LEGAL

RESEARCH

Use of Force
- Generally
The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
- Attachment of Right
- Confrontation Clause
- Crime Specfific
  - Texas v. Cobb
  - Maine v. Moulton
- Critical Stages - Lineups
  - United States v. Wade
  - Gilbert v. California
- Critical Stages - Questioning
- Right to Counsel
  - Gideon v. Wainwright
  - Massiah v. United States
The Fourth Amendment: What is a Search?
- Abandoned Property
  - Abel v. United States
  - California v. Greenwood
- Applies to Government Activities Only
- Foreign Searches
  - United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
- Generally
- Open Fields & Curtilage
- Private Intrusions
  - Walter v. United States
  - United States v. Jacobsen
- Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
- Third Party Control
The Forth Amendment: What is a Seizure?
- Arrests-Arrest Warrants
- Arrests-Generally
  - Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
- Arrests-Premises
- Arrests-Third Party Premises
  - Pembaur v. Cincinnati
  - Steagald v. United States
- Generally
- Stops-Generally
- Stops-Terry/Traffic Stops
The Fifth Amendment
- Compelled
- Due Process
- Fourth Amendement Violations
- Holder of the Privelege
- Immunity
- Introductory Issues
- Miranda - Custody
- Miranda - Generally
- Miranda - Goverment Employees
- Miranda - Interrogation
  - Pennsylvania v. Muniz
  - Rhode Island v. Innis
- Miranda - Police
  - Arizona v. Mauro
  - Illinois v. Perkins
- Miranda - Right to Counsel
- Miranda - Right to Silence
- Miranda - Waiver
- Miranda Exceptions
  - New York v. Quarles
  - Harris v. New York
- Testimonial Evidence
- Voluntary
Search Warrants
- Establishing P.C. in Affidavit
- Neutral and Detached Magistrate
  - Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York
  - Connelly v. Georgia
- Probable Cause - Required
  - Winston v. Lee
  - Byars v. United States
- Serving the Warrant - Knock and Announce
- Serving the Warrant - Person at the Premises
- Serving the Warrant - Related Issues
- With Particularity
Search Warrant Exceptions - P.C. Not Needed
- Consent
- Frisk
- Inspections - Border Inspections
  - United States v. Flores-Montano
  - United States v. Ramsey
- Inspections - Parolees
  - Samson v. California
  - United States v. Knights
- Inspections - Special Needs
- Inspections - Structures
- Inspections - Vehicles
- Inventories
- Search Incident to Arrest
  - United States v. Chadwick
- Search Incident to Arrest - Alcohol Test
  - Birchfield v. North Dakota
- Search Incident to Arrest - Cell Phones
  - Riley v. California
- Search Incident to Arrest - Persons
- Search Incident to Arrest - Premises
- Search Incident to Arrest - Vehicles
Search Warrant Exceptions - P.C. Needed
- Destruction of Evidence
- Emergency Scenes
- Hot Pursuit
- Mobile Vehicles
- Plain View
Related Search and Seizure Issues
- Officer's Intent
- Other Issues
Other Cases
- Generally
Liability
- Brady Material
- Generally
Levels of Suspicion
- Probable Cause
- Reasonable Suspicion
Fourth Amendment - Exclusionary Rule
- Exceptions - Attenuation
  - Utah v. Strieff
- Exceptions - Good Faith Exceptions
- Exceptions - Impeachement
- Exceptions - Independent Source
  - Murray v. United States
- Exceptions - Inevitable Discovery
  - Nix v. Williams
- Exceptions - No Standing to Object
- Exceptions - Other Hearings
  - Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott
  - United States v. Calandra
- Fruit of the Poisonus Tree
- Origins

Due Process

Neil v. Biggers

Facts

The defendant was convicted of rape. Some of the evidence consisted of testimony concerning the victim’s visual and voice identification at a stationhouse show-up that occurred seven months after the crime. The victim had been in the presence of the assailant for a significant amount of time and had several opportunities to directly observe him both indoors and outdoors. She testified that she had “no doubt” that the defendant was her assailant. She had previously given the government a description of her assailant that was confirmed by an officer. The victim had not identified any of the others who were presented at previous show-ups, lineups, or through photographs. Officers asserted that they used the show-up technique because they had difficulty in finding other individuals generally fitting the defendant’s description as given by the victim for a lineup.

Issue

Whether the show-up was so impermissibly suggestive of the defendant’s identification as the perpetrator, to deprive him of his right to due process?

Held

No. While the station-house identification may have been suggestive, under the “totality of the circumstances,” the victim’s identification of the defendant was reliable.

Discussion

The Supreme Court held that the identification of the defendant was reliable. Eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification will be set aside only if the pretrial identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include:

1) The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime,

2) The witness’s degree of attention,

3) The accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal,

4) The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation,

5) The length of time between the crime and the confrontation.

Based on these factors, the witness’s identification of the defendant was reliable.

Citation

409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375 (1972)

LEGAL

Use of Force

Generally

The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

Attachment of Right

Confrontation Clause

Crime Specfific

Critical Stages - Lineups

Critical Stages - Questioning

Right to Counsel

The Fourth Amendment: What is a Search?

Abandoned Property

Applies to Government Activities Only

Foreign Searches

Generally

Open Fields & Curtilage

Private Intrusions

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Third Party Control

The Forth Amendment: What is a Seizure?

Arrests-Arrest Warrants

Arrests-Generally

Arrests-Premises

Arrests-Third Party Premises

Generally

Stops-Generally

Stops-Terry/Traffic Stops

The Fifth Amendment

Compelled

Due Process

Fourth Amendement Violations

Holder of the Privelege