Mastering Criminal ProcedureVolume 1

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page i

Carolina Academic Press Mastering SeriesRussell Weaver, Series Editor

For other titles, please go to caplaw.com.

Mastering Administrative Law, Second EditionLinda D. Jellum

Mastering Adoption Law and PolicyCynthia Hawkins DeBose

Mastering Alternative Dispute ResolutionKelly M. Feeley, James A. Sheehan

Mastering American Indian Law, Second EditionAngelique Wambdi EagleWoman, Stacy L. Leeds

Mastering Appellate Advocacy and Process, Revised PrintingDonna C. Looper, George W. Kuney

Mastering Art LawHerbert Lazerow

Mastering BankruptcyGeorge W. Kuney

Mastering Civil Procedure, Third EditionDavid Charles Hricik

Mastering Constitutional Law, Second EditionJohn C. Knechtle, Christopher J. Roederer

Mastering Contract LawIrma S. Russell, Barbara K. Bucholtz

Mastering Corporate Tax, Second EditionGail Levin Richmond, Reginald Mombrun, Felicia Branch

Mastering Corporations and Other Business Entities, Second EditionLee Harris

Mastering Criminal Procedure, Volume 1: The Investigative Stage, Third Edition

Peter J. Henning, Cynthia E. Jones, Ellen S. Podgor,Karen McDonald Henning, Sanjay K. Chhablani

Mastering Criminal Procedure, Volume 2: The Adjudicatory Stage, Third Edition

Peter J. Henning, Cynthia E. Jones, Ellen S. Podgor,Karen McDonald Henning, Sanjay K. Chhablani

Mastering Elder Law, Second EditionRalph C. Brashier

Mastering Employment Discrimination Law, Second EditionPaul M. Secunda, Jeffrey M. Hirsch, Joseph A. Seiner

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page ii

Mastering Environmental LawJoel A. Mintz, Tracy D. Hester

Mastering Family LawJanet Leach Richards

Mastering First Amendment LawJohn C. Knechtle

Mastering Income Tax, Second EditionGail Levin Richmond, Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz

Mastering Intellectual PropertyGeorge W. Kuney, Donna C. Looper

Mastering Labor LawPaul M. Secunda, Anne Marie Lofaso, Joseph E. Slater, Jeffrey M. Hirsch

Mastering Legal Analysis and DraftingGeorge W. Kuney, Donna C. Looper

Mastering Legislation, Regulation, and Statutory Interpretation, Third EditionLinda D. Jellum

Mastering Negotiable Instruments (UCC Articles 3 and 4) and Other Payment Systems, Second Edition

Michael D. Floyd

Mastering NegotiationMichael R. Fowler

Mastering Partnership TaxationStuart Lazar

Mastering Professional Responsibility, Second EditionGrace M. Giesel

Mastering Property Law, Revised PrintingDarryl C. Wilson, Cynthia Hawkins DeBose

Mastering SalesColin P. Marks, Jeremy Kidd

Mastering Secured Transactions: UCC Article 9, Second EditionRichard H. Nowka

Mastering Tort Law, Second EditionRussell L. Weaver, Edward C. Martin, Andrew R. Klein,

Paul J. Zwier, II, John H. Bauman

Mastering Trademark and Unfair Competition LawLars S. Smith, Llewellyn Joseph Gibbons

Mastering Trusts and EstatesGail Levin Richmond, Don Castleman

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page iii

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page iv

Mastering Criminal ProcedureVolume 1: The Investigative Stage

Third Edition

Peter J. HenningProfessor of Law

Wayne State University Law School

Cynthia E. JonesProfessor of Law

American University Washington College of Law

Ellen S. PodgorGary R. Trombley Family White-Collar Crime Research Professor

Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law

Karen McDonald HenningAssociate Professor of Law

University of Detroit MercySchool of Law

Sanjay K. ChhablaniProfessor of law, Syracuse University College of Law

Carolina Academic PressDurham, North Carolina

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page v

Copyright © 2020Carolina Academic Press, LLC

All Rights Reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Names: Henning, Peter J., author. | Jones, Cynthia E. (Cynthia Ellen), author. | Podgor, Ellen S., 1952- author. | Henning, Karen McDonald, author. | Chhablani, Sanjay K., author.

Title: Mastering criminal procedure / Peter J. Henning, Cynthia E. Jones, Ellen S. Podgor, Karen McDonald Henning, Sanjay K. Chhablani.

Description: Third edition. | Durham, North Carolina : Carolina Academic Press, LLC, [2019] | Series: Carolina Academic Press mastering series | Includes index. |

Identifiers: LCCN 2019051975 | ISBN 9781531014971 (volume 1 ; paperback)| ISBN 9781531014988 (volume 1 ; ebook) | ISBN 9781531014995 (volume2 ; paperback) | ISBN 9781531015008 (volume 2 ; ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Criminal procedure--United States. | LCGFT: Textbooks. Classification: LCC KF9619.85 .M378 2019 | DDC 345.73/05--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019051975

Carolina Academic Press700 Kent Street

Durham, NC 27701Telephone (919) 489-7486

Fax (919) 493-5668www.cap-press.com

Printed in the United States of America

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page vi

To Molly, Alex and GracePeter J. Henning

To the memory of my wonderful mother, Ernestine C. Jones (1932–2004), who continues to motivate and inspire me.

Cynthia E. Jones

To all my students.Ellen S. Podgor

To my parents, Ruth and Durstan McDonald, who have always provided me with the encouragement and

support to be the best I could be.Karen McDonald Henning

To my father, Kishin C. Chhablani.Sanjay Chhablani

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page vii

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page viii

Contents

Table of Cases xxi

Series Editor’s Foreword xxxiii

Preface xxxv

Chapter 1 • Introduction 3 Roadmap 3 I. Federal Constitutional Provisions on Criminal Procedure 4

A. The Fourth Amendment 4B. The Fifth Amendment 5C. The Sixth Amendment 5D. The Eighth Amendment 5E. The Fourteenth Amendment 5

II. Stages of the Criminal Adjudication Process 5A. Initial Pre-Arrest Investigation 6B. Arrest 7C. Booking 8D. Initial Court Appearance 8E. Preliminary Hearing 10F. Grand Jury 11G. Arraignment 12H. Pretrial Litigation 12I. Trial 12J. Sentencing 13K. Appeals 14L. Post-Conviction Remedies 15

III. A Brief Word on the Process of Constitutional Interpretation 15A. Text 16B. Intent of the Framers, Ratifiers, and the “People” 16C. Constitutional Structure 18D. Precedent 19E. Evidence of American Customs, Traditions, and Practices 19

ix

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page ix

F. Contemporary Morality and Attitudes 20G. Considerations of Practicality and Prudence 20

Checkpoints 22

Chapter 2 • When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply? 25Roadmap 25

I. Introduction 25 II. The Purpose of the Fourth Amendment 26 III. The Scope of the Fourth Amendment 27

A. Government Action 27B. The “People” 27C. What Government Conduct Constitutes a Fourth

Amendment Search 281. What Is a “Search”: The Katz Test 282. The Trespass/Physical Intrusion Test 323. Invasion of Reasonable Expectations of Privacy 334. “Non-Search” Investigative Techniques 36

IV. The Scope of Fourth Amendment Seizures 44 V. The Reasonableness Requirement 44

Checkpoints 46

Chapter 3 • Warrants 47Roadmap 47

I. The Warrant “Requirement” 47 II. What Is Probable Cause? 49

A. Background and Definition 491. An Objective Concept 492. The Quantitative Component 533. The Qualitative Component 534. The Temporal Component 54

B. Quantitative Requirements Redux 54C. Qualitative Requirements 58

1. Aguilar-Spinelli 582. Gates 60

D. Individualized Justice and Other Normative Concerns 67E. Temporal Components 70

1. Timing and Two Standards for Probable Cause 702. Anticipatory Warrants 71

F. Particularity 741. Particularity’s Meaning 74

x CONTENTS

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page x

2. Residual Clauses 753. Affidavit-Warrant Link 77

III. Executing the Warrant 79A. Time, Place, and Manner 79B. Knock and Announce 80C. Treatment of Individuals during Warrant Executions 84

Chapter 4 • Arrests and Other Seizures 89Roadmap 89

I. Arrests 90A. The Warrant Requirement and Arrests in the Home 90B. Arrests in Public Places 92C. The Impact of Police Mistakes 94D. The Use of Force 95E. The Requirement of Prompt Arraignment 98

II. Terry Stops and Frisks 99A. Differentiating Voluntary Encounters, Terry Stops,

and Arrests 1001. Defining Seizures 1002. Voluntary Encounters Versus Seizures 1013. Stops versus Arrests 104

B. The Reasonable Suspicion Standard 1061. The Quantitative Component 1072. The Qualitative Component 109

C. Terry Frisks 113Checkpoints 116

Chapter 5 • Electronic Surveillance 119Roadmap 119

I. Overview 119A. Threshold: Determining When the Fourth

Amendment Applies 120B. The Development of the Federal Statutory Framework 122

II. The Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 124A. Prospective Wire, Oral, and Electronic Communications:

Highest Level of Protection 1241. Types of Communications Covered by the Wiretap Act 1252. Requirements for Intercept Orders 1263. Remedies for Violations 128

CONTENTS xi

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xi

B. Lower Protection for Stored Electronic Communications 129C. Lowest Protection for Pen Registers and Trap and

Trace Devices 131III. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 131 IV. The Patriot Act 132

A. Provisions Affecting Fourth Amendment Searches 132B. Provisions Expanding Scope of FISA 132C. Provisions Affecting Wiretap Act and EPCA 133

V. NSA’s Global Surveillance Program 134Checkpoints 136

Chapter 6 • Searches of Persons 137Roadmap 137

I. Introduction 137 II. Terry Searches 138III. Search Incident to Arrest Exception 138

A. Chimel v. California: The “Grab-Reach” Rule 138B. United States v. Robinson: The Automatic Search Rule 139C. The Scope of the Search Incident to Arrest Exception 140

1. The Requirement of a Custodial Arrest 1402. Probable Cause to Arrest 1403. Spatial Proximity: The Theoretical “Grab-Reach”

Limitation 1414. Temporal Proximity: When Is the Search “Incident to”

the Arrest 1425. DUI Arrests: Blood versus Breath Testing Incident

to Arrest 142 IV. Searches of Personal “Effects” 143

A. Search of Personal Effects Incident to Arrest 143B. Post-Arrest “Stationhouse” Search 145

1. Inventory Search of Arrestees and Personal Belongings 1452. “Identification” Search 146

Checkpoints 148

Chapter 7 • Searches of Cars 149Roadmap 149

I. “Non-Search” Investigations of Vehicles 149 II. Automobile Searches during Non-Custodial Traffic Stops 150

A. Terry Automobile Searches 151B. Investigating Unrelated Criminal Activity 151

xii CONTENTS

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xii

C. Pretextual Traffic Stops and Racial Profiling 152 III. Searches of Automobiles Incident to Custodial Arrest

of Motorists 153A. Overview 153B. New York v. Belton 154C. Thornton v. United States 154D. Arizona v. Gant 155

1. The “Unsecured” Arrestee and the “Possibility of Access” to the Vehicle 156

2. “Reason to Believe” 1573. Summary 158

IV. The Automobile Exception 158A. The Automobile Exception versus Search Incident to

Arrest 159B. A Reduced Expectation of Privacy 159C. The End of the “Container Rule” 160D. Restrictions on the Automobile Exception 160

V. Inventory Searches of Impounded Vehicles 161A. Purpose of Inventory Searches 162B. Requirements for a Valid Inventory Search 162

1. Standard Procedure 1622. Good Faith 1633. Limited Scope 163

Checkpoints 164

Chapter 8 • Consent Searches 167Roadmap 167

I. Overview 167 II. The Scope of a Consent Search 168 III. Objective Reasonableness 169 IV. What Is Valid Consent? 169

A. Voluntariness and the “Totality of the Circumstances” Test 1701. Degree of Police Coerciveness 1712. Custodial Status 1713. Characteristics of the Suspect 172

B. Authority to Consent 1721. Actual Authority 1732. Apparent Authority 175

V. Problems with Consent Searches 175 VI. State Restrictions on Consent Searches 177

CONTENTS xiii

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xiii

Checkpoints 179

Chapter 9 • Exigent Circumstances 181Roadmap 181

I. Introduction 181 II. Requirements for the Exigent Circumstances Exception 182

A. Probable Cause 182B. Scope of Authority 182C. Obtaining Warrant Impractical 183D. When Circumstances Are Exigent 183

1. Hot Pursuit 1842. Public Safety 1843. Destruction of Evidence 185

Checkpoints 189

Chapter 10 • Plain View 191Roadmap 191

I. Introduction 191 II. Scope of the Plain View Exception 191

A. Lawful Presence and Access 192B. Seizures, Not Searches 192C. Probable Cause Standard 193

III. No “Inadvertence” Requirement 194 IV. Beyond Plain View: Other “Plain” Sensory Perceptions 195

Checkpoints 196

Chapter 11 • Administrative Searches and Special Needs 197Roadmap 197

I. Overview 197A. Defining and Analyzing Administrative Search and

Seizure Cases 197B. Determining Governmental Purpose 199C. Balancing 200

II. Administrative Searches 201A. Administrative Warrant Requirements 202B. Warrantless Searches of Closely-Regulated Businesses 203

III. Checkpoints and Border Searches 206A. Motor Vehicle Regulation and Checkpoints 206B. Airport Screening 209C. Border Searches 209

1. International Borders 209

xiv CONTENTS

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xiv

2. Roving Border Patrols and Fixed Checkpoints 211D. Open Seas and Searches of Vessels 213

IV. Special Needs Searches 214A. Public School Students 214B. Public Employees 216C. Welfare Home Visits 217D. Probationers, Parolees, and Arrestees 217

V. Drug Testing 220A. Public Employees 220B. Public School Students 222C. The Limits to Drug Testing Programs 223

Checkpoints 226

Chapter 12 • Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violations 229Roadmap 229

I. Introduction 229 II. Development of the Exclusionary Rule 230

A. Weeks: The Exclusionary Rule in Federal Court 230B. From Wolf to Mapp: The Exclusionary Rule Extended

to States 230III. Standing and Procedures for Asserting the Exclusionary

Rule 232A. Who Can Assert the Exclusionary Rule: The “Standing”

Doctrine 232B. How to Assert the Exclusionary Rule 234

IV. Exclusionary Rule Limitations 235A. The Good Faith Exception 236

1. The Origins of the “Good Faith” Exception 2362. The Expansion of the Good Faith Exception 239

B. The Causal Break Exceptions 2411. The Independent Source Exception 2412. The Inevitable Discovery Exception 2423. The “Attenuation” Exception 243

C. Other Limitations on the Exclusionary Rule 2461. The “Criminal Trial” Limitation 2462. The Impeachment Exception 2473. Limitation on Federal Habeas Review 247

V. Other Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violations 248A. Section 1983 and Bivens Actions for Damages 248B. Common Law Tort Remedies 250

CONTENTS xv

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xv

C. The Federal Tort Claims Act 250D. RICO 251E. Injunctive Relief 251F. Administrative Sanctions 251G. Criminal Prosecutions 251

Checkpoints 253

Chapter 13 • Due Process Voluntariness 255Roadmap 255

I. Due Process Requirements 255A. Development of the Doctrine 256B. Totality of the Circumstances Test 256C. Investigatory Techniques and the Defendant 257

1. Physical Techniques 2572. Psychological Techniques 2583. Lies and Deception 2594. Promises of Leniency 2595. Consideration of the Particular Defendant 259

II. Proving Voluntariness 260 III. The Exclusionary Rule for Involuntary Confessions 261

Checkpoints 262

Chapter 14 • Miranda and Confessions 263Roadmap 263

I. Background 263 II. The Miranda Decision 264

A. Miranda’s First Holding: The Privilege Applies outside the Courtroom 265

B. Miranda’s Second Holding: Compulsion Is Inherent in “Custodial Interrogation” 266

C. Miranda’s Third Holding: Overcoming Compulsion with the Required Warnings 267

D. Miranda’s Fourth Holding: The Waiver Requirement 268 III. Definition of Custody 269

A. Custody Is an Objective Test 269B. The Relevance of Location 270C. The Reasonable Person “Under the Circumstances” 271D. A Fourth Amendment Comparison 272

IV. Definition of Interrogation 273 V. The Content of Warnings 274

xvi CONTENTS

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xvi

VI. Waiver of Rights and Invocation of Rights 275A. Components of a Valid Waiver 275B. Invocation and Its Consequences 277

1. Requirements for Invocation 2772. Resumption of Questioning after Rights Are

Invoked 279VII. Miranda Limitations: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and

Impeachment 282A. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Limitations 282B. Impeachment 284

VIII. Miranda Exceptions 285 IX. Undercover Activities 286 X. Privilege against Self-Incrimination outside Miranda 287

A. Thresholds: Compulsion, Incrimination, Testimony 2871. Compulsion 2872. Incrimination 2883. Testimony 288

B. Pre-Existing Documents 288C. The “Required Records” Exception 289D. Invoking and Waiving the Privilege 290

Checkpoints 291

Chapter 15 • Interrogations and the Sixth Amendment 293Roadmap 293

I. Introduction 293 II. Development of the Right: Massiah and Escobedo 294

A. Massiah 294B. Escobedo 295

III. Deliberate Elicitation 296A. Interrogation as “Elicitation” 296B. Deliberate 297C. Elicitation 298D. Jailhouse Snitches 299

IV. Attachment of the Right to Counsel 300A. Triggering the Right 300B. Other Charges 300C. Offense Specific 300D. Same Offense Test 301

V. Waiver 302A. Requirements 302

CONTENTS xvii

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xvii

B. Interrogation after Assertion of Right 303C. Interrogation with No Prior Assertion of Right 305

VI. Subsequent Use of the Statement 306A. Impeachment 306B. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree 307

VII. Review Problem 307A. Problem 307B. Analysis 308

Checkpoints 310

Chapter 16 • Eyewitness Identification 311Roadmap 311

I. Introduction 311 II. The Science of Eyewitness Identifications 313

A. Sources of Error 313B. Proposed Solutions 314

1. Use Double-Blind Lineups and Photospreads 3152. Sequential versus Simultaneous Lineups 3153. Lineup Size 3164. Lineup Instructions 3175. Showups 3176. Sketches 317

III. The Right to Counsel 318A. Overview 318B. United States v. Wade and Uncounseled Out-of-Court

Identifications 319C. The In-Court Identification in Wade 322D. Wade’s Modern Implications 323

IV. Due Process 325A. Overview 325B. Defining “Unnecessary Suggestiveness” 326C. The Likelihood of Misidentification 328

V. Other Constitutional Issues 329A. Fifth Amendment 329B. Fourth Amendment 330

Checkpoints 332

Chapter 17 • Entrapment 335Roadmap 335

I. Introduction 335

xviii CONTENTS

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xviii

II. Subjective Approach 336 III. Objective Approach 338 IV. Entrapment-by-Estoppel 339 V. Sentencing Entrapment 339 VI. Outrageous Government Conduct 340

Checkpoints 341

Mastering Criminal Procedure, Volume 1: The Investigative Stage Master Checklist 343

Scope of the Fourth Amendment 343Warrants 343Arrests and Seizures of the Person 344Warrantless Searches 344The Exclusionary Rule 346Interrogation: Due Process, Miranda and the Sixth Amendment 347Identifications 347Entrapment 348

Index 349

CONTENTS xix

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xix

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xx

Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143(1972), 99, 111, 114

Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325(1990), 106, 109

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States,413 U.S. 266 (1973), 210, 212

Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964),58

Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463(1976), 75–77

Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995),238

Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279(1991), 257

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009),142, 153, 155

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321(1987), 36, 192, 193

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323(2009), 150

Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520(1987), 273

Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675(1988), 281

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S.318 (2001), 93

Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct.1013 (2013), 85

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964), 49,53

Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S.85(1974), 290

Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41(1967), 76, 120

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420(1984), 105, 106, 152, 272, 286

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct.2160 (2016), 142

Bivens v. Six Unknown NamedAgents of the Federal Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),249

Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199(1960), 256

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S.299 (1932), 301

Board of Education of IndependentSchool District No. 92 of Pot-tawatomie County v. Earls, 536U.S. 822 (2002), 223

Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334(2000), 35, 195

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249(2007), 150

Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387(1977), 296, 298, 307

xxi

Table of Cases

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxi

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398(2006), 184

Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S.593 (1989), 101

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590(1975), 244

Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278(1936), 256

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979),108

Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S.543 (1968), 171, 176

Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465(1921), 27

Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518(2018), 30

California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565(1991), 160

California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424(1971), 290

California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386(1985), 34, 159

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207(1986), 36

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35(1988), 37

California v. Hodari D, 499 U.S. 621(1991), 100

Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S.523 (1967), 197, 201, 202

Care v. United States, 231 F.2d 22(10th Cir. 1956), 37

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct.2206 (2018), 38

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132(1925), 159, 213

Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42(1970), 160

Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305(1997), 209, 223

Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S.610 (1961), 33, 173

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752(1969), 138, 153, 235

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531U.S. 32 (2000), 208

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.95 (1983), 251

Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663(2018), 34, 161

Colonnade Catering Corp. v. UnitedStates, 397 U.S. 72 (1970), 203

Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367(1987), 161

Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157(1986), 260, 275

Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d475 (Pa. 2018), 260, 275

Commonwealth v. Hatcher, 199S.W.3d 124 (Ky. 2006), 195

Commonwealth v. Martinelli, 729A.2d 628 (Pa. 1999), 82

Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 209 A.3d957 (Pa. 2019), 27

Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523(1987), 276

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S.443 (1971), 191

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin,500 U.S. 44 (1991), 98

County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523U.S. 833 (1998), 101

Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683(1986), 261

Cross v. State, 560 So. 2d 228 (Fla.1990), 169

Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291(1973), 35

Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721(1969), 92, 330

xxii TABLE OF CASES

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxii

Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452(1994), 240, 277

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648(1979), 207

Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146(2004), 51

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S.428 (2000), 265

Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594(1981), 204

Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d385 (D.C. Cir. 1970), 183

Doyle v. Ohio, 462 U.S. 610 (1976),285

Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200(1979), 105

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477(1981), 280, 303

Eiseman v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.Rptr. 342 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971),193

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478(1964), 295

Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532U.S. 67 (2001), 200, 223

Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct.1126 (2014), 174

Fields v. State, 382 So.2d 1098 (Miss.1980), 163

Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391(1976), 289, 290

Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S.149 (1978), 290

Florence v. Board of Chosen Free-holders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012),146

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429(1991), 44, 102, 171, 176

Florida v. Harris, 565 U.S. 237 (2013)42

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248(1991), 29, 169

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000),110

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013),32, 43

Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S.50 (2010),274, 275

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989),36

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983),102, 105

Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990),162, 163

Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999),92

Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969),259

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410(2006), 66

Gauldin v. State, 683 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.Crim. App. 1984), 155

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103(2006), 173

Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103(1975), 98

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335(1963), 293

Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263(1967), 288, 321

Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S.480 (1958), 65

Glenn v. State, 806 S.E.2d 564 (Ga.2017), 193

Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S.129 (1942), 32

Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S.306 (2015), 32, 40, 220

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386(1989), 86

TABLE OF CASES xxiii

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxiii

Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1987),285

Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868(1987), 218

Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551(2004), 77, 238

Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62(1968), 290

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906),290

Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S.484 (1976), 340

Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222(1971), 247

Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985),92

Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135(2009), 158, 235, 239

Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57(1924), 37

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada HumboldtCounty, 542 U.S. 177 (2004),105–106

Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293(1966), 39

Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245(1910), 288

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128(1990), 192, 194

Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012),270

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586(2006), 84, 239

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517(1984), 34, 217

Huff v. State, 452 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim. App. 1984), 288

Hulse v. State, 961 P.2d 75 (Mont.1988), 35

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405(2005), 42, 151

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983),52, 55, 56, 58, 60, 79, 110

Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987),238

Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640(1983), 145, 161

Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004),208

Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326(2001), 44, 186

Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292(1990), 286

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177(1990), 175

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119(2000), 106, 108

In re Doe v. United States, 801 F.2d1164 (9th Cir. 1986), 290

Jacobsen v. United States, 503 U.S.540 (1992), 27, 44

James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990),247

J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct.2394 (2011), 247

Johnson v. State, 137 P.3d 903 (Wyo.2006), 163

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458(1938), 302

Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586(2009), 299, 306, 308

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S.441 (1972), 288

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347(1967), 28, 121, 122

Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003),92, 104, 105

Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849(2011), 186

xxiv TABLE OF CASES

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxiv

Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972),296, 318

Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998),140

Kuhlman v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436(1986), 299

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27(2001), 41

Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206(1966), 39

Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 (1954),258

Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427(1963), 39, 114

Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550U.S. 609 (2007), 86

Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528(1963), 259

Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159(1985), 298, 300

Manson v. Braithwaite, 433 U.S. 98(1977), 325

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961),231

Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S.39 (1968), 290

Marshall v. Barlows, Inc., 436 U.S.307 (1978), 204

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325(1990), 85

Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79(1987), 74, 94

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435(2013), 35, 146

Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366(2003), 55

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408(1997), 105, 150

Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S.981 (1984), 236

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S.201 (1964), 294

Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S.58 (1988), 338

Mayfield v. United States, 504 F.Supp. 2d 1023 (D.Or. 2007),133

McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171(1991), 277, 300

Michigan Department of State Policev. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990),198, 200

Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287(1984), 183

Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45(2009), 185

Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344(1990), 306

Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625(1986), 303, 306

Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032(1983), 151

Michigan v. Mosley, 432 U.S. 96(1975), 279

Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692(1981), 85

Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433(1974), 283

Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499(1978), 183, 198, 203

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385(1978), 185, 186, 261

Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83(1998), 233

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S.366 (1993), 195

Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420(1984), 270

Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91(1990), 33, 91, 185, 233

TABLE OF CASES xxv

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxv

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436(1966), 263

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141(2013), 35, 142, 187

Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600(2004), 283

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S.Ct. 2525(2019), 142

Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778(2009), 303

Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412(1986), 276

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005),86

Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533(1988), 242

National Treasury Employees Unionv. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989),198, 220

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198(1972), 325, 327

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325(1985), 27, 198, 214

New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454(1981), 153, 154

New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691(1987), 204, 205

New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649(1984), 286

Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984),235, 242, 307

North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S.369 (1979), 275

O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709(1987), 216

Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33(1996), 152, 172

Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170(1984), 34, 37

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S.438 (1928), 32, 120

Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039(1983), 281

Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985),261, 282

Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492(1977), 270

Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969),270

Overton v. Ohio, 534 U.S. 982 (2001),65

Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285(1988), 305

Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560(1958), 258, 260

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573(1980), 90, 184

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106(1977), 105, 150

Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582(1990), 274, 285, 329

People v. Barraza, 591 P.2d 947 (Cal.1979), 338

People v. Boff, 766 P.2d 646 (Colo.1988), 143

People v. Hopkins, 870 P.2d 478(Colo. 1994), 175

Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S.228 (2012), 325, 328

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45(1932), 294

Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994),99

Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364(1964), 142, 260

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978),233

Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98(1980), 140

xxvi TABLE OF CASES

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxvi

Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980),112

Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291(1980), 273, 274, 297

Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385(1997), 80

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373(2014), 131, 144, 240

Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554U.S. 191 (2008), 300

Safford Unified School District #1 v.Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009),215

Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843(2006), 218

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757(1966), 187, 288

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S.218 (1973), 170, 172, 257, 260

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007),97

See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541(1967), 202

Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796(1984), 241

Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S.369 (1958), 336

Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40(1968), 140

Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S.505 (1961), 32

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S.377 (1968), 235, 326

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1989),220

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735(1979), 31, 38

Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56(1992), 44

Sorrells v. United, 287 U.S. 435(1932), 336

South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553(1983), 288

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S.364 (1976), 161, 163

Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315(1959), 258

Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410(1969), 58

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557(1969), 193

Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318(1994), 269

Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3 (2013),183

State v. Carty, 790 A.2d 903 (N.J.2002), 177

State v. Cordova, 784 P.2d 30 (N.M.1989), 64

State v. Curtin, 332 S.E.2d 619 (W.Va.1985), 40

State v. Dean, 76 P.3d 429 (Ariz.2003), 155

State v. Edwards, 782 S.E.2d 124 (S.C.Ct. App. 2016), 193

State v. Fort, 660 N.W.2d 415 (Minn.2003), 177

State v. Grady, 817 S.E.2d. 18 (N.C.App. 2018), 33, 220

State v. Gubitosi, 886 A.2d 1029(N.H. 2005), 38

State v. Hagans, 182 A.3d 909 (N.J.2018), 178

State v. Hardy, 577 N.W.2d 212(Minn. 1998), 35

TABLE OF CASES xxvii

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxvii

State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666(Tenn. 1996), 99

State v. McCleary, 568 P.2d 1142(Ariz. Ct. App. 1977), 185

State v. Phillips, 382 P.3d 133 (Haw.2016), 194–95

State v. Samalia, 375 P.3d 1082(Wash. 2016), 144

State v. Smith, 814 N.W.2d 346(Minn. 2012), 177

State v. Wells, 539 So.2d 464 (Fla.1989), 169

Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S.204 (1981), 90

Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. UnitedStates Secret Service, 36 F.3d 457(5th Cir. 1994), 123

Stigile v. Clinton, 110 F.3d 801 (D.C.Cir. 1997), 222

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976),248

Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483(1964), 33, 173

Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293(1967), 326

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1(1985), 45, 96

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), 35,84, 99, 100, 137, 138, 150

Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001), 301Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17

(1984),183, 185Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S.

615 (2004), 153, 154United States v. Achter, 52 F.3d 753

(8th Cir. 1995), 339United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d

191 (4th Cir. 2006), 302

United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266(2002), 83, 107

United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300(1973), 324, 325

United States v. Avants, 278 F.3d510(5th Cir. 2002), 302

United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31(2003), 82

United States v. Bentley, 795 F.3d 630(7th Cir. 2015), 43

United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311(1972), 204

United States v. Booker, 496 F.3d 717(D.C. Cir. 2007), 155

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422U.S. 873 (1975), 212

United States v. Carter, 378 F.3d 584(6th Cir. 2004), 192

United States v. Christian, 187 F.3d663 (D.C. Cir. 1999), 151

United States v. Coker, 433 F.3d 39(1st Cir. 2005), 302

United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463(1980), 330

United States v. Delva, 858 F.3d 135(2d Cir. 2017), 194

United States v. Di Re, 22 U.S. 581(1948), 69

United States v. Diaz, 519 F.3d 56 (1stCir. 2008), 151

United States v. Dion, 762 F.2d 674(8th Cir. 1985), 337

United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1(1973), 30

United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S.413 (1977), 129

United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S.194 (2002), 103, 168, 171

xxviii TABLE OF CASES

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxviii

United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294(1987), 34

United States v. Flores-Montano, 541U.S. 149 (2004), 210, 211

United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d500 (9th Cir. 2008), 38

United States v. Freeman, 482 F.3d829 (5th Cir. 2007), 175

United States v. Fuentes, 800 F. Supp.2d 1144 (D. Or. 2011), 187

United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d1189 (9th Cir. 2014), 43

United States v. Gamble, 737 F.2d 853(10th Cir. 1984), 340

United States v. Garner, 907 F.2d 60(8th Cir. 1990), 40

United States v. Green, 740 F.3d 275(4th Cir. 2014), 43

United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90(2006), 71

United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264(1980), 297

United States v. Holland, 438 F.2d 887(6th Cir. 1971), 30

United States v. Hollingsworth, 27F.3d 1197 (7th Cir. 1994), 337

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S.109 (1984), 27, 44

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400(2012), 32, 40, 121, 220

United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705(1984), 40

United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112(2001), 218

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276(1983), 40

United States v. Knox, 112 F.3d 802(5th Cir. 1997), 337

United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559(1972), 40

United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S.452 (1932), 140

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897(1984), 236

United States v. Looney, 481 F.2d 31(5th Cir. 1973), 193

United States v. Majette, 326 Fed.Appx. 211 (4th Cir. 2009), 157

United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19(1973), 30

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428U.S. 543 (1976), 212

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S.164 (1974), 173, 176

United States v. McCarty, 648 F.3d820 (9th Cir. 2011), 209

United States v. McLaughlin, 170 F.3d889 (9th Cir. 1999), 141

United States v. McNeal, 955 F.2d1067 (6th Cir. 1992), 91

United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S.544 (1980), 44, 101

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435(1976), 38

United States v. Mills, 412 F.3d 325(2nd Cir. 2005), 302

United States v. Montoya de Hernan-dez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), 210

United States v. Morales, 923 F.2d 621(8th Cir. 1991), 143

United States v. Passaro, 624 F.2d 938(9th Cir. 1980), 143

United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630(2004), 283

United States v. Perez, 440 F.Supp 272(N.D. Ohio 1977), 185

TABLE OF CASES xxix

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxix

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696(1983), 29, 104

United States v. Queen, 847 F.2d 346(7th Cir. 1988), 141

United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S.56 (1950), 138

United States v. Ramirez, 676 F.3d755 (8th Cir. 2012), 81, 187

United States v. Ramos, 190 F. Supp.3d 992 (S.D. Cal. 2016), 144

United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606(1977), 210

United States v. Richardson, 515 F.3d74 (1st Cir. 2008), 163

United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S.218 (1973), 35, 139

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798(1982), 160

United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423(1973), 340

United States v. Sanders, 196 F.3d 910(8th Cir. 1999), 29

United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38(1976), 184

United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675(1985), 104

United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1(1989), 107, 111, 112

United States v. Stegall, 2017 U.S.App. LEXIS 8133 (8th Cir. 2017),157

United States v. Strahan, 565 F.3d1047 (7th Cir. 2009), 339

United States v. Strickland, 902 F.2d937 (11th Cir. 1990), 169

United States v. Stuart, 923 F.2d 607(8th Cir. 1991), 339

United States v. Tavolacci, 895 F.2d1423 (D.C. Cir. 1990), 143

United States v. Thomas, 864 F.2d 843(D.C. Cir. 1989), 29

United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373(3d Cir. 1978), 340

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez,494 U.S. 259 (1990), 27

United States v. Villamonte-Marquez,462 U.S. 579 (1983), 214

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218(1967), 288, 319, 329

United States v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788(9th Cir. 1981), 27

United States v. Washington, 431 U.S.181 (1977), 287

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411(1976), 172, 184

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745(1971), 39, 272

United States v. Wilson, 36 F.3d 205(1st Cir. 1994), 29

United States v. Wurie (companioncase to Riley v. California, 573U.S. 373 (2014)), 144

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton,515 U.S. 646 (1995), 222

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164(2008), 94, 140

Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62(1954), 285

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294(1967), 182

Wayman v. James, 400 U.S. 309(1971), 217

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383(1914), 230

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740(1984), 183, 184

Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560(1971), 50

xxx TABLE OF CASES

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxx

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806(1996), 152, 177, 194

Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927(1995), 80

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949),231

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S.471 (1963), 243

Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979),68, 84, 114

xxxi

TABLE OF CASES xxxi

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxxi

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxxii

Series Editor’s Foreword

The Carolina Academic Press Mastering Series is designed to provide youwith a tool that will enable you to easily and efficiently “master” the substanceand content of law school courses. Throughout the series, the focus is onquality writing that makes legal concepts understandable. As a result, the seriesis designed to be easy to read and is not unduly cluttered with footnotes orcites to secondary sources.

In order to facilitate student mastery of topics, the Mastering Series includesa number of pedagogical features designed to improve learning and retention.At the beginning of each chapter, you will find a “Roadmap” that tells youabout the chapter and provides you with a sense of the material that you willcover. A “Checkpoint” at the end of each chapter encourages you to stop andreview the key concepts, reiterating what you have learned. Throughout thebook, key terms are explained and emphasized. Finally, a “Master Checklist”at the end of each book reinforces what you have learned and helps you identifyany areas that need review or further study.

We hope that you will enjoy studying with, and learning from, the MasteringSeries.

Russell L. WeaverProfessor of Law & Distinguished University ScholarUniversity of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law

xxxiii

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxxiii

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxxiv

xxxv

PrefaceIt is difficult to synthesize all of criminal procedure in two volumes. One

finds state and federal differences in procedure, and systems that constantlychange as a result of new statutes, rules, and court interpretations. Theauthors hope that this overview of criminal procedure will offer students anaccessible study guide in understanding this important subject. The book,however, is not intended to serve as a guide for resolving a specific problemor case.

This Volume covers the major issues in criminal procedure that relate to theFourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights provided in the U.S. Constitutionand also covers entrapment. Volume Two examines procedure issues from thebail through the jail process and also considers post-conviction matters. Becausethe law is not stagnant, it is important to note in using the Mastering Crimi-nal Procedure volumes that one needs to look to recent cases and legislativedevelopments that may modify the existing law. We are grateful for the assistanceof Andy Taslitz on the first edition of this treatise, and Margie Paris for herwork on the first two editions of this treatise.

The third edition updates changes in the law since 2014, when the last editionappeared. We hope that our students will find it helpful in studying for examsin Criminal Procedure: Investigations and Criminal Procedure: Adjudication

There are many to thank:• Professor Peter J. Henning thanks his assistant, Olive Hyman, who makes

it all work, and the co-authors who made this third edition a pleasure.• Professor Cynthia E. Jones thanks her wonderful research assistants, Joy

Applewhite, Lisa Lumeya, and Karen Sams for their research and editing; andher Criminal Procedure students — past, present and future — at the AmericanUniversity Washington College of Law.

• Professor Ellen S. Podgor thanks Gordon J. Kirsch, Shannon Mullins, ScottTolliver, Giovanni P. Giarratana, Megan Marx, Bradley V. Reed, and Eric Lyerly,Stetson University College of Law, and her incredible co-authors.

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxxv

xxxvi PREFACE

• Karen McDonald Henning: Thanks her co-authors and her Criminal Pro-cedure students at University of Detroit Mercy Law School.

• Sanjay Chhablani: Thanks his Research Assistants and students at theSyracuse University College of Law and his wonderful co-authors.

Peter J. HenningCynthia E. JonesEllen S. PodgorKaren McDonald Henning Sanjay ChhablaniDecember 30, 2019

henning et al 3e v1 00 fmtI-post flip.qxp 5/12/20 2:56 PM Page xxxvi