Principles of Criminal Procedure: Investigation, 2d
Authors:
LaFave, Wayne R. / Israel, Jerold H. / King, Nancy J. / Kerr, Orin S.
Edition:
2nd
Copyright Date:
2009
15 chapters
have results for criminal procedure
Preface 2 results
Chapter 1. The Legal Structure 87 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A variety of different procedures are utilized in the enforcement of the substantive criminal law. The totality of those procedures constitutes what is commonly described as the “criminal justice process” or the “criminal justice system.” Investigatory procedures are merely one, largely distinctive grouping in that criminal justice process. If those procedures are successful, they are followed by a series of additional procedures, which include the charging of the offender, the preparation for adjudication, the adjudication by guilty plea or trial, and the sentencing of persons convicted. The principles underlying the legal regulation of those post-investigation steps are discussed in a companion volume,
- The federal system, the District of Columbia, and each of the states has an extensive group of statutory provisions regulating the criminal justice process. Initially, each jurisdiction has a series of sequentially presented provisions that typically are described as the jurisdiction’s “code of criminal procedure.” In only about a third of the jurisdictions, however, are these true codifications of the law of criminal procedure. Here, the “code” does set forth the basic governing standards, often accompanied by considerable procedural detail, in a conceptually integrated, comprehensive pattern of regulation. Such statutes typically have ..., including: arrest authority; issuance of summons or citations as alternatives to arrest; search authority pursuant to a warrant; electronic surveillance authority; and detention and disposition of the arrested person. Other aspects of investigation, such as police interrogation, are rarely dealt with by statute. In other states, the criminal...
- For over a century, common law rulings were the primary source of the law governing the criminal justice process in the states. However, the introduction of comprehensive codes of criminal procedure, followed by the adoption in many states of extensive court rules, and then by the constitutionalization of the law of criminal procedure, combined to sharply reduce the role of common law rulings. Today, for all but a few states, the legal standards governing most aspects of the criminal justice process come from a combination of the federal constitution, the state’s own constitution, state statutes, and state court rules (all subject, of course, to judicial interpretation). Common law rulings still dominate as to certain aspects of courtroom procedure, but only infrequently as to investigative procedures. The grand jury investigation is one aspect of investigation in which common law rulings continue to play a significant role in many jurisdictions.
- The most extensive explanations of the special need for expansive interpretations of the Constitution’s criminal procedure guarantees are found in academic commentary rather than Supreme Court opinions. Several of the rationales offered in that commentary, however, do find support in a series of comments, typically brief, made occasionally in opinions for the Court and more frequently in the opinions of individual justices. The rationales having such support look primarily to three factors, each discussed below: (1) the relationship of criminal procedure to the general protection of civil liberties; (2) the relationship of criminal procedure to the protection of minorities; and (3) the presence of various structural elements that enhance the Court’s authority in exercising constitutional review of the criminal process.
- Under the American version of federalism, each of the fifty state governments retains the authority to enact its own criminal code, applicable within the territorial reach of its legislative powers. Each state also retains the power to provide for the enforcement of that criminal code through agencies and procedures that it creates. That authority has been used in each state to establish what is basically a single, general criminal justice process applicable throughout the state (although that process typically will permit some limited local variations in procedure). Congress has added to these fifty state criminal justice processes its two distinct federal criminal justice processes. First, it has created a separate criminal justice process for the District of Columbia, used to enforce a separate criminal code that applies only in the District. Second, it has created a criminal justice process for the enforcement of the general federal criminal code, which applies throughout the...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Grand Jury Investigations 60 results (showing 5 best matches)
- discounted the non-criminal cases by explaining that the availability of the privilege there rested not on the language of the self-incrimination clause, but on the authority of the Court to craft protective procedures to implement the basic constitutional right. Four justices described a witness’ exercise of the privilege outside of a criminal case as the product of a prophylactic rule (see § 1.5(f)), designed to ensure that the Fifth Amendment was not later violated by the admission of that witness’ compelled statement in a criminal trial. Two described that availability as resting in “law * * * outside the Fifth Amendment’s core,” which provided “complimentary protection” to the core’s prohibition of “courtroom use of a criminal defendant’s compelled self-incriminatory testimony.”
- Criminal Procedure
- The use of immunity grants to preclude reliance upon the self-incrimination privilege predates the adoption of the Constitution. The English adopted an immunity procedure, known as providing “indemnity” against prosecution, “soon after the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination became firmly established,” and a similar practice was followed first in the colonies and then in the states. Not surprisingly, (1896) concluded that the immunity procedure was consistent with the history and purpose of the Fifth Amendment privilege. The Court stressed that the Fifth Amendment could not be “construed literally as authorizing the witness to refuse to disclose any fact which might tend to incriminate, disgrace, or expose him to unfavorable comments.” The history of the Amendment clearly indicated that its object was only to “secure the witness against criminal prosecution.” Thus, the self-incrimination privilege had been held inapplicable where the witness’ compelled testimony would...
- analysis of the function of the “criminal case” phrasing in the Fifth Amendment had significance far beyond the grand jury. It led to a long line of cases holding the self-incrimination privilege available to witnesses in various non-criminal proceedings, including the administrative agency investigations discussed in § 7.1(d). These rulings traditionally were viewed, consistent with did not involve the exercise of the privilege by a witness in a non-criminal proceeding, the Court considered the non-criminal cases relevant to the question before it: whether the Fifth Amendment was violated by coercive interrogation of a suspect that compelled a statement which was never used against the suspect in a criminal case (see § 5.2). The non-criminal cases were deemed relevant because the privilege was being made available to witnesses in those proceedings notwithstanding that there was no assurance that the statement being compelled would later be used in a criminal case.
- investigation, witnesses, and criminal defendants. The discussion below focuses on secrecy standards as they relate to disclosures within the administration of the criminal justice process, as those standards have the most direct bearing on the interests of investigators, targets, witnesses, and defendants. Secrecy standards governing disclosures in connection with other types of proceedings (e.g. civil suits) also impact the interests of investigators, targets, witnesses, and defendants, but are not discussed here because their impact upon the criminal justice process is less significant and they often are shaped by interests unrelated to the criminal justice process (e.g., equity in civil discovery).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Police “Encouragement” and the Entrapment Defense 27 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- (a) Encouragement of Criminal Activity.
- This indiscriminate attitude toward predisposition evidence is by no means a necessary feature of the subjective test. This is because less prejudicial means of determining the readiness and willingness of a defendant to engage in the criminal conduct will often be available. The most promising alternative is testimony about the defendant’s actions during the negotiations leading to the charged offense, such as his ready acquiescence, his expert knowledge about such criminal activity, his admissions of past deeds or future plans, and his ready access to the contraband. Another possibility is evidence obtained in a subsequent search or otherwise showing the defendant was involved in a course of ongoing criminal activity.
- (a) Encouragement of Criminal Activity
- (c) Government “Overinvolvement” in a Criminal Enterprise
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Scope of the Exclusionary Rules 22 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- Lower courts have had the least difficulty in applying the inevitable discovery doctrine where that discovery would have come about through a routine procedure invariably applied under the particular circumstances, as commonly is the case where the government argues that the evidence discovered through an illegal warrantless search would have been uncovered in an inventory search. But these courts often find more troubling a situation in which the government claims as its source of inevitable discovery an investigatory procedure that is not routine, but dependent upon a police determination that the procedure’s potential value would outweigh its costs. Here, there is greater uncertainty as to whether the procedure would have been performed and often greater incentive for police to take shortcuts. However, the same type of argument could have been made in ...in that situation, lower courts have applied the doctrine to various non-routine investigatory procedures where the government...
- Of course, to gain application of the inevitable discovery doctrine, the government must establish not only that its employment of an independent, lawful investigative procedure was inevitable, but also that that procedure inevitably would have led to the discovery of the same evidence actually found through the constitutional violation. “Inevitably,” for this purpose means that the discovery definitely would have occurred, not that it “might” or “could” have occurred. However, held that the Constitution is satisfied if the government establishes inevitability by a preponderance of the evidence; a higher burden of proof (e.g., clear and convincing evidence) is not constitutionally required. Typically, lower courts insist that the government introduce specific evidence (ordinarily, testimony by a police officer) establishing that another investigative procedure would have been employed and would have been successful. In some instances, however, the successful employment of that other
- Standing issues also arise infrequently with respect to unconstitutional identification procedures. But they can occur, as where in an accomplice’s trial identification evidence is offered to show that his principal committed the crime charged. Where the nature of the constitutional violation was denial of the right to counsel at a lineup provided under ...pretrial identification which the accused is helpless to subject to effective scrutiny at trial, the accused is deprived of that right of cross-examination which is an essential safeguard to his right to confront the witnesses against him.” In other words, the constitutional right at issue belongs to the person on trial rather than the person identified, and thus the defendant has standing, for otherwise there would be present a serious risk that the issue of his guilt or innocence might not be reliably determined. Whatever the result in such circumstances, surely a defendant has standing to object to an identification procedure...
- In the simplest of exclusionary rule cases, the challenged evidence is quite clearly “direct” or “primary” in its relationship to the prior arrest, search, interrogation, lineup or other identification procedure. Such is the case when that evidence is an identification occurring at the confrontation between suspect and victim or witness, a confession or admission made in response to questioning, or physical evidence obtained by search or arrest. Not infrequently, however, challenged evidence is “secondary” or “derivative” in character. This occurs when, for example, a confession is obtained after an illegal arrest, physical evidence is located after an illegally obtained confession, or an in-court identification is made following an illegally conducted pretrial identification. In these situations, it is necessary to determine whether the derivative ...given, the “poisonous tree” can be an illegal arrest or search, illegal interrogation procedures or illegal identification practices...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Interrogation and Confessions 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- No area of constitutional criminal procedure has provoked more debate over the years than that dealing with police interrogation. In large measure, the debate has centered upon two fundamental questions: (1) how important are confessions in the process of solving crimes and convicting the perpetrators? and (2) what is the extent and nature of police abuse in seeking to obtain confessions from those suspected of crimes? Conclusive evidence on these two points is lacking, and thus it is not surprising that this debate continues.
- procedures. Because is grounded in the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, this presents a question of exactly what constitutes incrimination within the meaning of the Amendment. As a general matter, this constitutional provision itself supplies the answer, for it declares that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This most certainly means, as occurred in that an improperly obtained confession is subject to suppression when offered in a criminal trial as evidence of defendant’s guilt of the crime charged. Some of the cases discussed earlier holding rights cannot be invoked in a criminal trial of a minor offense. If so viewed, they are even more clearly in error.
- (1988). Taking the “pragmatic approach” that the warnings and waiver procedure required depend largely upon “the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel” at the particular stage of the criminal process at issue, the
- It is impossible for us to foresee the potential alternatives for protecting the privilege which might be devised by Congress or the States in the exercise of their creative rule-making capacities. Therefore we cannot say that the Constitution necessarily requires adherence to any particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the interrogation process as it is presently conducted. Our decision in no way creates a constitutional straitjacket which will handicap sound efforts at reform nor is it intended to have this effect. We encourage Congress and the States to continue their laudable search for increasingly effective ways of protecting the rights of the individual while promoting efficient enforcement of our criminal laws. However, unless we are shown other procedures which are at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following safeguards must be observed.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Administration of the Exclusionary Rules 19 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- that the New York procedure was constitutionally defective because at no point along the way did a criminal defendant receive a clear-cut determination that the confession used against him was in fact voluntary. The trial judge was not entitled to exclude a confession merely because he himself would have found it involuntary, and, while we recognized that the jury was empowered to perform that function, we doubted it could do so reliably. Precisely because confessions of guilt, whether coerced or freely given, may be truthful and potent evidence, we did not believe a jury could be called upon to ignore the probative value of a truthful but coerced confession; it was also likely, we thought, that in judging voluntariness itself the jury would be influenced by the reliability of a confession it considered an accurate account of the facts.
- An identification procedure may also be challenged on the ground that it was so unnecessarily suggestive as to violate due process. In such circumstances many courts have assumed, typically without extensive discussion, that the defendant has the burden of proving the due process violation because he is the moving party. But the prosecution should bear the burdens of production and persuasion whenever the identification procedure was conducted out of the presence of defendant’s attorney, for in such a situation the defendant may not even be aware that witnesses were seeking to identify him (e.g., where a “showup” was conducted through a one-way mirror), and even if aware, he still may be unable to know what facts existed that might make the procedure unnecessarily suggestive. Some jurisdictions have divided the burden of proof between the defense and the prosecution; the defense carries the burden of showing that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, and the...
- The pretrial motion to suppress, made in the context of criminal proceedings, must be distinguished from the action that may be taken in many jurisdictions prior to the filing of criminal charges, in order to challenge continued government possession of objects acquired in an earlier search. Though this precharge motion is sometimes referred to as a motion to suppress, it is more correct to call it a motion for return of property or a motion to quash a search warrant, for even if the movant is successful it does not necessarily follow that this evidence will be suppressed if a criminal prosecution is later undertaken.
- (1967), establishing a right to counsel at certain pretrial identification proceedings, the Court expressly stated that the burden was on the government “to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications were based upon observations of the suspect other than the lineup identification.” It is thus clear that the states are constitutionally compelled to utilize a standard at least this demanding. Some states have carried this concept over to in-court identifications allegedly tainted by an out-of-court identification procedure that violated due process. Once the court concludes that the initial, out-of-court identification procedure violated due process, the state assumes the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence the independent reliability of the in-court identification. As to the due process violation in the original identification procedure, here the burden is usually placed on the defendant (at least in part), and the defendant’s...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Arrest, Search and Seizure 56 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- (g) Application of Exclusionary Rule in Non-criminal Proceedings.
- (1967), the cases upholding the federal wiretapping law have stressed that normal investigative procedures were tried and failed or appeared unlikely to succeed. It has been intimated that some such showing might also be necessary for a so-called “surreptitious entry” warrant, authorizing police to enter and merely scrutinize an ongoing criminal operation (e.g., an illegal drug lab) within, permitted in some circumstances by federal legislation (18 U.S.C.A. § 1303a).
- The term “informant” is used here to describe an individual who learns of criminal conduct by being a part of the criminal milieu; it does not refer to the average citizen who by happenstance finds himself in the position of a victim of or a witness to a crime. The Supreme Court
- oral statements to the magistrate, even if they were given under oath. Such reliance on oral testimony does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and while it has been held that this is so even when no contemporaneous record was made, it has been persuasively argued that reliance upon oral testimony should not be allowed in such a case because there is too much leeway for after-the-fact rehabilitation of insufficient testimony. (Such utilization of oral testimony must be distinguished from the so-called oral or telephonic search warrant procedure authorized in some jurisdictions, whereby the affiant gives his sworn statement to the magistrate via telephone or other means of communication, after which if the magistrate approves issuance of the warrant he causes an original warrant to be prepared and orally authorizes the officer to prepare a duplicate warrant for use in execution; this procedure complies with the “Oath or affirmation” requirement and is not otherwise constitutionally...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Identification Procedures 48 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- When the question is the reliability of the in-court identification, the issue is phrased in terms of whether the earlier suggestive procedure created “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” When, on the other hand, the question is the reliability of the earlier identification occurring in the context of the unnecessarily suggestive procedure, the standard is quite similar; the same language, “with the deletion of ‘irreparable,’ ” is utilized. It is unlikely but theoretically possible that there could be a risk of misidentification which was substantial but not irreparable, meaning that in a particular case applying the “include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting...
- was more expansively stated as being “that a corporeal identification is a critical stage of a criminal prosecution for Sixth Amendment purposes,” and thus the Court concluded that there was a right to counsel at a one-on-one showup. Indeed, as the Court observed, such a procedure is so highly suggestive that the need for counsel is especially great. The identification in prosecutor asked a rape victim to point out her assailant in the courtroom, but the Court rejected the contention that there is no right to counsel at an identification procedure conducted in the course of a judicial proceeding. Though the more formal proceeding involved in
- Eyewitness identification can be a powerful piece of evidence in a criminal prosecution. It is frequently an essential piece of evidence as well, as more scientific forms of identification evidence, such as fingerprint and handwriting analyses, are not always available. Yet it is well known that eyewitness evidence is inherently suspect and that suggestive procedures may prejudicially affect the ultimate identification. A pretrial identification proceeding may increase the risk of mistaken identification, as it occurs outside the courtroom and therefore is beyond the immediate supervision of the court. There is considerable evidence that the problem of misidentification is a serious one; especially telling is the fact that mistaken eyewitness identifications were a major cause in sixty of the first eighty-two DNA exonerations handled by the Innocence Project in New York.
- notion that suggestive procedures may be necessary when there is a need for law enforcement officials “to determine whether they were on the right track” has most often been applied by lower courts to justify identification procedures conducted within several hours of the crime. Perhaps because the Supreme Court in went on to discuss the fact that in the circumstances there present the chances of misidentification were slight, these lower court cases typically emphasize the reliability of the identification as well. These cases often give the impression, though the point is not articulated, that the finding of a need for immediate identification is balanced against the unreliability factor, in the sense that a higher risk of error will be tolerated when there was a strong need to conduct the identification procedure at that time. Yet another situation in which a suggestive identification procedure will be deemed necessary is where the suspect has one or more characteristics so...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Network Surveillance 24 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- The statute also requires that the application contain “a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.”
- The rules for compelling content information from providers of ECS and RCS are notably complex. The statute itself creates two different categories. First, contents held in “electronic storage” by a provider of ECS for 180 days or less can only be compelled under a search warrant procedure based on probable cause under Section 2703(a). Such warrants are normally executed like subpoenas: the government will obtain the warrant using the normal procedures for obtaining search warrants and will then fax the warrant to the ISP.
- (c) Criminal Penalties
- The materials so far in this chapter have considered surveillance in the course of criminal investigations. There are parallel statutory authorities and Fourth Amendment limits when the government conducts investigations for the purposes of collecting information relating to foreign national security threats.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. The Right to Counsel 46 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Criminal Procedure
- The Supreme Court has applied critical-stage analysis to a variety of different steps in the criminal prosecution. In the course of those rulings, it has referred ...determining whether a particular step constitutes a critical stage (and therefore gives the accused the right to the assistance of counsel as to that step). Courts are directed to ask whether the particular procedural step was one “where available defenses may be irretrievably lost, if not then and there asserted,” whether the assistance of counsel at this point is “necessary to mount a meaningful defence,” and whether “potential substantial prejudice to defendant’s rights inheres in the confrontation between the accused and the government” and counsel’s assistance can “help avoid that prejudice.” Supplemented by the analysis applied in the Court’s various rulings, these touchstones would appear to require a reviewing court to ask the following questions in determining whether a particular procedure constituted a...
- (1987), the majority characterized the issue before it as whether due process required the state to appoint counsel to assist the respondent in preparing a collateral attack upon her conviction under a state postconviction relief procedure. The state there had appointed counsel, but counsel had then been allowed to withdraw after concluding that the collateral attack lacked arguable merit. The Court majority reasoned that the withdrawal procedure would present a constitutional issue only if respondent had an underlying constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. Turning to that question, the Court did not focus on the need for counsel’s expertise in preparing a collateral attack petition. Arguably, a stronger case could be made here than in ...the place of the collateral attack within the totality of the proceedings for determining guilt. The majority noted that “postconviction relief is even further removed from the criminal trial than is discretionary direct review,” is...
- Just as the right to counsel extends through various stages in the criminal justice process, waiver of that right can occur at each of those stages. In some respects, what is required for a valid waiver will vary with the particular stage. Thus, the standards for a waiver of counsel in the course of a police investigation differ in certain respects from the standards governing a waiver in a judicial proceeding. A judge accepting a waiver at trial, for example, may be required to conduct a type of inquiry as to the defendant’s state of mind that simply would not be feasible for a police officer accepting a waiver prior to custodial interrogation. The requisites for a valid waiver in the course of investigatory procedures have been discussed in previous chapters. Our focus in this section is upon waivers in judicial proceedings, particularly at trial.
- the more affluent defendant was not required to “run [the] gauntlet of a preliminary showing of merit” to have his case presented by counsel. As the Court saw the state’s procedure, “the indigent, where the record was unclear or errors were hidden, had only the right to a meaningless ritual, while the rich man had a meaningful appeal.” The opinion stressed, however, that it was not requiring “absolute equality” throughout the criminal justice process. What was at stake here was the first level of appeal, the “one and only appeal an indigent has as of right.” The Court was not here concerned with review “beyond the stage in the appellate process at which the claims have once been presented by a lawyer and passed upon by an appellate court.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Arrest, Search and Seizure Part 2 45 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Thus, while a “strict standard of waiver” applies “to those rights guaranteed to a criminal defendant to insure * * * a fair criminal trial,” it need not extend to the “protections of the Fourth Amendment,” which “are of a wholly different order, and have nothing whatever to do with promoting the fair ascertainment of truth at a criminal trial.”
- (2006) upheld a police search of a parolee notwithstanding the absence of any established standardized procedures or individualized reasonable suspicion (or, insofar as the recited facts indicated, any suspicion whatsoever). In support, it was asserted (i) “that parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation is”; (ii) that “the parole search condition under California law—requiring inmates who opt for parole to submit to suspicionless searches by a parole officer or other peace officer ‘at any time’—was ‘clearly expressed’ to Samson”; (iii) that the state “has an ‘overwhelming interest’ in supervising parolees because ‘parolees … are more likely to commit future criminal offenses,’ ” as manifested by the fact “California’s parolee population has a 68-to-70 percent recidivism rate”; and (iv) that the “concern that California’s suspicionless search system gives officers unbridled discretion to conduct searches...
- (2001), where a task force made up of representatives of the Charleston public hospital, police and other public officials developed a policy for identifying and testing pregnant patients suspected of drug use and then turning the results over to law enforcement agents without the knowledge or consent of the patients. This policy, which also contained procedures for arresting patients and for prosecuting them for drug offenses and/or child neglect, was challenged by a group of obstetrical patients at that hospital who had been arrested after testing positive for cocaine. The Court answered in the negative the question of “whether the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter pregnant women from using cocaine can justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.” The instant case, the majority reasoned, was different from the Court’s prior drug testing cases in two material...
- dictum has had considerable impact. Statutes or court rules authorizing brief detention at the station by court order on less than the grounds needed for arrest, where the purpose of the detention is to conduct various identification procedures, were adopted in several jurisdictions. These provisions have been upheld by the courts, and other cases have upheld such procedures even in the absence of a specific statute or rule.
- On this record, we conclude that in following standard police procedures, prevailing throughout the country and approved by the overwhelming majority of courts, the conduct of the police was not “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
Index 27 results (showing 5 best matches)
- See also Identification Procedures.
- See also Confessions; Counsel, Ineffectiveness of; Harmless Error; Identification Procedures; Indigents, Rights of.
- See also Confessions; Network Surveillance; “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine; Identification Procedures; Search and Seizure Remedies; Searches and Seizures; Standing to Suppress Evidence.
- See Identification Procedures.
- Alternative investigative procedures, § 7.1(d).
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: August 28th, 2009
- ISBN: 9780314199355
- Subject: Criminal Procedure
- Series: Concise Hornbook Series
- Type: Hornbook Treatises
- Description: This book, for use in connection with a course focused upon crime detection and investigation, examines various investigative procedures, including search and seizure, network surveillance, entrapment, interrogation, lineup and photo identification, and grand jury investigation; describes the scope and administration of exclusionary rules relating to those procedures; and also discusses the right to counsel. All sections in the book are cross-referenced to comparable sections of the authors' seven-volume Criminal Procedure treatise containing more detailed analysis and citations to additional supporting authorities.