« The Job Search Nightmares | Main | 21 Miles? Yeah, baby! »
An Appellate Perspective On 4th Amendment Issues
As part of clinic class time yesterday we got to hear from an experienced criminal appeals attorney who had the following thoughts on how criminal defense trial lawyers should think about 4th Amendment issues (illegal searches and seizures):
1. Preserve issues for appeal. If it's not preserved at trial, it's waived. So your goal at trial is to make sure you raise issues, even if you know you'll lose, in order to preserve them for appeal. Suppression hearings are almost always a good idea. In most jurisdictions, you have to raise the precise issue that will be appealed, so raise lots of issues, don't just say “hey, I think there's a 4th Amendment violation here.” You don't want to raise frivolous issues and or waste the court's time or annoy the judge, but if in doubt, err on side of raising 4th Amend. issues.
2. If there's no warrant, you've got a 4th Amendment issue. Most of our cases won't have warrants b/c of all the exceptions to the warrant requirement. Remember: The rule is that a warrant is required; anything less is either an exception or unconstitutional. If there's no warrant, the burden is on the Gov't to explain why the search was constitutional. Be aggressive; they didn't have what they were supposed to have, so make them prove what they did was legal.
3. Check the paperwork. If there is a warrant, check it. Check the affadavits. Look for mistakes. The Leon good faith exception is bad for defense attorneys, but the officer still has to rely in objective good faith and if the warrant is facially deficient, objective good faith is not possible—it's the officer's mistake. See Groh v. Ramirez (U.S. 2004).
4. Always go back to the very beginning of the story—the police encounter that got you here. A lot of police encounters that lead to evidence you want to suppress are the result of a chain of actions, any one of which may have been illegal. Too often young lawyers just look at last step when really the first step may be more helpful (invalid). You only need one weak link; gov't has to win every single one but you only have to show one part of its case invalid to win.
Good stuff. Mostly review, but still all good to keep in mind. I love this clinic.
Posted September 9, 2005 10:14 AM | 3L
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mowabb.com/mt32/mt-tb.cgi/4548
Hi, just came across your blog. I enjoyed it ...most informative.
I've been reviewing other legal blogs and I book marking the standouts.
Well, needless to say, I have bookmarked your blawg.
I also write a blawg. Actually, it's more of a collection of Internet Tech tips/observations to inform legal web site owners how to achieve improved search engine standings while avoiding the many Internet scams.
My blawg legal advice library site is still very much a work in progress. My legal directory San Diego attorneys site is the flagship of our 15 legal directory sites that cover California, Texas and Las Vegas.
Please visit and check them out if you have the time
MORE IMPORTANTLY . . .I have been watching the news about Hurricane Katrina as I am sure you have been too. My heart goes out to these people and I pray they get the assistance they need as fast as humanly possible.
What makes me sick are the emails I have been receiving over the past few days from people "claiming" to help. Maybe they are sincere maybe not. I don't know.
-------------------------------------------------------------
If You Want To Help the Hurricane Efforts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Here's two links to legitimate organizations to donate your money too if you want to help.
FEMA - http://www.fema.gov
Red Cross - http://www.redcross.org
Feel free to pass this message on to someone else.
Help someone and donate what you can today.
Posted by: San Francisco lawyer at September 9, 2005 06:10 PM
