Criminal and Constitutional Law and Precedents
Domain 4 - Criminal and Constitutional Law and Precedents
This domain tests black-letter constitutional rules and the landmark cases that state them, plus basic criminal-law concepts. Expect fact patterns asking whether evidence is admissible.
Fourth Amendment
Requires reasonableness; warrants need probable cause, oath, and particularity. Key exceptions: search incident to lawful arrest (Chimel; cell phones excluded, Riley), automobile (Carroll; Arizona v. Gant limits vehicle searches after arrest), plain view (Horton), consent (Schneckloth: voluntariness, not knowledge of the right to refuse), exigency, and inventory. Terry stops require reasonable suspicion; a frisk is limited to weapons. The exclusionary rule (Mapp v. Ohio) is softened by good faith (Leon), inevitable discovery (Nix), and attenuation.
Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Miranda applies to custodial interrogation. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at formal proceedings (Gideon for felonies; Massiah for deliberately elicited statements). The Fourteenth incorporates most Bill of Rights guarantees against the states and supplies equal protection and due process.
Criminal law basics
Actus reus plus mens rea; specific versus general intent; accomplice liability; defenses including insanity, self-defense, and entrapment (subjective test - was this defendant predisposed?).
Worked example
An officer stops a car for a burned-out taillight, completes the license check, issues a warning, then holds the driver 12 more minutes for a drug dog that alerts. Admissible? Reasoning: the stop was lawful, and a dog sniff during a lawful stop is not a search (Illinois v. Caballes). But under Rodriguez v. United States, the stop cannot be extended beyond the time reasonably required to complete its mission. The 12-minute extension without independent reasonable suspicion taints the alert, so the drugs are likely suppressed.
Traps
- Treating reasonable suspicion and probable cause as interchangeable.
- Applying Miranda to all questioning rather than custodial interrogation.
- Assuming the exclusionary rule applies in grand jury proceedings (Calandra) or civil and parole hearings.
- Believing consent requires a warning that refusal is allowed.