M1: In-class exam correction

Correction M1 in-class exam (Nov. 2014)

A motion to suppress is a motion usually filed by the defendant before trial / during the preliminary hearing to remove incriminating evidence against him on the basis that it has been obtained illegally, that is to say in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unless it grants cert, the USSC will probably not agree to review a case, as a writ of certiorari is the most common route to bring a case to the attention of the Supreme Court Justices.

The role of the Grand Jury is to examine whether or not there is probable cause that is to say sufficient evidence against the defendant to indict him.

To reverse and remand is a phrase which means that the higher court comes to a decision opposite to that of the lower court and sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

The purpose of a dissenting opinion is to put forward arguments that contradict the majority opinion showing that the losing party obtained the support of some Justices, and that lawyers will be able to refer to in future cases.

A motion to dismiss is a motion usually filed by the defence before trial in order to have the case dismissed on account of a procedural mistake. 

A writ of certiorari is one of the three ways along with a writ of appeal and a writ of habeas corpus, to petition the USSC to review a case.

An information is a document in which the prosecution establishes the charges against the defendant in order to indict him. / An information is a document drafted by the prosecution in order to indict a defendant.

During the preliminary hearing, the prosecution will attempt to establish that it has probable cause to believe that the defendant is guilty and that the latter should stand trial.

Pursuant to the adversarial system, the defendant has the privilege of cross-examining witnesses for the prosecution and also to bring his / her own witnesses to challenge incriminating testimonies and provide exculpatory evidence.

Text: United States v. Jones

1. The parties in this case are Jones, (the respondent), who was originally convicted of drug trafficking, and the U.S. who petitioned the USSC on a writ of certiorari.
2. The USSC has jurisdiction because the case raises a Fourth Amendment issue, that is to say a Constitutional issue. Indeed, while Jones challenges the way evidence contributing to his conviction had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Government, on the other hand, contends that Jones had a lesser expectation of privacy in his vehicle and that the installation of the tracking device on his car did not constitute a search, and therefore did not require a valid warrant.
3. At first instance, the case was heard by the District of Columbia district Court. (It was heard in federal court because DC is a federal enclave.) On account of the fact that the GPS tracking device had been installed without a valid warrant, the Court dismissed the information obtained while Jones’s car was stationed at the defendant’s residence. However, it held admissible all other evidence obtained thanks to the tracking device. Jones appealed his conviction on the grounds that the warrantless installation of a GPS tracking device infringed on his right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. The DC (federal) circuit court allowed the appealed and reversed the lower court’s ruling. Finally, the U.S. Government petitioned the U.S.S.C. to review the case and determine or not whether the use of data collected by the tracking device while Jones’s car was not at the defendant’s home could be used in court against him. It considers that Jones had a reduced expectation of privacy in this car, and therefore that the installation of a tracking device was not a search as defined by the Fourth Amendment.
4. The U.S.S.C had to consider whether Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his car. Indeed, the search of a suspect’s car performed at a random checkpoint is one of the few exceptions to the warrant requirement. The case at hand, however, does not fall within this exception. Besides, the Supreme Court, ruled that supposing that Jones had a reduced expectation of privacy in his car, this vehicle nonetheless remained his property, the protection of which – the Court reminded  – is the very purpose / the original purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the installation of a tracking device on Jones’s property (even where he had a lesser expectation of privacy) was tantamount to a search.

The Court refused to consider whether or not the search was indeed a reasonable one, because the U.S. government had not raised this point before the Circuit Court.

5. Students’ own answers.

Text: California v. Carney

1. The two parties in this case are the State of California, bringing a prosecution against Carney, i.e. the defendant, who stands accused of exchanging marijuana for sex.

 2. Carney’s offence being a state offence / Since Carney’s offence contravenes California Law, Carney was tried in state court. At first instance, the case was heard by the California Superior Court. On appeal, the case was then heard by California Court of Appeals and by California Supreme Court. The trial court and the court of appeals both found Carney guilty, but the California Supreme Court reversed Carney’s conviction, arguing that conviction had been found on evidence that should have been held inadmissible in court. The case raising a Constitutional question, the USSC agreed to review the case on a writ of Certiorary filed by the State of California.

3. The party who filed a motion to suppress is Carney, the defendant. Carney argued that the evidence against him had been obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment right, so that he could escape conviction.

Plea of nolo contendere: see booklet.

4. Reversing the California Supreme Court decision, the USSC held that Carney’s expectation of privacy in his motor home was actually reduced, and that consequently the police did not require a warrant before seizing evidence incriminating Carney. Carney’s attempt to distinguish between a vehicle and a motor home was deemed irrelevant. The evidence should thus be held admissible and Carney should be convicted.

5. See the summary of the Fourth Amendment studied in class.