CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I. CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE	
A. CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS BINDING ON STATES	
B. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NOT BINDING ON STATES	
II. EXCLUSIONARY RULE	
A. IN GENERAL - SCOPE OF RULE	
B. LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE	
1. Inapplicable to Grand Juries, Civil Proceedings, and Internal Agency Rules	
2. Good Faith Reliance on Law, Defective Search Warrant, or Clerical Error	
3. Use of Excluded Evidence for Impeachment Purposes	
4. Miranda Violations	
C. HARMLESS ERROR TEST	
D. ENFORCING THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE	
III. FOURTH AMENDMENT	
A. IN GENERAL	
B. ARRESTS AND OTHER DETENTIONS	
1. What Constitutes a Seizure?	
2. Arrests	
3. Other Detentions	
4. Stop and Identify Statutes	
5. Grand Jury Appearance	
6. Deadly Force	
C. EVIDENTIARY SEARCH AND SEIZURE	
1. Governmental Conduct Required	
2. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy	
3. Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant	
4. Exceptions to Warrant Requirement	
5. Administrative Inspections and Searches	
6. Searches in Foreign Countries and at the Boarder	
7. Wiretapping and Eavesdropping	
D. METHOD OF OBATINING EVIDENCE THAT SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE	
IV. CONFESSIONS	
A. INTRODUCTION	
B. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - VOLUNTARINESS	
1. Harmless Error Test Applies	
C. SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL	
1. Offense Specific	
D. FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPELLED SELF-INCRIMINATION	
1. Miranda Warnings	
2. When Required	
3. Right to Terminate Interrogation	
4. Effect of Violation	
5. Public Safety Exception	
V. PRETRIAL IDENTIFICATION	
A. SUBSTANTIVE BASES FOR ATTACK	
1. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel	
2. Due Process Standard	
B. THE REMEDY	
1. Independent Source	
2. Hearing	
VI. PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPELLED SELF-INCRIMINATION	
A. WHO MAY ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE	
B. WHEN PRIVILEGE MAY BE ASSERTED	
C. METHOD FOR INVOKING PRIVILEGE	
D. SCOPE OF PROTECTION	
1. Testimonial but Not Physical Evidence	
2. Compulsory Production of Documents	
3. Seizure of Incriminating Documents	
E. PROHIBITION AGAINST BURDENS ON ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE	
1. Comments on Defendant’s Silence	
2. Penalties for Failure to Testify	
F. ELIMINATION OF PRIVILEGE	
1. Grant of Immunity	
2. No Possibilty of Incrimination	
G. WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE	

I.	CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A.	CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS BINDING ON STATES
The first eight amendments to the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government.  Most of these rights are applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The following rights are binding on the states (as well as the federal government):
1.	The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and sezures, and the exclusionary rule;
2.	The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination;
3.	The Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy;
4.	The Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial;
5.	The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial;
6.	The Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury;
7.	The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses;
8.	The Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses;
9.	The Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel in felony cases and in misdemeanor cases in which imprisonment is imposed; and
10.	The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
B.	CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NOT BINDING ON STATES
The right to indictment by a grand jury for capital and infamous crimes has been held not to be binding on the states.  It has not yet been determined whether the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive bail creates a right to bail.  However, most state constitutions creat a right to bail and prohibit excessive bail.
II.	EXCLUSIONARY RULE
A.	IN GENERAL - SCOPE OF RULE
The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sith Amendment rights.  Under the rule, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible at trial, and all “fruit of the poisonous tree” (i.e., evidence obtained from exploitation of the illegally obtained evidence) must also be excluded.  Exceptions to fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine:
1.	Evidence obtained from a source independent to the original illegality;
2.	An intervening act of free will by the defendant (e.g., defendant is illegally arrested but is released and later returns to the station to confess);
3.	Inevitable discovery; i.e., the prosecution can show that the police would have discovered the evidence whether or not the police acted unconstitutionally.
Note: It is difficult to have live witness testimony excluded on exclusionary rule grounds.  Also, a defendant may not exclude a witness’s in court identification on the ground that it is the fruit of an unlawful detention.
B.	LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE
1.	Inapplicable to Grand Juries, Civil Proceedings, and Internal Agency Rules
The exclusionary rule is inapplicable to grand juries unless evidence was obtained in violation of the federal wiretapping statute.  The rule is also inapplicable to civil proceedings and where evidence was obtained contrary only to agency rules.
2.	Good Faith Reliance on Law, Defective Search Warrant, or Clerical Error
The exclusionary rule does not apply when police act in good faith based on (i) case law, (ii) a facially valid statute or ordinance, or (iii) a computer report containing clerical errors not made by the police.  Neither does the rule apply when the police act in good faith reliance on a defective search warrant unless (i) the underlying affidavit was so lacking in probable cause that it could not reasonably be relied on, (ii) the warrant was defective on its face, (iii) the affiant lied to or misled the magistrate, or (iv) the magistrate has “wholly abandoned his judicial role.”
3.	Use of Excluded Evidence for Impeachment Purposes
Some illegally obtained evidence may still be used to impeach defendant’s credibility if he takes the stand at trial.  Specifically, an otherwise voluntary confession taken in violation of Miranda requirements is admissible for impeachment purposes, and evidence obtained from an illegal search may be used by the prosecution to impeach defendant’s, but not others’ statements.
4.	Miranda Violations
The Supreme Court has suggested that fruits derived from statements obtained in violation of Miranda might be admissible despite the exclusionary rule.  (See, e.g., IV.D.4.b., infra.)
C.	HARMLESS ERROR TEST
If illegal evidence is admitted, a resulting conviction should be overturned on appeal unless the government can show beyond reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.  In a habeas proceeding where the petioner claims constitutional error, he should be released if he can show that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict; if the judge is in grave doubt as to the harm, the petition must be granted.
D.	ENFORCING THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
A defendant is entitled to have the admissibility of evidence or a confession decided as a matter of law by a judge out of the hearing of the jury.  The government bears the burden of establishing the admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.  The defendant has the right to testify at a suppression hearing without his testimony’s being admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt.
III.	FOURTH AMENDMENT
A.	IN GENERAL
The Fourth Amendment provides that people should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
B.	ARRESTS AND OTHER DETENTIONS
Government seizures of persons, including arrests, are seizures within the scope of the Fourth Amendment and so must be reasonable.
1.	What Constitutes a Seizure?
A seizure occurs when a reasonable person would believe that she is not free to leave or terminate an encounter with the government.
2.	Arrests
An arrest occurs when the police take a person into custody against her will for purposes of criminal prosecution or interrogation.
a)	Probable Cause Requirement
An arrest must be based on probable cause - i.e., trustworthy facts or knowledge sufficient for a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed or is commiting a crime.
b)	Warrant Generally Not Required Except for Home Arrests
A warrant generally is not required before arresting a person in a public place.  However, police generally must have a warrant to effect a nonemergency arrest of a person in his home.
3.	Other Detentions
a)	Investigatory Detentions (Stop and Frisk)
If police have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or involvement in a completed crime, supported by articulable facts (i.e., not merely a hunch), they may detain a person for investigative purposes.  If the police also have reasonable suspicion that the detainee is armed and dangerous, they may frisk the detainee for weapons.
(1)	Duration and Scope
The detention must be no longer than necessary to conduct a limited investigation to verify the suspicion.  If during the detention probable cause arises, the detention becomes an arrest.
(2)	Property Seizures
Brief property seizures are similarly valid if based on reasonable suspicion.
b)	Automobile Stops
Police may not randomly stop a single automobile for license and registration checks.  They must reasonably believe the stopped car violated a traffic law, and as long as the police believe that a traffic law has been violated, they may stop the suspect’s car, even if their ulterior motive is to investigate whether some other law - for which the police lack reasonable suspicion - has been violated.
(1)	Checkpoints
The Supreme Court has upheld the use of checkpoints to check driver sobriety or the citizenship of occupants where cars are stopped according to some neutral articulable standard (e.g., every third car) rather than on reasonable suspicion.
(2)	Boats
Suspicionless boardings of boats in channels leading to open seas are also permitted.
c)	Occupants of the Premises
A valid warrant to search for contraband allows the police to detain occupants of the premises during a proper search.
d)	Station House Detentions
Police must have full probable cause for arrest to bring a suspect to the station for questioning or fingerprinting.
4.	Stop and Identify Statutes
Stop and identify statutes may be unconstitutionally vague for failure to clarify what will satisfy the identification requirement.
5.	Grand Jury Appearance
Seizure of a person (by subpoena) for a grand jury appearance is not within the Fourth Amendment’s protection.
6.	Deadly Force
A police officer may not use deadly force to apprehend a suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.
C.	EVIDENTIARY SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Like arrests, evidentiary searches and seizures must be reasonable to be valid under the Fourth Amendment, but here reasonableness requires a warrant except in six circumstances.  Evidentiary search and seizure issues should be approached using the following analytical model:
1.	Does defenant have a Fourth Amendment right (seizure by the government concerning a place or thing in which defendant had a reaonable expectation of privacy)?
2.	Did the government have a valid warrant (issued by a neutral and detached magistrate on a showing of probable cause and reasonably precise as to the place to be searched and items to be seized)?
3.	If the police did not have a valid warrant, did they make a valid warrantless search and seizure?
1.	Governmental Conduct Required
The Fourth Amendment generally protects only against governmental conduct (i.e., police or other government agents), and not against searches by private persons - including private security guards - unless deputized as officers of the public police.
2.	Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
a)	Standing
To have a Fourth Amendment right, a person must have his own reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the place searched or the item seized.  The determination is made on the totality of the circumstances, but a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy an time:
1.	He owned or had a right to possession of the placed searched;
2.	The place searched was in fact his home whether or not he owned or had a right to possession of it; or
3.	He was an overnight guest of the owner of the place searched.
b)	Things Held Out to the Public
One does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in objects held out to the public.
1.	The sound of one’s voice
2.	One’s handwriting
3.	Painting on the outside of one’s vehicle
4.	Account records held by a bank
5.	The location of one’s wehicle on public roads or its arrival at a private residence
6.	Areas outside the home and related buildings (“curtilage”), such as a barn
7.	Garbage left for collection
8.	Land visible from a public place, even from a plane or helicopter
9.	The smell of one’s luggage (“sniff-test”)
3.	Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant
Generally, the police must have a warrant to conduct a search unless it falls within one of the six exceptions to athe warrant requirement (see 4., infra).
a)	Showing of Probable Cause
A warrant will be issued only if there is probable cause to believe that seizable evidence will be found on the person or premises to be searched.  Officers must submit to a magistrate an affidavit setting forth circumstances enabling the magistrate to make a determination of probable cause independent of the officers’ conclusions.
(1)	Use of Informers
An affidavit based on an informer’s tip must meet the “totality of the circumstances” test.  Under this test, the affidavit may be sufficient even though the reliability and credibility of the informer or his basis for knowledge are not established.  Note that the informer’s identity generally need not be revealed.
(2)	Going “Behind the Face” of the Affidavit
A search warrant issued on the basis of an affidavit will be held invalid if the defendant establishes all three of the following:
1.	A false statement was included in the affidavit by the affiant (the officer applying for the warrant);
2.	The affiant intentionally or recklessly included the false statement; and
3.	The false statement was material to the finding of probable cause.
(a)	Police May Reasonably Rely on Validity of Warrant
Evidence obtained by the police in reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant may be used by the prosecution, despite an ultimate finding that the warrant was not supported by  probable cause. (See II.B.2., supra.)
b)	Warrant Must Be Precise on Its Face
A warrant must descrime with reasonable precision the place to be searched and items to be seized.
c)	Search of Third Party Premises Permissible
A warrant may be obtained to search premises belonging to nonsuspects, as long as there is probable cause to believe that evidence will be found there.
d)	Neutral and Detached Magistrate Requirement
The Magistrate who issues the warrant must be neutral and detached (e.g., state attorney general is not neutral).
e)	Execution of Warrant
Only the police (an not private citizens) may execute a warrant, and it must be executed without unreasonable delay.  Police must knock and announce their purpose (unless they reasonably believe that notice will endanger themselves or lead to the destruction of evidence).  Police may seize any contraband or fruits or instrumentalities of crime that they discover, whether or not specified in the warrant.
(1)	Search of Persons Found on Searched Premises
A warrant founded on probable cause to search for contraband authorizes the police to detain occumants of the premises during a proper search, but a search warrant does not authorize the police to search persons found on the premises who were not named in the warrant.
4.	Exceptions to Warrant Requirement
All warrantless searches are unconstitutional unless they fit into one of six recognized exceptions to warrant requirement.
a)	Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
Incident to a lawful arrest, the police may search the person and areas into which he might reach to obtain weapons or destroy evidence (including the entire passenger compartment of a car).  The police may also make a protective sweep of the area if they believe accomplices may be present.  The search must be contemporaneous in time and place with the arrest.
(1)	Lawful Arrest Requirement
If an arrest is unlawful, any search incident to that arrest is also unlawful.
(2)	Search Incident to Incarceration
At the police station, the police may make an inventory search of the arrestee’s belongings.  Similarly, the police may make an inventory search of an impounded vehicle.
b)	“Automobile” Exception
If the police have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, they may search the whole vehicle and any container that might reasonably contain the item for which they had probable cause to search.  If a warrantless search of a vehicle is valid, the police may tow  the vehicle to the station and search it later.
(1)	Containers Placed in Vehicle
If the police have probable cause only to search a container in a vehicle (e.g., luggage recently placed in the trunk), they may search only the container, not other parts of the vehicle.
c)	Plain View
The police may make a warrantless seizure when they:
1.	Are legitimately on the premises;
2.	Discover evidence, fruits or instrumentalities of crime, or contraband;
3.	See such evidence in plain view; and
4.	Have probable cause to believe (i.e., it must be immediately apparent) that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of crime.
d)	Consent
A warrantless search is valid if the police have a voluntary and intelligent consent.  Knowledge of the right to withhold consent is not a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary and intelligent consent.  The scope of the search may be limited by the scope of the consent, but generally extends to all areas to which a reasonable person under the circumstance would believe it extends.
(1)	Authority to Consent
Any person with an apparent equal right to use or occupy the property may consent to a search, and any evidence found may be used against the other owners or occupants.
e)	Stop and Frisk
(1)	Standards
As noted above, a police officer may stop a person without probable cause for arrest if she has an articulable and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.  If the officer also reasonably believes that the person may be armed and presently dangerous, she may conduct a protective frisk.
(2)	Scope of Intrusion
The scope of the frisk is generally limited to a patdown of outer clothing, unless the officer has specific information that a weapon is hidden in a particular area of the suspect’s clothing.  An officer may also search the passenger compartment of an automobile of a detained occupant where there is a reasonable belief that the occupant is dangerous.
(3)	Admissibility of Evidence
During a patdown, an officer may reach into the suspect’s clothing and swize any item that the officer reasonably believes, based on its “plain feel,” is a weapon or contraband, and such items are admissible as evidence.
(4)	Ordering Driver Out of Car Permissible
Once a vehicle has been properly stopped for a traffic violation, the police may order the driver out of the vehicle, even without suspicion of criminal activity.  If the police then reasonably believe that the driver may be armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk.
f)	Hot Pursuit, Evanescent Evidence, and Other Emergencies
There is no general “emergency” exception (e.g., no need to investigate a fire after it has been extinguished and its cause is determined).  However, (i) police in ot pursuit of a fleeing felon may make a warrantless search and seizure and may even pursue the suspect into a private dwelling; (ii) police may seize without a warrant evidence likely to disappear before a warrant can be obtained; and (iii) contaminated food or drugs, children in trouble, and burning fires may justify warrantless search and seizures.
5.	Administrative Inspections and Searches
Inspectors must have a warrant for searches of private residences and commercial buildings, but the probable cause requireed to obtain a warrant is more lenient than for other searches: A showing of a general and neutral enforcement plan will justify issuance of a warrant.
a)	Exceptions Permitting Warrantless Searches
The following warrantless searches have been upheld:
1.	Administrative searches to seize spoiled or contaminated food;
2.	Administrative searches of a business within a highly regulated industry;
3.	Inventory searches of arrestees;
4.	Searches of airline passengers prior to boarding;
5.	Searches of probationers’ homes when there are reasonable grounds for the search;
6.	Searches of government employees’ desks and file cabinets where the scope is reasonable and there is a work-related need or reasonable suspicion of work related misconduct;
7.	Drug tests of railroad employees involved in an accident;
8.	Drug tests of persons seeking customs employment in positions connected to drug interdiction; and
9.	Drug tests of student athletes during the athletic season.
6.	Searches in Foreign Countries and at the Boarder
a)	Searches in Foreign Countries
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches and seizures by United States officials in foreign countries and involving an alien, at least where the alien does not have a substantial connection to the United States.  Thus, for example, the Fourth Amendment was held not to bar the use of evidence obtained in a warrantless search of an alien’s home in Mexico.
b)	Searches at the Border or Its Equivalent
No warrant is necessary for border searches.  Neither citizens nor noncitizens have any Fourth Amendment rights at the border.  Roving patrols inside the U.S. border may stop a vehicle for questioning of occupants if an officer reasonably suspects that the vehicle contains illegal aliens.  Border officials may stop a vehicle at a fixed checkpoint inside the boarder for questioning of occupants even without reasonable suspicion, but to conduct a search, they must have probable cause or consent.
c)	Opening International Mail
Permissible border searches include opening of international mail when postal authorities have reasonable cause to suspect that the mail contains contraband.
d)	Enforcement Actions
The I.N.S. may do a “factory survey” of the work force in a factory to determine citizenship of each employee.  Moreover, even illegally obtained evidence (i.e., evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment) may be used in a civil deportation hearing.
e)	Detentions
Officials with “reasonable suspicion” that a traveler is smuggling contraband in her stomach may detain the traveler.
7.	Wiretapping and Eavesdropping
Wiretapping (and other forms of electronic surveillance violating a reasonable expectation of privacy) constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.  A valid warrant authorizing a wiretap may be issued if (i) there is showing of probable cause, (ii) the suspected persons involved in the conversations to be overheard are named, (iii) the warrant describes with particularity the conversations that can be overheard, (iv) the wiretap is limited to a short period of time, (v) the wiretap is terminated when the desired information has been obtained, and (vi) return is made to the court, showing what conversations have been intercepted.
a)	Exceptions
A speaker assumes the risk that the person to whom he is talking is an informer wired for sound or taping the conversation.  A speaker has no Fourth Amendment claim if he makes no attempt to keep a conversation private.
b)	Pen Registers
Although pen registers (devices that record only phone numbers that are dialed from a phone) are not controlled by the Fourth Amendment, by statute judicial approval is required before a pen register may be used.
D.	METHOD OF OBATINING EVIDENCE THAT SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE
Evidence obtained in a manner offending a “sense of justice” is inadmissible under the Due Process Clause.  The reasonableness of searches within a person’s body is determined by balancing society’s need against the magnitude of the intrusion.  Taking of a blood sample is usually upheld, but surgery (e.g., to remove a bullet) requires great need.
IV.	CONFESSIONS
A.	INTRODUCTION
The admissibility of a defendant’s confession (or other incriminating admission) involves analysis under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
B.	FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - VOLUNTARINESS
For a self-incriminating statement to be admissible under the Due Process Clause, it must be voluntary, as determined by the totality of the circumstances.  A statement will be involuntary only if there is some official compulsion (e.g., a confession is not involuntary merely because it is a product of mental illness).
1.	Harmless Error Test Applies
If an involuntary confession is admitted into evidence, the harmless error test applies; i.e., the conviction need not be overturned if there is other overwhelming evidence of guilt.
C.	SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The Sixth Amendment guarantees  the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal proceedings, which include all critical stages of a prosecution after judicial proceedings have begun (e.g., formal charges have been filed).  It prohibits the police from eliciting an incriminating statement from a defendant outside the presence of counsel after the defendant has been charged unless he has waived his right to counsel.
1.	Offense Specific
The Sixth Amendment is offense specific.  Thus, even though a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights have attached regarding the charge for which he is being held, he may be questioned regarding unrelated, uncharged offenses without violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (although the interrogation might violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Mirandada; see below).
D.	FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPELLED SELF-INCRIMINATION
1.	Miranda Warnings
For an admission or confession to be admissible under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be informed, in substance, that:
1.	He has the right to remain silent;
2.	Anything he says can be used against him in court;
3.	He has the right to presence of an attorney; and
4.	If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him if he so desires.
2.	When Required
Anyone in the custody of the government and accused of a crime must be given Miranda warnings prior to interrogation by the police.
a)	Governmental Conduct
Generally, Miranda warnings are necessary only if the defendant knows that he is being interrogated by a government agent.
b)	Custody Requirement
Whether a person is in custody depends on whether the person’s freedom of action is denied in a significant way based on the objective circumstances (e.g., an arrested person is in custody).
c)	Interrogation Requirement
“Interrogation” includes any words or conduct by the police that they should know would likely elicit a response from the defendant.  Thus, Miranda warnings are not required before spontaneous statements are made by a defendant.  Note that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation.
d)	Waiver
A suspect can waive his Miranda rights, but the prosecution must prove that the waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.  Waiver will not be presumed from silence.
e)	Types of Statements
Miranda applies to both inculpatory statements and exculpatory statements (e.g., “I didn’t shoot V, you did”).
f)	Inapplicable at Grand Jury Hearing
The Miranda requirements do not apply to a witness testifying before a grand jury, even if the witness was compelled by subpoena to be there.
3.	Right to Terminate Interrogation
The accused may terminate police interrogation any time prior to or during the interrogation by invoking either the right to remain silent or the right to counsel.
a)	Right to Remain Silent
If the accused indicates that he wishes to remain silent, the police must scrupulously honour this request by not badgering the accused, although the Supreme Court has allowed later questioning to occur on an unrelated crime.
b)	Right to Counsel
If the accused unambiguously indicates that he wishes to speak to counsel, all questioning must cease until counsel has been provided unless the accused then waives his right to counsel (e.g., by reinitiating questioning).  The request must be specific (i.e., indicate that the defendant desires assistance in dealing with interrogation).  Allowing defendant to consult with counsel and then resuming interrogation after counsel has left generally does not satisfy the right to counsel - counsel must be present during the interrogation unless defendant has waived the right.
4.	Effect of Violation
Generally evidence obtained in violation of the Miranda rules is inadmissible at trial under the exclusionary rule.
a)	Use of Confession for Impeachment
Statements obtained in violation of the Miranda rules may be used to impeach the defendant’s trial testimony, but may not be used as evidence of guilt.
b)	Subsequent Valid Confession Admissible
The fact that a confession was obtained before Miranda warnings were given will not render invalid a confession made later, after Miranda warnings are given.
5.	Public Safety Exception
The Supreme Court has allwed interrogation without Miranda warnings where it was reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety (e.g., to locate a hidden gun that could have caused injury to innocent persons).
V.	PRETRIAL IDENTIFICATION
A.	SUBSTANTIVE BASES FOR ATTACK
1.	Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
A suspect has a right to the presence of an attorney at any post-charge lineup or showup.  An accused does not have a right to counsel at photo identifications or when police take physical evidence, such as handwriting exemplars or fingerprints, from him.
2.	Due Process Standard
A defendant can attack an identification as denying due process if the identification is unnecessarily suggestive and there is a substantial likelihood of misidenitification.
B.	THE REMEDY
The remedy for unconstitutional identifications is exclusion of the in court identification and is rarely granted.
1.	Independent Source
A witness may make an in court identification despite the existence of an unconstitutional pretrial identification if the in court identification has an independent source.  The most common independent source is opportunity to observe at the time of the crime (e.g., the witness viewed the defendant close up for 40 minutes during commission of the crime).
2.	Hearing
Admissibility of identification evidence should be determined at a suppression hearing in the absence of the jury, but exclusion of the jury is not constitutionally required.  The government bears the burden of proving that: (i) counsel was present; (ii) the accused waived counsel; or (iii) there is an independent source for the in court identification.  The defendant must prove an alleged due process violation.
VI.	PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPELLED SELF-INCRIMINATION
A.	WHO MAY ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE
Only natural persons may assert the privilege, not corporations or partnerships.  The privilege is personal and so may be asserted by a defendant, witness, or party only if the answer to the question might tend to incriminate him.
B.	WHEN PRIVILEGE MAY BE ASSERTED
A person may refuse to answer a question whenever his response might furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him.  The privilege must be claimed in civil proceedings to prevent the privilege from being waived for a later criminal prosecution.  Thus, if an individual responds to questions instead of claiming the privilege during a civil proceeding, he cannot later bar that evidence from a criminal prosecution on compelled self-incrimination grounds.
C.	METHOD FOR INVOKING PRIVILEGE
A criminal defendant has a right not to take the witness stand at trial and not to be asked to do so.  In any other situation, the privilege does not permit a person to avoid being sworn as a witness or being asked questions.  Rather, the person must listen to the questions and specifically invoke the privilege rather than answer the questions.
D.	SCOPE OF PROTECTION
1.	Testimonial but Not Physical Evidence
The Fifth Amendment privilege protects only testimonial or communicative evidence and not real or physical evidence.  For a suspect’s communication to be considered testimonial, it must relate a factual assertion or disclose information.
2.	Compulsory Production of Documents
A person served with a subpoena requiring production of documents tending to incriminate him generally has no basis in the privilege to refuse to comply, because the act of producing the documents does not involve testimonial self-incrimination.
3.	Seizure of Incriminating Documents
The Fifth Amendment does not prohibit law enforcement officers from searching for and seizing documents tending to incriminate a person.
E.	PROHIBITION AGAINST BURDENS ON ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE
1.	Comments on Defendant’s Silence
A prosecutor may not comment on a defendant’s silence after being arrested and receiving Miranda warnings.  Neither may the prosecutor comment on a defendant’s failure to testify at trial.  However, a defendant upon timely motion, is entitled to have the judge instruct the jury that they may not draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to testify.  Moreover, the judge may offer this instruction sua sponte, even over the defendant’s objection.
a)	Exception
A prosecutor can comment on a defendant’s failure to take the stand when the comment is in response to defense counsel’s assertion that defendant was not allowed to explain his side of the story.
b)	Harmless Error Test Applies
When a prosecutor impermissibly comments on defentant’s silence, the harmless error test applies.
2.	Penalties for Failure to Testify
The state may not chill exercise of Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination by imposing penalties for failure to testify.
F.	ELIMINATION OF PRIVILEGE
1.	Grant of Immunity
A witness may be compelled to answer questions if granted adequate immunity from prosecution.
a)	“Use and Derivative Use” Immunity Sufficient
“Use and derivative use” immunity guarantees that the witness’s testimony and evidence located by means of the testimony will not be used against the witness.  However, the witness may still be prosecuted if the prosecutor shows that the evidence to be used against the witness was derived from a source independent of the immunized testimony.
b)	Immunized Testimony Involuntary
Testimony obtained by a promise of immunity is coerced and therefore involuntary.  Thus, immunized testimony may not be used for impeachment of a defendant’s testimony at trial.  However, any imunized statements, whether true or untrue, can be used in a trial for perjury.
c)	Use of Testimony by Another Sovereign Prohibited
Federal prosecutors may not use evidence obtained as a result of a state grant of immunity, and vice versa.
2.	No Possibilty of Incrimination
A person has no privilege against compelled self-incrimination if there is no possiblity of incrimination (e.g., statute of limitations has run).
G.	WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE
A criminal defendant, by taking the witness stand, waives the privilege to the extent necessary to subject him to any cross-examination.  A witness waives the privilege only if he discloses incriminating information.