+
Related Flashcards
Related Topics
Cards In This Set
| Front | Back |
|
Police put apt. under surveillance and police informant made sale of heroine with D. After that, police knock on door, identified themselves as POs and demanded entrance. Having heard nothing for 30 seconds, police then break down door and enter apt, discover heroin. POs intended to arrest man for purchase of heroin, a felony. When they get in, D left through back exit and later arrested. Man was tried in state court. Trial court denied the motion to suppress, and case is on appeal following Ds conviction for possession of heroin, Appellate court should:
|
REVERSE the conviction on the ground that the man's 4th A rights (as applied to the states by the 14th A) have been violated.
|
|
Payton v. NY: held that ABSENT an EMERGENCY, a forcible, warrantless entry into a residence for purpose of making a felony arrest is an unconstitutional violation of the 4th A as made applicable to the states by the 14th A.
|
No exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest and searches of a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Evidence that is the fruit of an unlawful arrest may not be used against D at trial because of the exclusionary rule. Whether or not the knock and announce rule was violated will not affect the admissibility of the heroine - the exclusionary rule will NOT apply to evidence resulting from a search violating the rule.
|
|
A warrant must be based on:
|
A showing of probable cause
|
|
When requesting a warrant, officers must submit to a magistrate:
|
An AFFIDAVIT setting forth SUFFICIENT underlying circumstances to enable the magistrate to make a determination of probable cause,
independent of the officers' conclusions,
that evidence of a crime will be found on the premises.
|
|
Also, a warrant must describe with reasonable precision:
|
The PLACE to be searched and
any ITEMS to be seized.
|
|
A finding that a warrant was invalid b/c it was NOT supported by probable cause, will not entitle the D to exclude evidence obtained under the warrant if:
|
The police have acted in good faith and reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant.
|
|
However, a PO cannot in good faith rely on a defective search warrant if:
|
1. the affidavit underlying the search warrant is so lacking in probable cause that NO REASONABLE PO would have relied on it;
2. the warrant is SO DEFECTIVE on its face (fails to state with particularity the place to be searched or the things to be seized);
3. the affiant LIED to or MISLED the magistrate; or
4. the magistrate has WHOLLY ABANDONED his judicial role.
|
|
The sufficieny of a search warrant affidavit based on an informer's hearsay is evaluated under:
|
The TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
The informer's RELIABILITY and CREDIBILITY, as well as her BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE, are all elements that may illuminate the issue of probable cause.
|
|
As to LARCENY, it is possible to commit larceny of your own property if:
|
Another person, such as a BAILEE, has a SUPERIOR RIGHT to possession of the property at that time (mechanic's lien)
|
|
D worked as gardener for victim, decided to break in victim;s home to steal valuables one EVENING hen he knew victim was not home. D took a KEY that victim hid under a rock for emergenices, unlocked front door and went in. Security alarm went off and D immediately left.
What is the most SERIOUS crime for which D could be convicted.
A. Burglary
B. Attempted burglary
C. Attempted larceny
D. NO crime
|
BURGLARY
|
|
Opening door by use of a key woud be SUFFICIENT to constitute a breaking and facts indicate D actually entered teh house. Furthermore, D INTENDED to steal valuables when he entered victim's home.
|
Thus, the intent to commit a theft inside the home may be established. D committed an attempted larceny b/c he had the intent to steal the valuables from the victim, and by breaking in the home, he committed an OVERT act in furtherance of the crime. However, burglary is a more SERIOUS offense.
|
|
An attempt is an act that:
|
Although done with the INTENTION OF committing a crime, falls short of COMPLETING the crime.
An attempt consists of:
1. the intent to commit the crime, and
2. an overt act in furtherance of the crime
|
|
At common law, once a conspiracy has been entered into, each conspirator, by virtue of her participation in the conspiracy, may be charged with:
|
AIDING and Abetting the commission of crimes by her co-conspirators and therefore, may be LIABLE for those crimes as an accomplice.
|
|
Even if the conspirator did NOT have the sufficient mental state for ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, a seperate doctrine porvides that each conspirator may be liable for:
|
the REASONABLY FORESEEABLE crimes of ALL other coo-conspirators that were committed in FURTHERANCE of the conspiracy.
Ex. getaway driver did not know about co-conspirator's theft of cocaine during the robbery, so he would not have the requisite mental state as an accomplice to that crime
|
|
To be charged with a crime that grew out of a conspiracy, the additional crime must be:
|
BOTH FORESEEABLE and committed in FURTHERANCE of the conspiracy.
The crime of possessing cocaine w/ the intent to distribute is a separate act from burglary, and a crime involving drug possession is not a crime ordinarily arising out of this type of burglary.
|
