Final Exam review for CJ 202 Constitutional Law

1. FINAL EXAM REVIEW
Chapter 10-13 and Cumulative Review

2. Introduction
 The 8th Amendment protects three rights:
 That excessive bail shall not be required
 That excessive fines shall not be imposed
 That cruel and unusual punishment shall not be
inflicted
 This Amendment has a lot of controversy
because of interpretations about whether the
death penalty is cruel and unusual

3. Bail
 Also allows individuals to:
 Prepare a defense
 To continue earning income if employed
 Bail itself is not guaranteed
 Only excessive bail is prohibited which is not
clearly defined
 Bail may be denied in capital cases and when the
accused has threatened possible trial witnesses

4. The Evolution of Legislation and
Case Law on Bail
 The Bail Reform Act of 1984
 Granted judicial authority to include specific
conditions of release for the community's safety
 Allows judges to consider the potential criminal
conduct of those accused of serious offenses and
deny bail on those grounds
 Preventive Detention

5. The Evolution of Legislation and
Case Law on Bail
 The Bail Reform Act of 1984
 Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
 Government may detain dangerous defendants who
may be incompetent to stand trial
 Addington v. Texas (1979)
 Government may detain mentally unstable
individuals who present a public danger
 United States v. Salerno (1987)
 Pretrial detention under this act did not violate the
8th Amendment

6. Asset Forfeiture and the Prohibition
against Excessive Fines
 Asset Forfeiture
 The seizure by the government, without
compensation, of money and property connected
with illegal activity
 Property connected with illegal activity may be
forfeited when used as a conveyance to
transport illicit drugs
 Real estate used in association with a crime
and money or other negotiable instruments
obtained through criminal activity also can be
seized and is considered a civil sanction by

7. Asset Forfeiture and the Prohibition
against Excessive Fines
 Austin v. United States (1993)
 The Supreme Court ruled that the 8th Amendment
prohibition against excessive fines applies to civil
forfeiture proceedings against property connected
to drug trafficking
 The amount seized must bear some relation to the
value of the illegal enterprise under the 8th
Amendment
 This is the first decision on the limitation of the
government’s power to seize property connected
with illegal activity

8. Asset Forfeiture and the Prohibition
against Excessive Fines
 United States v. Ursery (1996)
 Forfeiture is not double jeopardy because it is
considered a civil sanction rather than an
additional criminal action
 Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (2000)
 Key changes:
1. Burden of proof is “preponderance of the evidence”
2. Statute of Limitations is five years
3. Destruction of property to prevent seizure

9. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
 The final clause of the 8th Amendment
 What is “cruel and unusual?”
 Depends on what society believes it to be
 Coker v. Georgia (1977)
 Punishment is excessive and unconstitutional if
it:
1. Makes no measureable contribution to acceptable
goals of punishment and hence is nothing more
than the purposeless and needless imposition of
pain and suffering
2. Is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the

10. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
 The courts have used three inquiries in
assessing constitutionality of cruel and
unusual punishment:
1. Whether the punishment shocks the general
conscience of a civilized society
2. Whether the punishment is unnecessarily cruel
3. Whether the punishment goes beyond legitimate
penal aims

11. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
 The Supreme Court has established three
criteria for proportionality analysis (making the
punishment fit the crime):
1. The gravity of the offense and the harshness of
the penalty
2. The sentences imposed on other criminals in
the same jurisdiction
3. The sentences imposed for the commission of
the same crime in other jurisdictions.

12. Is Capital Punishment Cruel and
Unusual?
 Furman v. Georgia (1972)
 Landmark case in which Supreme Court called
for a ban on the death penalty in Georgia
 Ruled its law as it stood was capricious and
hence, cruel and unusual punishment
 The Court ruled that the states had to give judges
and juries more guidance in capital sentencing to
prevent discretionary use of the death penalty
 It held that Georgia’s death penalty was invalid

13. Is Capital Punishment Cruel and
Unusual?
 Due to the Furman case, executions were
suspended across the country
 The federal government passed a new death
penalty law instituting a new two-step process
(bifurcated trial):
1. Determine innocence or guilt
2. Determine whether to seek the death penalty

14. Is Capital Punishment Cruel and
Unusual?
 Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
 The Supreme Court reinstated the Georgia death
penalty by sustaining its revised death penalty
law
 The death penalty itself is not cruel and unusual
punishment
 A capital case now requires a bifurcated trial

15. Lengthy Delays in Execution as
Cruel and Unusual
 Do long delays in carrying out executions
constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
 Thompson v. McNeil (2009)
 The Supreme Court rejected an appeal that
claimed a 32 year imprisonment caused by his
appeals constituted cruel and unusual
punishment

16. 8th Amendment and Corrections
 Due process and equal protection issues are
significant concerns in corrections because
violations of these rights are unconstitutional
 8th Amendment rights are divides into two
categories:
1. Actions against individual prisoners
2. Institutional conditions

17. 8th Amendment and Corrections
 Cases based on the 8th Amendment for
prisoners include:
 Overcrowding
 Solitary confinement
 Corporal punishment
 Physical abuse
 Use of force
 Treatment and rehabilitation, the right not to be
treated
 Death penalty

18. Prisoner Treatment and the 8th
Amendment
 The Supreme Court has been called on to
determine whether conditions and actions
within correctional institutions constitute cruel
and unusual punishment
 Rhodes v. Chapman (1981)
 Double-celling and crowding do not necessarily
constitute cruel and unusual punishment
 Wilson v. Seiter (1991)
 Prisoners must prove prison conditions are
objectively cruel and unusual and show they exist
because of officials’ deliberate indifference

19. USA PATRIOT Act
 Uniting and
 Strengthening
 America by
 Providing
 Appropriate
 Tools
 Required to
 Intercept and
 Obstruct
 Terrorism
 Act

20. USA PATRIOT Act
 The Act gives federal officials greater authority
to track and intercept communications for law
enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering
 Improves the nation’s counterterrorism efforts
 It further closes our borders to foreign
terrorists and allows us to detain and remove
terrorists already in our country
 USA Patriot Act link

21. USA PATRIOT Act
 The Act significantly improves the nation’s
counterterrorism efforts by:
 Allowing investigators to use the tools already
available to investigate organized crime and drug
trafficking
 Facilitating information sharing and cooperation
among government agencies, so they can better
“connect the dots”
 Updating the law to reflect new technologies and new
threats
 Increasing the penalties for those who commit or
support terrorist crimes

22. Increasing Penalties for Those Who
Commit or Support Terrorist Crimes
 Creates a new offense for knowingly harboring
people who have committed or are about to
commit a variety of terrorist offenses
 Enhances the inadequate maximum penalties for
various crimes likely to be committed by
terrorists
 Enhances a number of conspiracy penalties
 It eliminates the statute of limitations for certain
terrorism crimes

23. FINAL EXAM REVIEW
Chapter 10-13 and Cumulative Review

24. Six Basic Principles of the
Constitution
 Popular Sovereignty “We The People”
 Constitutionalism or Limited Government
 Separation of Powers
 Balance of Powers or Checks and Balances
 Judicial Review (Is the law Constitutional?)
 Federalism-divided powers between federal
and states (those not grated to federal are
reserved to the state)

25. Reading Legal Citations
 Citation is the reference to the specific case
 Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007)
 First name is plaintiff
 550 = volume number
 US=United States Reports for USSC
 372=page number
 2007=year
 42 U.S.C. 1983
 Chapter 42, United States Code(federal law)
 Section 1983

26. Reading Case Law
 Court opinions, decisions, tells what is decided
and why
 Caption – Parties involved in a case
 State of South Carolina v Smith
 Smith v Jones

27. Trial Court
 Two responsibilities
 Determine what happened (jury tries fact)
 Determine which legal rules apply (judge)

28. Appellate Court
 Reviews written arguments, motions
 Transcripts of case
 Opinions of trial court judges
 No retrying of facts

29. Reading (cont)
 Holding
 Rule of law applied to particular facts of case
 What was the holding in Scott v Harris?
 What was the holding in Marbury v Madison?
 Affirm-appeals court agrees with lower court decision
 Reverse-appeals court overturns lower court decision
 Remand-appeals court returns to lower court for
further action
 Vacate-set aside a decision
 Can be a motion
 Definition

30. 14th Amendment
 14th Amendment applied the provisions of the
Constitution to the states
 Due process of government action
 Citizenship, no depravation
 Equal protection for all citizens
 Video

31. Scrutiny (cont)
 Strict Scrutiny-any categorization of law based
on race, national origin unconstitutional
 Must have compelling government interest
 Intermediate Scrutiny-any categorization
based on gender
 Must have substantial or important government
interest
 Rational-basis test-constitutional if a
reasonably related government interest

32. Key Rights in the First
Amendment
 Religion
 Speech
 Press
 Assembly
 Redress of Grievances (against the
government)

33. Text of the Fourth Amendment
 "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized."

34. Importance of the 4th to LE
 Defines the powers of the police to search for
evidence
 Protects the rights of the citizens from
unreasonable search
 Not all search
 Recognizes that the government must have some
power to police, but regulated
 Considers the “means” as well as the “end”

35. Clauses of the 4th
 Reasonableness Clause
 Right against unreasonable search and seizure not
violated
 Probable Cause Clause
 No warrant without probable cause
 Courts have viewed as two separate clauses
since 1960s
 Critical concepts
 Reasonableness
 Reasonable expectation of privacy
 Probable Cause

36. Tests of Reasonableness
Bright Line
 “Bright Line”
 A specific rule of the court
 Example, LE officer takes a person into
custody, begins to question about a crime,
suspect makes admission of guilt, describes
evidence and location
 Officer did not give Miranda Warning prior to
questioning about the case

37. Stop and Frisk
 “Terry” Stop
 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
 No violation of 4th if stopped by police on
reasonable suspicion
 Outer clothing “pat down” if reasonable suspicion
they are armed
 Requires articulable facts, no hunches

38. Exclusionary Rule
 “Judge made law”
 Court is giving guidance in application of
Constitutional restriction (my words)
 Prevents evidence from being illegally seized
and used for prosecution
 Mapp v Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961

39. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643
(1961)
 Unreasonable search and seizure
 Application of 4th amendment search and
seizure to the states by the 14th amendment

40. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S.
897 (1984)
 SCOTUS created “good faith” exception to
exclusionary rule
 Drug surveillance case, 1981, California
 Police observed homes, followed suspicious
cars, wrote search warrant
 Later determined PC lacking in affidavit
 Evidence upheld because police relied on
search warrant authority
 Cited Mapp

41. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119
(2000)
 Runnin’ from the Po-Po
 Facts
 Chicago Police patrolling high crime/drug area
 Sam Wardlow holding a bag.
 Trial court convicted, state appeals reversed
 SCOTUS held fleeing in “high crime” area enough to have
reasonable suspicion
 “flight at the mere sight of police is a sign that there exists
reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”
 “must be at least a minimal level of objective justification for
the stop.”
 5-4 decision

42. Michigan Dept. of State Police v.
Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990),
 DL check points
 4th amendment seizure at checkpoint-is it
reasonable?
 "substantial government interest" to advance
in stopping drunk driving
 Interference with other drivers “negligible”
 126 drivers, avg 25-30 seconds, 2 DUI arrests
 6-3 ruling,

43. Elements of Arrest
 Intent
 Authority
 Detain or Restraint (not free to leave)
 Understanding
 SC Code of Laws 17-13-10
 Includes citizen arrest

44. CONDUCTING
CONSTITUTIONAL SEARCHES
Chapter 10

45. Tenets of 4th Amendment Search
Analysis
 Cases involving the 4th Amendment begin with
two basic questions:
1. Have the fundamental constitutional rules been
met?
2. Does the search fit within one of the
permissible realms?

46. Tenets of 4th Amendment Search
Analysis
 What are the fundamental rules?
1. There must be governmental action
2. The person making the challenge must have
standing, that is, the conduct violates the
challenger’s reasonable expectation of privacy
 a situation in which (1) a person has exhibited actual
(subjective) expectation of privacy and (2) that
expectation is one that society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable
 Often an implied right that falls within the shadow of
other specified rights (penumbra)
3. General searches are unlawful and restrict
government from going beyond what is
necessary

47. The Scope of Searches
 Unrestrained general searches offend our
sense of justice
 All searches must be limited in scope
 General searches are unconstitutional and
never legal

48. Searches with a Warrant
 All searches with a warrant must be based on:
 Probable cause
 Supported by oath and affirmation
 Particularly describing the place to be searched,
and
 The persons or things to be seized

49. Searches without a Warrant
 The 4th Amendment prefers a warrant because
it necessitates judicial review of government
action
 The Supreme Court has defined some
searches without a warrant to be reasonable
under the 4th Amendment guidelines:
 Consent search, frisks, plain feel/plain view,
incident to arrest, automobile exception, exigent
circumstances, open fields, abandoned property
and public places

50. Searches with Consent
 If an individual gives voluntary consent for the
police to search, the police may so without a
warrant
 Any evidence found will be admissible in court
 The person may revoke the search at anytime

51. Searches with Consent
 Georgia v. Randolph (2006)
 When both occupants are present and one
objects to a search, the other cannot “override”
the co-occupants refusal
 Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)
 There is not 4th Amendment violation if the
police reasonably believed at the time of their
entry that the third party possessed the
authority to consent

52. Searches with Consent
 Courts typically justify the consent exception
by two separate tests:
 Voluntariness test-
 The consent was obtained without coercion or
promises and was reasonable
 Considers the totality of the circumstances to determine is
the consent was voluntary
 Waiver test-
 Citizens may consent to waive their 4th Amendment
rights, but only if they do so voluntarily, knowingly, and
intentionally

53. Frisks
 If an officer suspects a person is presently armed and
dangerous, a frisk may conducted without a warrant
(Chapter 8)
 A frisk is authorized by the circumstances of an
investigative stop, only a limited pat-down of the
detainee’s outer clothing for the officer’s safety is
authorized
 Factors contributing to the decision to frisk include:
 Suspect that flees
 A bulge in the clothing
 Suspect’s hand concealed in a pocket
 Being in a known high crime area and suspect crime
would likely involve a weapon

54. Searches Incident to Lawful
Arrest
 Chimel v. California (1969)
 Searches after an arrest must be immediate and
must be limited to the area within the person’s
wingspan
 The area within a person’s reach or immediate control
 Schmerber v. California (1966)
 Absent the exigent circumstances, a search
intrusive as drawing blood would not be
permissible without a warrant

55. Use of Force in Searching an Arrested
Person
 When government agents search a person
incident to arrest, they may use as much force
as reasonably necessary to
 Protect themselves,
 To prevent escape,
 Or the destruction or concealment of evidence
 The reasonableness of the police action
determines the lawfulness of it

56. The Automobile Exception
 Carroll v. United States (1925)
 Established that vehicles can be searched without
a warrant provided
1. There is probable cause to believe the vehicle’s
contents violate the law
2. The vehicle would be gone before a search warrant
could be obtained
 For officer to search a vehicle without a
warrant, the must have probable cause to
believe that the vehicle contains contraband
or evidence

57. Exigent Circumstances
 The courts have recognized that sometimes
situations will arise that reasonably require
immediate action before evidence may be
destroyed
 These circumstances include:
 Danger or physical harm to officer or others
 Danger or destruction of evidence
 Driving while intoxicated
 Hot-pursuit situations
 Individuals requiring rescuing

58. Special Needs Searches
 These are limited searches that the court
considers reasonable because societal needs
are thought to outweigh the individual’s normal
expectation of privacy:
 Prison
 Probation and parole searches
 Drug testing for certain occupations
 Administrative searches of closely regulated
businesses
 Community caretaking searches
 Public school searches

59. THE 5TH AMENDMENT:
DUE PROCESS AND OBTAINING
INFORMATION LEGALLY
Chapter 11

60. Text of the 5th 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.

61. Major Clauses
 Grand Jury
 Double Jeopardy
 Self-Incrimination
 Due Process
 Eminent Domain

62. Due Process of Law
 Police actions that would shock the
conscience were found to violate due process
 Rochin v. California (1952)
 Three deputies entered Rochin’s home through
an unlocked door and saw Rochin putting two
capsules into his mouth-no search warrant
 The officers took him to the hospital and had his
stomach pumped
 Two morphine capsules were recovered and used
as evidence
 8-0 ruling (1 abstained)

63. Due Process of Law
 Another found violation of the 5th amendment
were laws lacking due process for juveniles-
must have same due process as adults
 In re Gault (1967)
 15 yr. old on probation was taken into custody
 During his hearing the next day, a general
allegation of “delinquency” was made with no
specific facts stated
 The witness was not present, no one was sworn
in, no attorney was present and no record was
made of the proceeding

64. Due Process of Law
 In re Gault-SCOTUS found
 No parental notification of specific charges
 No notice of hearings
 No provision for legal representation
 No means of appeal
 No due process
 Overturned 8-1

65. Voluntariness of Confessions
 Brown v. Mississippi (1936)
 First confession case decided by the Supreme
Court
 The Court ruled that confessions obtained
through brutality and torture by law enforcement
officials are violations of due process rights
 3 black tenant farmers charged, whipped until
confessions
 9-0 ruling, evidence obtained in violation of due
process clause self incrimination

66. Voluntariness of Confessions
 The Courts have identified two factors in
assessing the voluntariness of a confession:
1. The police conduct involved
2. The characteristics of the accused

67. Police Conduct
 What are some conduct that violates due
process?
 Threats of violence
 Confinement under shockingly inhumane conditions
 Interrogation after lengthy, unnecessary delays in obtaining a
statement between arrest and presentment before a neutral
magistrate
 Continued interrogation of an injured and depressed suspect in a
hospital intensive-care unit
 Deprivations of food, drink and sleep

68. Police Conduct
 What are examples of police action that
do NOT violate due process?
 Promises of leniency (careful here-hope of
benefit), confidential informant purchase
 Encouraging a suspect to cooperate
 Promises of psychological treatment
 Appeal to religious beliefs
 Trickery and deceit

69. Characteristics of the Accused
 Factors such as the defendant’s:
 Age
 education
 Intelligence level
 Mental illness
 Physical condition
 Will be considered in determining whether a
confession was voluntary
 If it has not been coerced, then the confession is
presumed to have been voluntary

70. A Standard for Voluntariness
 There is a totality of circumstances test
 Was the admission truly voluntary?
 Were the individual’s constitutional guarantees
protected?
 Was the good of the people balanced with the
government’s and the accused's freedoms?

71. Standard for Voluntariness
 Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
 When the process shifts from investigatory to
accusatory
 14 hour interrogation by police
 Repeated denial to see attorney
 Repeated denial of attorney to see client
 When its focus is on the accused and its purpose
is to elicit a confession-no longer general inquiry
 The accused must be permitted to consult with
his lawyer

72. False Confessions
 Three types
 Voluntary confessions
 People claim responsibility for crimes they did not commit without
prompting from police
 Compliant confessions
 The suspect will confess to escape a stressful situation, to avoid
punishment or to gain a promised or implied reward
 Internalized false confessions
 Innocent but vulnerable suspects who are exposed to highly
suggestive interrogation techniques
 They come to confess and believe they committed the crime

73. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S.
___ (2013) (concl)
 Held: The investigation of Jardines’ home was
a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment.
 Different from other K9 open air “sniffs”
 Different from other K9 sniffs of luggage,
packages
 What is different?
 This occurred on the “curtilage” of the home
 “But when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the
home is first among equals.” II A

74. The Miranda Warning
 This decision actually directs police officers
what to say to individuals that are in custody,
before questioning them
 The Constitution requires that I inform you
that:
 You have the right to remain silent
 Anything you say can and will be used against you in
court
 You have the right to talk to a lawyer now and have
him present now or at any time during questioning
 If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for
you without cost

75. The Miranda Warning
 Duckworth v. Eagan (1989)
 The Miranda warning does not have to be given
word for word
 Some officers have a “soft Miranda warning”
which is less harsh
 This version is permissible as long as all the
elements of the warning are present

76. Custody
 When is a person in custody?
1. Has the person been told by police that they
are under arrest?
2. Has the person been deprived of freedom in a
significant way so that they do not feel
reasonably free to leave the situation, based on
the totality of the circumstances?

77. Other Factors Indicating a Custodial
Situation
 People v. Shivers (1967)
 If a police officer holds a gun on a person, that
person is in custody and not free to leave
 If the person also has a gun, they would unlikely
be in custody

78. Interrogation
 Must be present to trigger Miranda
 Usually thought of as the formal, systemic,
often intensive questioning by law
enforcement of a person suspected of criminal
activity
 Also the functional equivalent of express
questioning
 Any words or actions by the police, other than those
normally attendant to arrest and custody, that the
police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an
incriminating response from the suspect

79. Waiving the Rights
 To waive their rights, they must state orally or
in writing
1. They understand their rights
2. They will voluntarily answer questions without a
lawyer present
 Suspects may revoke the waiver at any point
in the interrogation

80. Right to Counsel
 After a defendant invokes the right to counsel,
police may not interrogate him
 If the suspect’s statement is not an
unambiguous or equivocal request for counsel,
the officers have no obligation to stop
questioning him
 When can questioning continue?
 “I just don’t think that I should say anything.”
 “I don’t got nothing to say.”
 “Could I call my lawyer?”

81. When Miranda Warnings Generally Are
Not Required
 When an officers asks no questions
 During general on the scene questioning
 When a statement is volunteered
 When asking a suspect routine identification questions
 Questioning witnesses who are not suspects
 Stop-and-frisk cases
 When asking routine questions of drunken-driving suspects and
videotaping the proceedings
 During lineups, showups or photo identifications
 When the statement is made to a private person
 When a suspect appears before a grand jury
 When there is a threat to public safety
 When an undercover officer poses as an inmate and asks questions

82. The Public Safety Exception
 An important exception to the Miranda
requirement involves public safety
 New York v. Quarles (1984)
 A young woman stopped police and told them she
had been raped, she described the rapist and his
location and that he was armed with a gun
 Officers located suspect and the suspect ran
 When the suspect was apprehended and frisked,
he was wearing an empty shoulder holster
 When the officer asked where the gun was, the
suspect told him that “the gun was over there”

83. The Public Safety Exception
 New York v. Quarles (1984)
 At trial, the statement “the gun is over there” and
the discovery of the gun were ruled inadmissible
 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if Miranda
warnings had deterred the response to the
officer’s question, the result would have been
more than the loss of evidence
 As long as the gun was concealed in the store, it
was a danger to public safety

84. The Public Safety Exception
 Public Safety Exception
 Allows police to question suspects without first
giving the Miranda warning if the information
sought sufficiently affects the officer’s and the
public’s safety
 FBI Publication

85. Entrapment
 Whether entrapment exists may be determined
by subject analysis
 Was the suspect predisposed to commit the
crime, or were they an unwary innocent party?
 Was the innocent person induced by the police to
commit a crime they never would have
otherwise?

86. Havlik (concl)
 Havlik claimed
 Entrapment
 Violation of Miranda, right to counsel Edwards v.
Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981),
 “if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is
ambiguous or equivocal…reasonable officer
understood he might be invoking counsel
 “I don’t have a lawyer. I guess I need to get one, don’t
I?” This question is insufficient to trigger an obligation
to cease questioning.

87. Havlik (finish)
 The phrase “I guess” is “used to indicate that
although one thinks or supposes something, it is without
any great conviction or strength of feeling.”
 In sum, Havlik’s statements to the interrogating
officers were not an unequivocal or
unambiguous request for counsel, and the
police were not required to ask clarifying
questions.

88. The Right to a Grand Jury
 Grand jury
 A group of citizens that determine whether
sufficient evidence exists to send an accused to
trial
 The outcome of a grand jury is to indict or not
 Indictment
 A formal accusation of a defendant, usually by a
grand jury, that send the defendant on to trial for
prosecution

89. Double Jeopardy
 Has been incorporated in the 14th Amendment
to apply to the states
 Double jeopardy is a prohibition against the
government from trying someone twice for the
same offense
 Double jeopardy requires all three elements:
 Successive prosecution, same offense, same
jurisdiction

90. USA PATRIOT Act
 Uniting and
 Strengthening
 America by
 Providing
 Appropriate
 Tools
 Required to
 Intercept and
 Obstruct
 Terrorism
 Act

91. USA PATRIOT Act
 The Act gives federal officials greater authority
to track and intercept communications for law
enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering
 Improves the nation’s counterterrorism efforts
 It further closes our borders to foreign
terrorists and allows us to detain and remove
terrorists already in our country

92. USA PATRIOT Act
 The Act significantly improves the nation’s
counterterrorism efforts by:
 Allowing investigators to use the tools already
available to investigate organized crime and drug
trafficking
 Facilitating information sharing and cooperation
among government agencies, so they can better
“connect the dots”
 Updating the law to reflect new technologies and new
threats
 Increasing the penalties for those who commit or
support terrorist crimes

93. Increasing Penalties for Those Who
Commit or Support Terrorist Crimes
 Creates a new offense for knowingly harboring
people who have committed or are about to
commit a variety of terrorist offenses
 Enhances the inadequate maximum penalties for
various crimes likely to be committed by
terrorists
 Enhances a number of conspiracy penalties
 It eliminates the statute of limitations for certain
terrorism crimes

94. Questions?