	Caplin & Drysdale Chartered v. United States	p. 241 cb

I.	The Right to Counsel at Lineups, Showups, & Photographic Arrays

38.	Critical Stage Proceedings	pp. 239-240 cb

39.	Stovall v. Denno	(on the web)

40.	United States v. Wade	(on the web)

41.	Kirby v. Illinois	(on the web)

42.	United States v. Ash	(on the web)

J.	The Due Process Approach - Revisited

43.	Manson v. Brathwaite	(on the web)

IV.	ENTRAPMENT

A.	Scope of the Rule

1.	Jacobson v. United States	p. 972 cb

2.	United States v. Russell	p. 983 cb