CRIM QUESTIONS

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
swtlilsoni
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:00 am

CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby swtlilsoni » Wed May 01, 2013 10:28 pm

I'll start:
In Steagald they say that you can't go into someone else's house to arrest a third person without a search warrant. Did the court ever decide if the arrest warrant was necessary? Do you still need the arrest warrant to arrest the person that is in another house? I know if they are in their own house it is necessary, but technically they aren't in their own house so I'm not sure if it's still necessary.

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12317
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby gdane » Wed May 01, 2013 11:20 pm

swtlilsoni wrote:I'll start:
In Steagald they say that you can't go into someone else's house to arrest a third person without a search warrant. Did the court ever decide if the arrest warrant was necessary? Do you still need the arrest warrant to arrest the person that is in another house? I know if they are in their own house it is necessary, but technically they aren't in their own house so I'm not sure if it's still necessary.

You'll need to address the standing issue of the third party first. Was the person a quick guest or was the person living in the home?

User avatar
swtlilsoni
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:00 am

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby swtlilsoni » Wed May 01, 2013 11:32 pm

gdane wrote:
swtlilsoni wrote:I'll start:
In Steagald they say that you can't go into someone else's house to arrest a third person without a search warrant. Did the court ever decide if the arrest warrant was necessary? Do you still need the arrest warrant to arrest the person that is in another house? I know if they are in their own house it is necessary, but technically they aren't in their own house so I'm not sure if it's still necessary.

You'll need to address the standing issue of the third party first. Was the person a quick guest or was the person living in the home?


I guess if the person was living in the home, it would count as their home .. so:
a. if the person was a quick guest
b. if the person was an overnight guest

We studied cases saying in (a) the person has no REP for a search, and in (b) they do. However that is regarding searches. I don't know how it would translate to arrests. I thought maybe it was something I missed in one of the cases, but if there's a lot of case law and analysis behind it maybe we just haven't covered it.

User avatar
swtlilsoni
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:00 am

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby swtlilsoni » Wed May 01, 2013 11:59 pm

Also two more questions before I forget:

1. If you invoke your right to be silent, interrogation has to cease. But does that mean it has to cease forever? I know if you invoke your right to counsel there is that 14 day rule that they can question you again after a 14 day break from custody. Does the same apply to an invocation of the right to be silent?
2. Same as #1 except what if you initiate the interrogation again, do the police just have to ignore you?
3. How do you waive Miranda rights?

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12317
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby gdane » Thu May 02, 2013 12:01 am


de5igual
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby de5igual » Thu May 02, 2013 1:18 am

The E&E also clarifies this issue:

"Warrantless arrest is the rule, and arrest by warrant the exception. The one context in which the Court has imposed a warrant requirement is where the arrest occurs in a home rather than a public place. Given the sanctity of that locale in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, an arrest warrant is required to enter and effect a nonexigent arrest of the subject in his own home." Payton.

de5igual
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby de5igual » Thu May 02, 2013 1:25 am

swtlilsoni wrote:Also two more questions before I forget:

1. If you invoke your right to be silent, interrogation has to cease. But does that mean it has to cease forever? I know if you invoke your right to counsel there is that 14 day rule that they can question you again after a 14 day break from custody. Does the same apply to an invocation of the right to be silent?
2. Same as #1 except what if you initiate the interrogation again, do the police just have to ignore you?
3. How do you waive Miranda rights?


1. No, as long as they "scrupulously" honor it and cease questioning immediately, then there is no Miranda violation. The police can resume questioning after intervening events, e.g., passage of time, provision of fresh warnings, different officer, etc.

2. Who initiates? the defendant? if the initiation of the interrogation by the defendant constituted a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver, then the police can simply carry on.

3. Knowing, Intelligent, Voluntary waiver - can be express or implied

TLSwag
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby TLSwag » Thu May 02, 2013 2:57 am

f0bolous wrote:The E&E also clarifies this issue:

"Warrantless arrest is the rule, and arrest by warrant the exception. The one context in which the Court has imposed a warrant requirement is where the arrest occurs in a home rather than a public place. Given the sanctity of that locale in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, an arrest warrant is required to enter and effect a nonexigent arrest of the subject in his own home." Payton.


What you are implying is pretty off-base. An arrest warrant being necessary to arrest someone in their own home by no means makes it unnecessary to arrest someone in another's home. You picked an interesting part of the E&E section you quoted to emphasize, there's the better one. The home is a private dwelling, it's an additional requirement in Steagald with the search warrant to protect the third-party owner's house. I may be off on the wording, but I believe the court held that police cannot search for the suspect of an arrest warrant int he home of a third party, without first obtaining a search warrant.

TLSwag
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby TLSwag » Thu May 02, 2013 3:09 am

swtlilsoni wrote:
gdane wrote:
swtlilsoni wrote:I'll start:
In Steagald they say that you can't go into someone else's house to arrest a third person without a search warrant. Did the court ever decide if the arrest warrant was necessary? Do you still need the arrest warrant to arrest the person that is in another house? I know if they are in their own house it is necessary, but technically they aren't in their own house so I'm not sure if it's still necessary.

You'll need to address the standing issue of the third party first. Was the person a quick guest or was the person living in the home?


I guess if the person was living in the home, it would count as their home .. so:
a. if the person was a quick guest
b. if the person was an overnight guest

We studied cases saying in (a) the person has no REP for a search, and in (b) they do. However that is regarding searches. I don't know how it would translate to arrests. I thought maybe it was something I missed in one of the cases, but if there's a lot of case law and analysis behind it maybe we just haven't covered it.


The standing issue of the third party is whether someone was legitimately on the premises to challenge 4th Amendment violations, however, that rule was abandoned in Rakas v. Illinois, which changed the analysis to a reasonable expectation of privacy one for searches in the home. It is only relevant insofar as the search warrant goes here. If they had a search warrant, PC to believe suspect is present, an arrest warrant and PC for the arrest, it doesn't matter if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy b/c the search is reasonable. Now if they went into someone else's apartment like in Carter with all the requirements except a search warrant, and the owner wasn't home, for example, and the suspect of the arrest warrant was a quick guest, you probably could argue nobody was there who had a REP, and nobody present could challenge the search, so the arrest would be valid without a search warrant

de5igual
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby de5igual » Thu May 02, 2013 12:01 pm

TLSwag wrote:What you are implying is pretty off-base. An arrest warrant being necessary to arrest someone in their own home by no means makes it unnecessary to arrest someone in another's home. You picked an interesting part of the E&E section you quoted to emphasize, there's the better one. The home is a private dwelling, it's an additional requirement in Steagald with the search warrant to protect the third-party owner's house. I may be off on the wording, but I believe the court held that police cannot search for the suspect of an arrest warrant int he home of a third party, without first obtaining a search warrant.


Not really, the arrest warrant is used to protect the privacy interests of the party being arrested. We've already concluded that the arrestee has no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, thus an arrest warrant is not needed any where in public (including up to the front door of his own house). Here, we've also determined that he has no expectation of privacy in someone else's home (so long as he's not an overnight guest, etc). The only person whose 4th amendment privacy rights are at issue is the owner/tenant of that home, thus requiring a search warrant to enter the premises.

If you find something contradicting this, let me know—cause now I'm curious as hell.

User avatar
swtlilsoni
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:00 am

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby swtlilsoni » Thu May 02, 2013 1:59 pm

okay my question isn't whether or not a search warrant is necessary, it is whether an arrest warrant is necessary

TLSwag
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby TLSwag » Thu May 02, 2013 4:41 pm

swtlilsoni wrote:okay my question isn't whether or not a search warrant is necessary, it is whether an arrest warrant is necessary


Yes and that is what has been answered, just with conflicting responses. F0bolous, I hear you, and we may just have to agree to disagree on this [not that the issue is likely to come up anyways b/c if they have a search warrant for someone else's home, they probably have the arrest warrant] but the holding of Steagald is to execute an arrest warrant in a third-party's home requires a search warrant. It may be an open question at best, and I don't think someone else's home is in public. I read Steagald as Payton's requirements (including reason to believe the arrestee is present) + a search warrant for a third-party's home.

de5igual
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: CRIM QUESTIONS

Postby de5igual » Thu May 02, 2013 5:22 pm

TLSwag wrote:
swtlilsoni wrote:okay my question isn't whether or not a search warrant is necessary, it is whether an arrest warrant is necessary


Yes and that is what has been answered, just with conflicting responses. F0bolous, I hear you, and we may just have to agree to disagree on this [not that the issue is likely to come up anyways b/c if they have a search warrant for someone else's home, they probably have the arrest warrant] but the holding of Steagald is to execute an arrest warrant in a third-party's home requires a search warrant. It may be an open question at best, and I don't think someone else's home is in public. I read Steagald as Payton's requirements (including reason to believe the arrestee is present) + a search warrant for a third-party's home.


You're right in that this is probably still an open question. I asked my prof whether an arrest warrant was needed in those circumstances and got a one-sentence response: "Probably not, although the warrant could be a combination warrant authorzing both search and arrest." If this pops up on an exam, I guess just argue it both ways.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest