POLS 4720 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Curtilage
5 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
-Baker told judge that he cannot afford an attorney. Under Gideon v Wainwright, the
holding stated that the Constitution meant for the state courts to appoint and provide
attorneys to defendants who cannot afford counsel. Using the Actual Imprisonment
Test, because Baker faces a felony charge which means incarceration, a counsel must be
appointed for an indigent defendant in a criminal case that leads to incarceration.
Therefore, he must be appointed one.
6. EITS (2)
-#1
7. Butcher
-Butcher was told that he was not under arrest, so he was not in custody (#2) , which
means that Miranda does not apply even though Butcher was questioned (#2). The
officer also explains to him that the police will call him when the warrants are issued
which further proves that he is not in custody.
-When he was held at the jail, the officer stated that he wanted a statement from him.
He has not made bail, which means he is still in the custody of the police. Butcher said
that he was not sure if he should speak to the detective without his attorney. Under
Berghuis v Thompkins, the invocation of the right to remain silent must be ambiguous.
He did not ask for an attorney, but just expressed his concern which is not an invocation
of his rights. He signed his Miranda waiver which was knowingly and intelligently.
Therefore, his statements are admissible.
8. Booking of Baker, Lamb, Butcher
-When the 3 students are booked, they are asked routine booking questions. Under
Penn v Muniz, routing booking questions were an exception to Miranda because those
were not the kind of questions or the type of interrogation addressed in Miranda.
However, because they are at the booking center, they are in custody (#2) and were
asked direct questions about the crime under investigation. Questioning (#2) occurred
and they should have been read their Miranda rights. These statements that provide
extra evidence are inadmissible.
9. Michael Joseph Berry
-Silk pulled out the keys that Berry dropped while he ran and inserted the key into the
door that Berry was found sitting in front of but did not enter. The insert of the key to
Berry’s dor as a iolatio. Although the hallay is aessile to the puli, the lok is
immediately tied to the activities of the room which is considered curtilage. In US v
Dunn, curtilage is determined by 4 factors: Proximity of area claimed to be curtilage to
the home, Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding home, Nature
of the uses to which the area is put, and The steps taken by the resident to protect the
area from observation by people passing by. Using Florida v Jardines, if the front porch
of a home is part of the curtilage, so is the door lock in front of the door. Also, using the
reasonableness prong under US v Katz, Berry had an expectation of privacy within the
lock as well since it is part of the curtilage of his dorm. Also under US v Bains, officers
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Baker told judge that he cannot afford an attorney. Under gideon v wainwright, the holding stated that the constitution meant for the state courts to appoint and provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford counsel. Test, because baker faces a felony charge which means incarceration, a counsel must be appointed for an indigent defendant in a criminal case that leads to incarceration. Therefore, he must be appointed one: eits (2) Butcher was told that he was not under arrest, so he was not in custody (#2) , which means that miranda does not apply even though butcher was questioned (#2). The officer also explains to him that the police will call him when the warrants are issued which further proves that he is not in custody. When he was held at the jail, the officer stated that he wanted a statement from him. He has not made bail, which means he is still in the custody of the police.
