Summer 2016

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Professor Kip Cornwall (2016)

I. 4th Amendment Overview (Search and Seizure)................................................................4

II. Scope of 4th Amendment 第 4 修正条項の範囲..................................................................5
1. Overview........................................................................................................................................5
2. Q1: Government agents 政府による行為か..................................................................................5
3. Q2: Protected areas and items 保護される範囲...........................................................................6
4. Q3: The two Fourth Amendment tests............................................................................................7
5. Q4: Standing to challenge a search or seizure.................................................................................8
当事者適格の問題 （場所に対する捜索の時に問題となる）........................................................8
III. Search and Seizure with Warrant 令状による捜索差押え.........................................10
1. Overview......................................................................................................................................10
2. Q1: Neutral and detached magistrate. 中立かつ公平な司法官による令状発布.......................10
3. Q2: Probable cause and Particularity 相当な理由と特定性........................................................11
4. Q3: “good faith” reliance on a defective warrant..........................................................................12
5. Q4: Executing the search warrant.................................................................................................13
IV. Search and Seizure without Warrant 無令状捜索差押え...........................................15
1. Exigent circumstances 緊急の状況..............................................................................................15
2. Search incident to arrest 逮捕に伴う捜索...................................................................................16
(1) Justification:.............................................................................................................................16
(2) Requirements:..........................................................................................................................16
(3) Examples:.................................................................................................................................16
(4) “Protective sweeps”..................................................................................................................17
3. Consent: 同意を得て行う捜索・差押え....................................................................................18
4. Automobile Exception 車両の捜索.............................................................................................19
5. Plain View プレインビューの法理（無令状差押え）............................................................20
6. Inventory Searches 所持品検査...................................................................................................20
7. Terrv Stops and Frisks (Terry v. Ohio case announced this exception)........................................21
(1) Terry Stop 職務質問................................................................................................................21
(2) Terry frisk 捜検........................................................................................................................23
8. Special Needs...............................................................................................................................24
(1) Random drug testing 抜き打ち薬物検査................................................................................24
(2) Parolees (仮出所者).................................................................................................................24
(3) Students’ “effects” in public schools 校則違反発見のための所持品検査→合理性・相当性
24
(4) Government employees’ desks and files 公務員の職場..........................................................24
(5) Border searches 国境でのルーティーンの検査....................................................................24
(6) “Non-law-enforcement primary purpose” test (=Community Caretaker exception).................24
V. Exclusionary Rule and its Limits re 4th Amendment......................................................26
1. Exclusionary rule　証拠排除法則:.............................................................................................26
2. Fourth Amendment limits on the exclusionary rule:.....................................................................26
(1) Case-in-chief vs. impeachment of defendant cross-examination: [弾劾証拠としての利用]. .26
(2) “Knock and Announce” violations [knock and announce 違反の場合]...................................26
(3) Police misconduct [故意又は無配慮又は重過失でない場合]..............................................26
(4) An officer's “reasonable” mistakes:[合理的誤解に基づく場合]............................................26
(5) Certain proceeding exempted:..................................................................................................26
3. “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” 毒樹の果実の理論.......................................................................27
(1) What is “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”?....................................................................................27
(2) Admitting tainted fruit..............................................................................................................27

1
Summer 2016

VI. Wiretapping And Eavesdropping 盗聴.........................................................................29

1. Wiretapping　電話盗聴................................................................................................................29
2. Eavesdropping　 盗み聞き（通信傍受）........................................................................................29
VII. The Law of Arrest　逮捕................................................................................................30
VIII. Confessions (Mirandα Rule)　自白............................................................................31
1. Overview:.....................................................................................................................................31
2. Excluding ①：the Due Process Clause:.........................................................................................31
3. Excluding ②：Right to Counsel under the Sixth Amendment:........................................................32
4. Excluding ③：Fifth Amendment Miranda doctrine:.....................................................................33
(1) Implied rights:..........................................................................................................................33
(2) Four core Miranda warnings 以下の 4 点を被疑者に対し事前に説明しなければならない
33
(3) When are Miranda warnings necessary?..................................................................................33
(4) A valid Miranda waiver: ミランダの放棄..............................................................................34
(5) Invoking Miranda rights 権利行使した場合の扱い..............................................................35
(6) Respecting Miranda：evidentiary exclusion　ミランダ違反による証拠排除.....................36
(7) Limitations on evidentiary exclusion as applied to Miranda violations:...................................36
IX. Pretrial Identification 公判前の同一性確認.................................................................38
1. The three types of identifications:.................................................................................................38
2. There are two substantive challenges to pretrial identifications:...................................................38
3. Remedial Considerations..............................................................................................................39
X. Grand Juries 大陪審 (minor topic)...................................................................................40
XI. Pretrial Detention 拘留 (minor topic)..........................................................................41
1. The “First Appearance”:...............................................................................................................41
2. Standard of proof:.........................................................................................................................41
3. Detention hearings:.......................................................................................................................41
XII. Trial Rights (“Fast Facts”).............................................................................................42
1. Speedy Trial: 迅速な裁判............................................................................................................42
2. Evidentiary disclosure:.................................................................................................................42
3. Judges: The right to an unbiased judge;........................................................................................42
4. Jury...............................................................................................................................................42
5. Confrontation Clause....................................................................................................................42
6. The right to effective assistance of counsel..................................................................................43
XIII. Guilty Pleas And Plea Bargaining　有罪答弁・司法取引......................................44
1. Guilty Plea:...................................................................................................................................44
2. “Plea-Taking Colloquy” 答弁取得手続き:..................................................................................44
3. Withdrawal of guilty plea 有罪答弁の撤回.................................................................................44
XIV. Punishment.......................................................................................................................45
1. Eighth Amendment Standard........................................................................................................45
2. Eighth Amendment and Death Penalty.........................................................................................45
3. Sentence Enhancement.................................................................................................................46
XV. Double Jeopardy 二重の危険.........................................................................................47
1. General Rule.................................................................................................................................47
2. The “same offense” requirement:.................................................................................................47
3. The “same sovereign” requirement: 同一主権の要件.................................................................48
4. The exceptions to the double jeopardy rule that permit retrial:.....................................................49
XVI. Fifth Amendment Privilege against Compelled Testimony.........................................50
自己負罪拒否特権.......................................................................................................................50
1. Who may assert it?.......................................................................................................................50
2. When and where can the privilege be asserted?............................................................................50

2
Summer 2016

3. Can the failure to assert the privilege in a civil proceeding undermine the ability to assert it in a
later criminal proceeding?.....................................................................................................................50
4. What is the scope of this “testimonial” privilege?........................................................................50
5. The three ways to eliminate the privilege:....................................................................................50

Overview
1. Most Important Topic:
Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure
2. Second most important topic:
Confessions, especially in the context of the Fifth Amendment Miranda doctrine
3. Additional Topics:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping;
Law of Arrest;
Pretrial Identification;
Grand Juries;
Pretrial Detention;
Trial Rights;
Guilty Pleas and Plea Bargaining;
Punishment;
Double Jeopardy;
Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (“Taking the Fifth”)

Important topics (and order to study):

1. Search and Seizure: the 8 steps
2. Miranda Rights and Confessions
3. Double Jeopardy
 Then fill in with other topics

Constitution
(i) The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the
exclusionary rule;　捜索・差し押さえ
(ii) The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination;　自白の強制禁止
(iii) The Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy;　二重の危険
(iv) The Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial;　迅速な裁判
(v) The Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury;　陪審
(vi) The Sixth Amendment right to confront witness;　
(vii) The Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process for obtaining witness;
(viii) The Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury;
(ix) The Sixth Amendment assistance of counsel in felony cases and in misdemeanor cases in
which imprisonment is imposed; and
(x) The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

3
Summer 2016

I. 4TH AMENDMENT OVERVIEW (SEARCH AND SEIZURE)

1. Whether a search or seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment;
第 4 修正条項の適用の有無

2. Whether a search or seizure conducted with a warrant satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements;
令状を得て行う行為が第 4 修正条項の要件を満たすか

3. Whether a search or seizure conducted without a warrant satisfies Fourth Amendment

requirements; and
無令状で行われる行為が第 4 修正条項の要件を満たすか

4. The extent to which evidence obtained through a search and seizure that violates the Fourth
Amendment is nonetheless admissible in court.
第 4 修正条項に違反して得られた証拠品の証拠能力

4
Summer 2016

II. SCOPE OF 4TH AMENDMENT 第 4 修正条項の範囲

Threshold question: Is the search or seizure governed by the Fourth Amendment?
1. Overview
For the Fourth Amendment to apply, there must be an affirmative answer to 4 key questions:
(1) Was the search or seizure executed by a government agent?
(2) Was the search or seizure of an area or item protected by the Fourth Amendment?
(3) Did the government agent either (a) physically intrude on a protected area or item to obtain
information [ 場 所 又 は 物 の 物 理 的 侵 害 ]; or (b) violate an individual’s reasonable
expectation of privacy in a protected area or item? [保護された area / item の合理的なプ
ライバシーの侵害]
(4) Did the individual subjected to the search or seizure have “standing” to challenge the
government agent’s conduct? [意義を申し立てる権利があるか？]
2. Q1: Government agents 政府による行為か
Is the seizure governed by the Fourth Amendment? (= is that a government conduct?)
If no government conduct, then the 4th amendment will not apply.
3 different types of government actors:
(1) most important category: Public paid police who are on or off duty
公的な警官の行為は常に 24 時間、勤務時間外であっても常に政府の行為となる。
(2) additional categories of potential government agents:
(a) Private citizens but ONLY IF acting at the direction of the police
警察の指示に基づいて行動している私人
(e.g.) a roommate conducting under the direction of police
(b) Privately paid police, but ONLY IF deputized with the power to arrest
逮捕権を委任されている私的警察（ガードマン）
(e.g.) law enforcement by university police
(c) “Public” school administrator
(e.g.) principals, vice principals
BIM-48 プライバシーの合理的な期待が侵害されたとしても、その侵害が政府でなく私人によってな
されたのであれば、捜索･差押も違法ではなく証拠として排除されない。大学の教室内（プライバ
シーの合理的期待があるかどうかは微妙だが、仮にあるとして）で麻薬の取引が行われている疑い
があるとのレポートを受けて学長が School Security Officer に命じて電話の盗聴を行わせ、その盗聴
テープを理由に逮捕状が発せられた場合には、私人の行為なので問題とはならない。
If the search and seizure was conducted by someone who falls into one of the above categories,
proceed to QUESTION 2

5
Summer 2016

3. Q2: Protected areas and items 保護される範囲

Was the search or seizure of an area or item protected by the Fourth Amendment ?
(1) Protected Areas
(a) The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures of
their:
(i) Persons (i.e. bodies);
*public place でも person (body)自体への protection はある
(ii) Houses (including hotel rooms);
(iii) Papers (e.g. personal correspondence); and
(iv) Effects (personal belongings e.g. purses, back packs)
(b) Home-based privacy includes the “area of domestic use” immediately surrounding the
house, called the privilege

(2) Unprotected items 修正 4 条で保護されないもの

Items that a public in nature as to have no reasonable expectation of privacy:
その性質上公的でありプライバシーの合理的な期待がないものは保護されない
“Public Observation Generally Obliterates Fourth Amendment Protection”
 Physical characteristics (e.g. the sound of your voice, the style of your handwriting) 身体
的特徴
 Odors that emanate from your luggage or a car 荷物や車のにおい
 Garbage left at the curb for collection 回収用に出されたごみ
 Open fields - anything that can be seen in or across open fields
外から見える場所（フェンスがあっても open field  牧場には令状なしに入ってよい。）
 Financial record held by a bank are routinely reviewed by third parties 銀行口座の記録
 Air space – anything you can see below while flying in public air space
フェンスで囲まれている私有地でも屋外であれば上空から見れるので privacy expectation なし。
非常に広い裏庭の play court がフェンスで囲まれていたとしても、そこで行われたマリファナにつ
いて警察が上空から撮影して捜査することは可能。
 Pen register: devices that list the telephone numbers someone has dialed 電話利用記録

6
Summer 2016

4. Q3: The two Fourth Amendment tests

Did the government agent’s conduct satisfy one of the two tests necessary to implicate the Fourth
Amendment? 政府の行為が第 4 修正条項違反の問題を生じるかを判断する 2 つのテスト（いずれかに該当する場合第
4 修正条項の問題を生じる）
There are two ways in which searches and seizures by government agents can implicate an
individual’s Fourth Amendment rights:
(1) Trespass-based test:
The agent physically intruded on a constitutionally protected area in order to obtain
information; 情報を得るための侵入
(e.g.) The government’s installation of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle, and the use of that device
to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constituted a physical intrusion on an “effect” for the
purpose of gathering information and, as such, was a “search” governed by the Fourth
Amendment. 車に GPS をつけた→GPS 装置が車という protected area を物理的に侵害する
OR
(2) Privacy-based test:
The agent’s search or seizure of a constitutionally protected area violated an individual’s
reasonable expectation of privacy. 合理的に保護が期待されるプライバシーの侵害
(a) To satisfy the privacy-based test, an individual must show:
(i) an actual or subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched or items seized;
and
(ii) that the privacy expectation was be “one that society recognizes as reasonable.”
(b) A police search is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment when it
uses a device that is not in public use to explore details of the home that officers could
not have known without physical intrusion. 一般に使われていないような器具を使って物理的
侵襲なしには知り得ないことを知った場合には unreasonable との推定が働く
(e.g.): Police violated the Fourth Amendment when, positioned outside the home without
a warrant, they used a “thermal imaging device” to detect “hot spots” inside the home
where the homeowners had placed high-intensity lights to grow marijuana. 家屋の外から
サーモグラフィーで温度を測り室内のマリファナ育成を検知するのはアウト
—プライバシーについてのまとめ-
刑務所に収監されている者でも自宅についてのプライバシーは期待できる。
刑務所内での会話にはプライバシーは期待されない。（盗聴問題なし）

7
Summer 2016

5. Q4: Standing to challenge a search or seizure 

当事者適格の問題 （場所に対する捜索の時に問題となる）
Did the individual subjected to the search or seizure have “standing” to challenge the government
agent’s conduct? 違法な捜索差押えを主張する当事者適格があるか

To have authority, or “standing” to challenge the lawfulness of a government search and seizure,
an individual’s own personal privacy rights must be invaded, not those of a third party. When,
therefore, do the following individuals have that authority? 他人のプライバシーではダメで自身のプ
ライバシーが侵害される必要がある

(a) The owners of the premises searched 所有している: always have standing
(b) The residents of the premises searched 居住している: always have standing
居住者であれば足り、賃貸かどうかは関係ない

(c) Overnight guests in the premises searched:

always as to areas that overnight guests can be expected to access
リビングのような共用部分についても host との関係によりアクセスが認められていればゲストのプライバシー
が及ぶが、host の寝室のクローゼットには及ばない。

(d) Individuals using someone else’s residence solely for business purposes without staying
overnight: NEVER – ここがラインになる。
e.g. apartment of acquaintance used only to bag cocaine コカイン置き場の部屋
(e) Owners of the property seized:
ONLY IF the owner has reasonable expectation of privacy in the area from which the
property was seized.
e.g. man who hides drugs in girlfriend’s purse → NO 恋人の財布にはプライバシーは及ばない
(f) Passengers in cars:
ONLY IF the passenger has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the items (car)
searched or seized
(e.g.) passenger has no standing to challenge the search of the car where the officer found
a sawed-off rifle under the front passenger’s seat.
車に乗っていた人が実は車の所有者だった、などの事情がない限り、ただ車に乗っていたというだ
けでは standing が認められない。

PR-31 被告が麻薬を第三者に売った後に、第三者がスピード違反で捕まり、警官が第三者の車
の中を捜索したところ、麻薬が見つかり、売主である被告が逮捕。被告は捜索の対象となった
車の所有者でないため捜索の違法を主張する Standing がない。
PR-51 刑務所ではプライバシーはない。盗聴されたとしても、特権は行使できず、盗聴テープ
は証拠能力あり。
PS-152 警察犬が被告の裏庭を徘徊するのは捜索に該当しない。フェンスの張られていない裏庭
は Open Field とみなされ、第 4 修正条項は適用されない。
BSM-128 被告人を代理する弁護士の事務所を Probable Cause なく捜索・押収したため違法収集
証拠となったとしても、被告人本人の Privacy は害されていないため、Standing なしと判断され
る。被告人自身の Privacy が侵害されていることが必要。

If you find, at the end of ISSUE ONE, that a government agent has either (1) physically intruded
on a protected area or item to obtain information or (2) violated an individual’s reasonable
expectation of privacy in a protected area or item and the person subjected to the search has
standing to challenge the agent’s conduct, the Fourth Amendment applies to the search and/or
seizure.

We must now determine if the search or seizure complies with Fourth Amendment requirements.

8
Summer 2016

Searches or seizures require warrants 令状 , unless an exception applies. As we will see, there are
many exceptions.

ISSUE TWO addresses the constitutional requirements of those searches and seizures that are
conducted with a warrant. 捜索差押の憲法上の要件

ISSUE THREE will address warrantless searches and seizures. 令状なしの捜索差押

9
Summer 2016

III. SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITH WARRANT 令状による捜索差押え

1. Overview
Did the search or seizure conducted pursuant to a search warrant satisfy Fourth Amendment
requirements?
This issue asks 4 key questions:
1) Was the warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate?
2) Is the warrant supported by probable cause and particularity?
3) If 2) is not satisfied, did police officers rely on a defective warrant in “good faith?”
4) Was the warrant properly executed by the police?

6. Q1: Neutral and detached magistrate. 中立かつ公平な司法官による令状発布

Was the warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate?
Standard:
A judicial officer ceases to be sufficiently “neutral and detached” for Fourth Amendment
purposes when her conduct demonstrates BIAS in favor of the prosecution.
(1) NG Cases** ダメな場合
(i) The US/state’s attorney general 連邦/州の司法長官
AG is the principal law enforcement officer. He is not neutral and detached.
司法長官は法の執行側におり中立な立場ではない
(ii) Magistrate who investigates the scene of the crime.犯罪を調査している治安判事
(iii) Magistrate who gets money per warrant issued. 令状の発行に伴い金銭を得る者
（令状発行 1 通につきいくらという形で給料/報酬を得る仕組みはダメ）

(2) A court clerk who is neutral and detached may issue warrants for violations for city
ordinances. 中立かつ公平な裁判所書記官は、条例違反に対する令状を発行できる
PR-10 Warrant の効力
When the purpose of the warrant have been carried out, the authority to search is at an end.
捜索差押令状の目的が達成された場合には、捜索押収権限は終了する。例えば「Yamaha Stereo at
789 Mesa Drive」と令状に記載されている場合にすでに Yamaha の Stereo を発見したのであれば、そ
れ以上建物の中を捜索することはできない。

10
Summer 2016

7. Q2: Probable cause and Particularity 相当な理由と特定性

Is the warrant supported by probable cause and particularity?
There are two core requirements to reference when determining the validity of warrant:
(1) Probable cause 相当な理由:
STANDARD:
A fair probability that contraband or evidence of crime will be found in the area searched.
禁制品又は犯罪の証拠が見つかる正当な蓋然性が存在すること
a. It is permissible for this purpose to use hearsay evidence that would be inadmissible at
trial. 令状発令のために伝聞証拠を使っても OK
b. Can also use information gathered from an informant’s tip – but police need to
corroborate enough of the tipster’s information to allow the magistrate to make a
common sense practical determination that probable cause exists in a given
circumstance. [Gates test]
匿名の情報（情報提供者の信頼性が証明されていない情報）に依拠しても有効な令状を発布できる
が常識的に信用できるものである必要がある。
Hypo: The NYPD receive an anonymous letter stating that Bill and Terry Jones, who reside at
505 Cocaine Lane in Brooklyn, sell drugs out of their home. The letter explains how Terry drives
the couple’s 2000 Honda Odyssey to Miami and loads it with drugs. Bill then flies to Miami and
drives the car back to their home in Brooklyn where he unloads the drugs. Terry flies home.
Before applying for a warrant to search the Jones’s home, the police confirm substantially all of
the critical information contained in the letter. They discover, at the same time, that a few minor
details included in the letter were factually inaccurate. Should the magistrate issue the warrant?
→Yes. The police have confirmed enough of the tipster’s information to allow the magistrate to
make a common sense practical determination that probable cause exists, based on a totality of the
circumstances. 提供を受けた情報のうちの一部の細かい点が間違っていたとしても、かかる情報に
依拠して令状を発布できる。
PR-4 ミランダ警告に違反して取得された供述は有効な捜索差押令状を取得するために必要な
「相当の理由」の基礎となる証拠としては使用できない。
PR-23 情報提供者が情報の提供のために宣誓供述書を使用した場合には、 “totality of the
circumstances”が必要であり、特定の場所・時間で禁止物が見つかると結論付けるための “fair
probability” or “substantial basis”があるかどうかで判断される。
例えば、2 ヶ月前にヘロインを売っているところを見たという証拠では、現時点においても当該
場所に対象物が存在する蓋然性を示すことはできず、相当な理由は認められない。
PR-20 政府が情報提供者の情報の提供を拒否することは憲法違反ではない。連邦刑事犯罪にお
いて情報提供者の身元の開示を拒絶を認める証拠上のルールを制定することは認められると裁
判所は判断している。これを認めないと犯罪防止に協力する者がいなくなってしまう。

(2) Particularity 特定性:

STANDARD:
The search warrant must specify the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
If the particularized description is contained in an affidavit that supports the warrant but not
in the warrant itself, it must be incorporated expressly into the warrant itself.
令状は捜索場所及び捜索対象物を特定しなければならない。令状発行の基礎とされた宣誓供述書が特
定の記述を行っている場合、明示的に令状に組み込まれなければならない（宣誓供述書に特定の記述が
存在しても、明示的な組み込みが行われていない場合、令状は特定性の要件を欠く）。
Hypo: The police have probable cause to believe that Ted has murdered his wife, Elaine. Forensic
evidence has established that Elaine was stabbed to death with a long, serrated knife. The district
attorney applies for a warrant to search Ted and Elaine’s apartment for the knife. The warrant issued
by the magistrate authorizes police to search “the entire apartment, including all closed containers, for
evidence linked to Elaine’s murder.” Does this warrant satisfy particularity requirements?
→No. This is a “general warrant” that authorizes a fishing expedition in private areas that could not

11
Summer 2016

possibly house the evidence for which there was probable cause to search. 一般令状禁止

A warrant that is invalid due to the absence of probable cause or particularity can still be saved if the
officer relied on it in “good faith”. 上の二つの要件を満たさない時の救済→good faith。
Thus, if a multiple choice (MBE) question presents a defective search warrant, proceed to Question 3

8. Q3: “good faith” reliance on a defective warrant

Does an officer’s “good faith” save the defective search warrant?
(1) Rule:
An officer’s “good faith” overcomes constitutional deficits in probable cause and
particularity. 相当な理由・特定性の瑕疵は「good faith」であればによって治癒される
(2) Exceptions： 4 categorical exceptions:
(a) The affidavit supporting the warrant application is so egregiously( 言語道断 ) lacking in
probable cause that no reasonable officers would have relied on it.
e.g. “Bare bone” affidavit that states only that the police have “received information from a
confidential informant” who is “known to them” and “has provided reliable information in the
past.” 情報源が誰か、どんな情報に基づいて令状が発布されたかがわからない場合
(b) The warrant itself is so facially deficient in particularity that no reasonable officers
would have relied on it. [例：分譲マンション捜索令状で部屋番号の記載なし]
e.g. Warrant authorizes a search for “all serial numbers and identification numbers on all
property” at an address where probable cause existed only as to the presence of a stolen vehicle
parked outside. 外に止まっている車全部、番号の特定なし
(c) The affidavit relied on by the magistrate contain knowing or reckless false that are
necessary to the probable cause finding (i.e. lie to or mislead the magistrate who issued
the warrant). 前提となった宣誓供述書に悪意又は無思慮な虚偽が含まれている
(d) The magistrate who issued the warrant was biased in favor of the prosecution, meaning
he or she wholly abandoned neutrality. 令状を発布した司法官が中立でない
e.g. The local government official, discussed earlier whose salary was based entirely on a cash
award for each warrant he issued.

Remember: A warrant that is invalid due to absence of probable cause or particularity can still be
saved if the officer relied on it in “good faith” on the MBE part of the exam only.

If the police had either a valid warrant or, on the MBE, a defective warrant saved by the officer’s
good faith, you must move on to QUESTION 4.

12
Summer 2016

9. Q4: Executing the search warrant

Was the search warrant properly executed by the police?
There are two issues to focus on in step 5:
(1) Did the officers exceed the scope of warrant? 捜索の範囲の適合性
(e.g.) A warrant allows police to search “the living room and bedrooms for stolen iPad”.
What areas of items, if searched, would be outside the scope of the warrant?
(a) Areas: any rooms other than living/bed room キッチンやダイニングはだめ
(b) Items: any containers too small to iPad iPad が入っているわけのない小さなピルケース
(e.g.) if the warrant allows you to search for fire arms, it is a problem if cops start opening
pill boxes because fire arms don’t fit in there
Note: When executing a search warrant, officers may detain occupants found either within or
immediately outside the residence (e.g. the front steps or adjacent pathway) at the time of the
search. 捜索中は占拠者を住居の内部又は外部にて留置してよい
BarBri Set 2-8 住居についての search warrant でもって、住人以外の所持品（e.g., purse）を search する
ことは認められない。

(2) Did the police comply with the “Knock and Announce” rule? 令状提示
Rule:
This rule requires police to knock and announce their presence and purpose before
forcibly entering the place to be searched. 事前の knock and announce が原則
Exception:
UNLESS an officer reasonably believes that doing so would be futile, dangerous, or
otherwise inhibit the investigation. 執行官が事前の令状提示が無益・危険その他捜査を阻害する と
合理的に判断した場合は、knock and announce 不要
(e.g.) Police concern that defendants would be flushing drugs down the toilet if they knocked
and announced. 麻薬捜査で knock and announce すると水に流される危険
*Recent SCOTUS decision: Violations of the knock and announce rule do not require
suppression of the evidence procured through the violation. Knock and anounce がなくても証拠能
力は否定されない。
(e.g. 1): “No-knock” entry was deemed reasonable where there was probable cause to believe
the occupant was dealing drugs out of his home, had a violent criminal history, and kept a
cache of weapons in the home. 家の外で薬物を使っている、前科あり、家の中に武器を隠している
場合は OK

(e.g. 2): “No-knock” entry was deemed unreasonable where occupants believed to be making
methamphetamine in their home had no violent criminal record, no evidence suggesting they
were armed, and no demonstrated risk of destruction of evidence in the time it would take to
knock and announce. メタンフェタミン（覚せい剤）の製造の嫌疑で、前科なし、武器についての証
拠なし、証拠破壊の危険についての立証不十分の場合はダメ

What if the police (a) had no warrant; or (b) on the MBE only, had a defective warrant that could
not be “saved” by “good faith”?
In (a) or (b), the search might still satisfy the Fourth Amendment by falling under an exception to
the warrant requirement. Move to step 6.

ISSUE TWO focused on searches and seizures conducted pursuant to a search warrant. You may,
however, be presented with a search or seizure conducted without a warrant. This is permissible, provided
the circumstances fit within one of the eight (8) categorical exceptions to the warrant requirement.

13
Summer 2016

In ISSUE THREE, to which we now turn, we address those exceptions, each of which has its own
justifications, rules and limitations.

14
Summer 2016

IV. SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITHOUT WARRANT 無令状捜索差押え

Is the search valid under any of the 8 exceptions to the warrant requirement?
Exceptions to the warrant requirement can save a defective or improperly executed warrant,
because you didn’t need a warrant in the first place. 無令状捜索差押えが許される場合
 ESCAPIST
o Exigent circumstances
o Search incident to arrest
o Consent
o Automobile
o Plain view
o Inventory
o Special Needs
o Terry stop and frisk
1. Exigent circumstances 緊急の状況
(1) Evanescent Evidence: 時間が経つと消えてしまうもの
Evidence that would dissipate or disappear over the time it takes to get a warrant
(e.g.) tissue under a suspect’s fingernails;
Note: blood evidence in DUI (Driving Under Influence of alcohol) where the suspect refused
is NOT allowed. 飲酒運転の血中アルコール濃度は warrant なしには認められない b/c high level of
invasion
監視中の建物において禁止薬物の取引があったらしいことを捜査官が認識しても、それだけでは
Exigent circumstances とは言えない。

(2) Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon: 逃亡した重犯罪人の現行犯を追跡する場合

(a) Hot pursuit allows police to enter into a suspect’s or a third party’s home without a
warrant in looking for the felon; if you come upon criminal evidence while in hot pursuit
then this is okay.
(b) During hot pursuit, any evidence of a crime discovered in plain view while searching for
suspect is admissible.
(e.g.1) 15 minutes behind the guy is not hot pursuit.
(e.g.2) Cab driver heard broadcast for fleeing felon, called the police when he saw the
felon go by. Police arrived 8 minutes later, found the weapon linking to D. All
these evidence were admissible on hot pursuit theory.
(e.g.3) D, who is chased by a police officer, is on 5th floor. Evidence from the basement
by other policeman is admissible.
(3) “Emergency Aid” exception:
Police may enter a residence without a warrant when there is an objectively reasonable basis
for believing that a person inside is in need of emergency aid to address or prevent injury.
この injury は生命の危機をもたらすようなものでなくてもよい。

PR-39 Warrantless administrative searches are permitted at airports in order to protect passengers
from weapons and explosives. 連邦法上、無令状の行政上の捜索は、空港で乗客を武器や爆発から守
るためであれば、認められる。
PR-39 Although narcotic-sniffing dogs may smell a passenger’s luggage, any resulting detention
must be brief and a seizure of the luggage is subject to Fourth Amendment limitations. Public Place
にて麻薬犬に乗客の荷物をかがせることは、第 4 修正条項における search/seizure の制限に服しない
が、差押は第 4 修正条項の制限に服する。たとえば、荷物を押収し、一晩保管するのは過剰であり、
第 4 修正条項違反となる。

15
Summer 2016

2. Search incident to arrest 逮捕に伴う捜索

(1) Justification:
(i) ensure the safety of the officer or (ii) to preserve evidence.
捜査官の安全を確保し、また、被疑者による証拠破壊を防止する。

(2) Requirements:
a. Arrest must be lawful (someone is lawfully arrested and is about to be taken into
custody).逮捕の適法性
b. Timing:
The search incident to arrest must be contemporaneous in time and place with the
arrest. 逮捕との時間的・場所的同時性が必要
Note: SCOTUS holds it consistent with contemporaneousness to search an automobile
after the defendant has been arrested and put in the back of the police car – only
requires the arrestee be a recent occupant of the vehicle.
被疑者を逮捕し、パトカーに乗せた後に被疑者の車を捜索するのも可。
•車については automobile の例外の範囲が広いのでそちらに該当しないかを要確認。

c. Geographic scope:
Wingspan of arrestee: Body, clothing and any container within the arrestee’s
immediate control without regard to the offenses for which the arrest was made.
被疑者が武器取得、証拠破壊のために手の届く範囲（趣旨から）.
(e.g.) When you arrest someone in his apartment, can you search his bedroom?
→No, because that is beyond his wingspan (=grab area).←逮捕した原因と場所次第？
逮捕場所とは別の部屋の捜索が一切許されない訳ではない。武器の有無の確認のために隣の部屋
に行くのは OK.

(3) Examples:
a. Cellphone:
Without a warrant, police may NOT search digital data on the cell phone of an arrestee;
however, they MAY examine the cell’s physical aspects to ensure that it will not be used
as a weapon.
携帯のデータを見るのはダメだが、外形において武器が隠されていないか見るのは OK.

b. DNA evidence:
Police MAY lawfully take a DNA sample by swabbing the cheek of an individual
arrested for a serious offense.
重大犯罪については頬から DNA サンプルを得るのも認められる

Hypo: After making an arrest for driving while intoxicated, an officer searches a
cigarette pack in the arrestee’s front shirt pocket and seizes the crack cocaine he finds
inside. Are the search and seizure lawful?
飲酒運転で逮捕した被疑者の胸ポケットのタバコ箱の中のコカインの差し押さえ。
→YES. The contraband was found in a cocaine inside the arrestee’s clothing and, as
such, was within the arrestee’s immediate control.
c. Automobiles searched incident to a custodial arrest: 車中で逮捕された場合
(a) Permissible scope: interior cabin including closed containers / interior compartment
but NOT trunk. トランクはダメ
(b) Location of suspect: After the arrestee was secured (e.g. handcuffing, placing in
squad car), the officer can search the arrestee’s car only if the officer has reason to

16
Summer 2016

believe the vehicle may contain evidence relating to crime for which arrest was
made.
犯人確保（手錠をかける、パトカーに乗せる）の後でも関連証拠を確保するための捜索は可
*逮捕要因となった犯罪に関係する証拠捜索だけで、関係ない犯罪の証拠捜査はできない。
*犯人が車の外にいる際には、closed container の中は原則として捜索できない（ただし、当該
container の中に関連証拠が存在すると合理的に信じた場合には捜索可）

Hypo: Jill is arrested for driving with a suspended license. Officer Jack tells Jill,
who is not handcuffed, to remain in the vehicle while he searches it. In Jill’s purse
on the floor of the car, Jack finds cocaine and seizes it. Are Jack’s actions lawful? 偽
造運転免許による運転で Jill が逮捕。車の中にあった財布からコカインが出てきた。
→YES, because Jill is unsecured at the time of the search. However, if Jill were
handcuffed inside the squad car at the time of the search, the search would be
unlawful, since Jack could not reasonably expect to find evidence relating to driving
with a suspended license inside the vehicle. もし被疑者が手錠をかけられてパトカーに
乗った後だったら財布の捜索はできない。
BIM-13, BarBri Set6-16 ある建物に対する捜索令状があるとしても、警察は捜索令状に名前のな
い者（第三者）が捜索場所である建物の中にいたとしても捜索できない。ただし、 その者を逮
捕すべき相当な理由がある場合には、逮捕に付随して捜索することができる。警察が実際に安
全に対する脅威を感じていなくても、逮捕に付随する捜索は適法。
PS-56 被告が一軒家の一室で逮捕された場合、捜索令状がないのであれば、下の階のクロー
ゼットやガレージの車も捜索することができない。

(4) “Protective sweeps”

When making an in-home arrest, the police may sweep the residence to look for criminal
accomplice of the arrestee whose presence may threaten officer safety. 家の中の逮捕の場合に、
捜査官に危害を加える被逮捕者の共犯者の発見のために居住者を外にだすことができる。
Evidentiary Standards: What evidentiary standards apply in “protective sweeps”?
1. Officer may sweep the area immediately adjoining the place of arrest, provided there is
reasonable suspicion that the house harbors a person who poses a danger to those on
the arrest scene.　逮捕場所と隣接するエリアについては合理的な疑いで足る
BarBri-WS52 共犯者の発見のために認められるものであるため、人間が入れないようなサイズ
のもの（例えば drawer）を開けて捜索を行うことはできない。

2. To justify a “sweep” of more remote area, the arresting officer must have additional
facts sufficient to allow a reasonably prudent officer to conclude that an individual who
may threaten officer safety is present in the area swept. 上記エリア以外については捜査官の
安全を脅かす者がいると合理的に示すことが必要
Can informants’ tips satisfy this standard?匿名の情報
→YES, provided the tip contains sufficient predictive information, corroborated by the
police, to establish the informant’s reliability.

17
Summer 2016

3. Consent: 同意を得て行う捜索・差押え
(1) Standard:
Consent must be voluntary and intelligent.[任意性＋認識]
(a) Voluntary means free from police coercion;
(b) Intelligent does not require the defendant to be informed of his right to refuse consent
(telling rights to refuse consent is NOT a requirement for a valid consent)
対象者が同意の意味が分かっていればよく、同意拒否権があることを知らせる必要はない
(2) Scope of Consent
An officer’s consent to search extends to all area for which a reasonable officer would believe
the permission to search was granted (objective standard). 合理的に考えて同意されたと考えられ
る範囲。右ポケットはいいが、左ポケットはダメ、とは合理的には考えられない
(3) Actual authority to consent: 同意権のある者による同意
Consenter has dominion and control over the property/premises that he agrees to be searched.
Emanuel-53 財産の所有者が第三者に対し占有を与えた場合（例えば、自動車の所有者が友人に自動車
を貸した）、当該所有者は、当該第三者が捜索に同意する場合には、プライバシーに対する期待を有
していないと考えられる。

(4) Apparent authority to consent 同意権のない者による同意（表見同意）:

If a police officer obtains consent to search from someone who lacks authority to grant it, the
consent is still valid if the officer reasonably believed that the consenting party had
actual authority.[同意があったと信じたことの合理性]
(e.g.1) Police reasonably believed that a woman had authority to consent to their entry into
her boyfriend’s apartment where she referred to the apartment as “ours”, had a key to
enter, and claimed to keep personal belongings there. ボーイフレンドの部屋について「私
達の部屋」といっていた、鍵を持っていた、彼女自身の所有物が置かれていた、といった事情か
ら表見同意を肯定
(e.g.2) A child’s consent to her mother’s locked bedroom. -> No.
(e.g.3) School official consents to search of student’s locker. -> Yes.
(5) Shared Premises
If the premises are shared, either party has the authority to consent to a search of the
premises. いずれの共有者も全体について同意することができる。全員の同意は不要である。
(6) Co-tenants
If co-tenants with equal rights to use or occupy the premises disagree regarding consent to
search, objecting party prevails as to areas over which they share dominion and control. 同居
人がいる場合、それぞれが単独で consent を与えることができるが、どちらか一方が明確に拒否した場
合は、もう一方が同意しても「共有部分については」捜索できない。
BIM-4 両親が子供用の部屋への一般的なアクセスをしている場合（いつも部屋掃除をしているような
場合）、子供が成人であったとしても、両親は捜索に対して有効な同意をすることができる。子供に
もプライバシーはあるが、親の同意により Warrant は不要となる。親は普段立ち入りしている限り通
常子どもの部屋の捜索に同意する権限を有していると考えられる。但し、子どもの部屋にある鍵のか
かった Container を開けることに同意する権限はないと考えられる。
BIM-4 以前は Amicable relationship を必要とする判例もあったが、現在では不要。
BIM-54 アパートのオーナーは通常個別の部屋に対する同意権限はない。
PR-22 留守中に子供の面倒を見てもらうように頼まれただけでは、同意する権限はない。
PR-53 他人の住居に侵入した者が、警察の要請に応えて警察を住居に導いた場合、警察が合理的にそ
の者による同意を有効であると信じたとしても、実際に同意権がないのであれば同意は無効。捜索は
違法となり、捜索により得られた証拠は証拠能力なし。
PR-22 同意がなされたとしても、同意の範囲を超えた捜索･差押は違法である。

4. Automobile Exception 車両の捜索

Supreme Court が automobile exception という用語を使用したため automobile exception と呼ぶが、車の捜索に
ついては、その他の例外も当てはまるので、他の例外も検討する必要がある。

18
Summer 2016

Policy: people have a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile than in other areas and automobiles are likely to
disappear before a warrant can be acquired. 趣旨：家と異なり車両は移動してしまうため、令状取得を待つこと
が難しく、また、家に比べればプライバシーの期待も低い（Big p.21）
Automobile 以外の vehicle にも当てはまる.

(1) Standard:
Police officers need probable cause to believe that there is contraband or evidence of
crime in the vehicle.
禁製品又は犯罪証拠が車中に存在することの相当な理由が必要。令状取得と同程度。
(2) Timing:
This probable cause must arise before the search, but doesn’t not have to arise before the car
is pulled over 捜索開始前に嫌疑があることが必要だが、車を停止させる（pull over car）前に嫌疑があ
ることは不要（車を停止させたところ、嫌疑が発見されて、捜索を行った、という下記のようなケース
でもよい）
(e.g.) a cop can pull a person over for speeding; if the person opens the drug compartment
and discovers drug equipment then there is probable cause
*traffic stop の後に犯罪に関する probable cause が生じて捜査を始めても OK
(3) Where can police search?
Police can search the interior (passenger) cabin and trunk, and may open any package or
luggage or other container, that may reasonably contain the item that you have probable cause
to search for. 合理的に疑われる限り、鍵のかかっている容器を開けても OK、バールを使って壊して
も OK.
(e.g.) if you have probable cause to search for a stolen TV, then you can’t open a backpack.
[TV が入っている合理的な疑いがないため×]
(e.g.) A drug case where all the probable cause ran to the car, but not the driver. Police
officer did not arrest the driver, but took him out of the car and then searched
everything in the car that might reasonably contain drug or money. If police found the
drug, then he could arrest the driver

Tip: Don’t automatically assume that the automobile exception applies every time you see a
car search scenario in the exam
Hypo: Officer Evelyn has probable cause to believe that a car is being used to transport a
stolen 27" flat-screen television.
• Where can she search? →The entire car
• Can she open a backpack in the trunk? →No. It is too small to house a 27” TV!
• What if Evelyn had probable cause to search for drugs? Could she search the
backpack then? →YES. Why? →Drugs fits inside a backpack. 薬物はどこにでも隠せるた
め、薬物事犯の捜査範囲は広い。

(4) Traffic stops and auto searches:

Sometimes what begins as a routine traffic stop results in a search of all or part of the vehicle.
For the search to be lawful, an officer does not need probable cause to search the vehicle at
the time the car is pulled over, provided he acquires it before initiating the search.
車両を止めた時に相当な理由がなくても、捜索を開始した時に相当な理由があればよい。
Hypo: A car is pulled over for speeding. When Officer Ed runs the license plate （ナンバープレート）
through the computer, he discovers that the car has been linked to drug trafficking activity through
police surveillance. He returns to the vehicle and proceeds to search it, finding a 5-lb package of
cocaine under the spare tire in the trunk.
Is this search lawful? →YES
Could Ed have lawfully searched the car before he ran the license plate? →NO probable cause がない

19
Summer 2016

10. Plain View プレインビューの法理（無令状差押え）

捜査官が正当な権限に基づいて現在する場所から「明視できる範囲」にある犯罪の成果物または道具は、無
令状で差し押さえることができる。典型的には犯人追跡中に居住地に入り、禁制品を見つけた場合。
The three requirements for seizure of an item in plain view.
(1) Lawful access to the place from which the item can be plainly seen
逮捕令状では被疑者の家は捜索できないので lawful access なし

(2) Lawful access to the item itself (=閉じた箱の中に入っているものは押収できない)

(3) The criminality of the item seized must be immediately apparent[犯罪性が明白であるこ
と]

Hypo: A police officer enters a residence in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing felon. The officer enters an
upstairs bedroom and opens a closet door to see if the felon is hiding inside. He is not. Noticing a
backpack on the floor, the officer opens it and finds a baggie containing a white, powdery substance
labeled “heroin.” He seizes it. The seizure of the heroin is invalid under the plain view doctrine. Why?
While the officer had lawful access to the bedroom and the closet (the “place”) and seized what he
knew was contraband (“immediately apparent” criminality), he did not have lawful access to the
backpack (the “item” searched). The felon could not fit inside it.
現行犯追跡中に住居を捜索することはできるが、リュックサックの中を捜索してコカインを差し押さえ
ることはできない。（∵サイズ的にリュックの中に被疑者が入っている訳はない）
PR-10 “Plain View” doctrine is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that
they have evidence before them; the “Plain View” doctrine may not be used to extend a general
explanatory search from one object to another.一般的な捜査を拡大するために利用されない。

11. Inventory Searches 所持品検査

(1) Two different contexts where an inventory search may occur:
(a) the arrestee is being booked into jail 刑務所に収容される
(b) the arrestee is impounded vehicle 乗り物に収容される
(2) Standard: 憲法上の３要件
Inventory searches are constitutional, if
(a) the regulations governing them are reasonable in scope;
(b) the search itself complies with those regulations; and
(c) the search is conducted in good faith (subjective standard); motivated solely by the need
(i) to safeguard the owner’s possession of stolen property and/or (ii) to ensure officer
safety
* If the guidelines for the inventory search are reasonable, then they satisfy the 4 th
amendment and the search is valid as long as the officer doing the search is following the
guidelines
12. Terrv Stops and Frisks (Terry v. Ohio case announced this exception)
第 4 修正条項は、① probable cause「相当な理由」と② warrant「令状」を要件としている。ここまでの例外
は②「令状」がない場合について。本例外は①「相当な理由」がない場合。Stop と Frisk は別々に考える。

(1) Terry Stop 職務質問

a. What is a Terry stop?
Brief detention or seizure for the purpose of investigating suspicious conduct

20
Summer 2016

b. What is the evidential standard?

Reasonable suspicion. (Less than probable cause) 合理的な嫌疑があること
(a) Specific and articulable facts that inform an officer to believe that criminal activity is
present　犯罪が現に行われようとしていると信じるに足る特定の明らかな事実。
When the source of suspicion of criminal activity is an informant’s tip, the tip must be accompanied by
indicia of reliability sufficient to make the officer’s stop reasonable.疑いが information tip に基づく
場合には tip は十分に信用できる根拠が必要。「交差点の角に立っている人が薬物の売買を
している」という内容の匿名手紙を受け取っただけでは職務質問をするのには不十分。

(b) Officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant in evaluating the legality of the stop. 4 th
Amendment is concerned solely with its objective reasonableness. 合理的な嫌疑の有無
は客観的に判断し、捜査官の主観は関係ない。
Note: Can informants’ tips satisfy this standard?匿名の情報
YES, provided the tip contains sufficient predictive information, corroborated by the
police, to establish the informant’s reliability.

Hypo: An informant tells the police that, the following evening between 11:00PM and 1:00 AM,
two teenagers are planning to transport stolen electronics from a hiding place located within a 10-
block radius downtown. The following evening, Officer Eve spots two teenagers pushing a baby
carriage downtown at midnight in a desolate commercial area located within that 10-block area.
• Does Eve’s observation justify a Terry stop 職務質問?
YES. The teenagers’ conduct, coupled with Eve’s corroboration of predictive detail in the tip,
provide reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is present. 合理的な疑いはある。
• Does Eve’s observation justify a Terry frisk?
Only if additional facts suggest that either or both of the teenagers is armed and dangerous. 捜
査機関への危険がないとダメ。
c. When are you “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes?
(a) Rule:
An individual is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when, based on a totality of
circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or to decline the
officer’s request to answer the questions. 対象者が拒否できないと感じる場合（総合考
慮で判断）
(b) Evaluating Factors SCOTUS が示した３つの要素
In evaluating whether an individual has been seized during questioning by law
enforcement officers on the street, in an airport concourse or on a bus, you should
consider:
1) whether officer brandishes a weapon?　武器を示したか
2) the officer’s tone and demeanor when interacting with the individual in question.
聞き方、引き止め方
3) whether the individual was told he has a right to refuse the consent. 拒否権がある
旨教示されたか
(c) An individual who is being pursued by a police officer is seized only (i) if he submits
to the officer’s authority by stopping or (ii) if the officer physically restrains him.
警察によって追っかけられている対象者が「seize された」というためには、(i)止まることで捜
査官の権限を肯定し服従した場合か、(ii)現に捜査官によって確保されたことが必要（＝声をか
けられたが、逃げて、その途中で落としたものを差押えられた、といった場合「seize」の要素
が欠けるため、第 4 修正条項違反にならない）
Hypo: As Martha hurriedly exits Bloomingdale’s, Officer Alice think she looks “shifty”( あや
しい ) and orders her to halt. Martha runs in the opposite direction and Alice gives chase. As
Martha rounds the corner, she collides with a pedestrian, causing the contents of her purse to
spill out onto the pavement just as Alice approaches. Looking down, Alice sees pills in a

21
Summer 2016

baggie labeled “Martha’s ecstasy.” Alice seizes it. Martha moves to suppress the drugs,
claiming that she was unlawfully seized by Alice. If we assume that Alice was not justified in
ordering Martha to halt, does Martha’s claim have merit?
→NO. Martha was never seized since she did not submit to Alice’s authority. Martha は Alice
の命令に従っていない。
d. Who is “seized” during a traffic stop? 車両停止
(a) In a traffic stop, both the driver and all passengers are seized, such that all have
standing to challenge the legality of the stop.
(b) In a traffic stop, the officer may, in her discretion, order both the driver and the
passengers out of the car.
(c) Are dog sniffs (麻薬探知犬) at traffic stops permissible?
Yes, provided the sniff does not prolong the stop. 判例あり。長すぎる停止になるときはダメ
(e.g.) It is permissible for “K-9” officers to sniff the exterior of a car during a traffic
stop while the computer is checking the driver’s license and registration.
Contra: A police officer’s use of a drug-sniffing dog to investigate an individual’s
home and its curtilage(宅地) is a “search” governed by the Fourth Amendment.
Emanuel-61 自動車検問を行う場合、(i)ランダムに抽出して自動車を止めさせる方式は違法となる
（捜査官の裁量が不当に広いため）。他方、(ii)外観上の相当の理由があるものだけを止めさせる
のであれば問題はないし、(iii)特定地点を通過する全ての自動車を止めさせることも合法である。

22
Summer 2016

(2) Terry frisk 捜検

捜検 = 着衣の外部に手を当てて危険物などを所持していないか確かめる行為

A Terry frisk is justified by a concern for officer safety only; it is not a general search for
criminal evidence (= “protective” frisk). あくまでも捜査官の安全確保のために行われるものであり 、
犯罪証拠の確保目的ではない
a. Definition (What is a Terry frisk? )
A pat down of body and the outer-clothing for weapons
b. What is the evidential standard for legality?
Reasonable suspicion (Less than probable cause) i.e., Specific and articulable facts that
suggest that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
c. What can you seize in a Terry frisk?
(a) Under the federal standard, if, during a Terry frisk, an officer finds a weapon, it can
always be seized.
(b) If, instead, the officer finds something she recognizes as contraband without
manipulating the object (based on its “plain feel” or immediately recognize it as
such)*, she CAN seize it as well.
*触っただけで違法物だと分かるものについては差し押さえられる。
Hypo: When Officer Adele pulls Frank over for speeding, he storms out of his car and begins
screaming about how she is wasting his “valuable time” and that he has “messed with people”
for less. Afraid that he might have a weapon, Adele frisks Frank. In his coat pocket, she detects
what she immediately recognizes to be a crack pipe (コカイン吸引用のパイプ). She seizes it. Is
this seizure justified?
→YES, since she did not physically manipulate the pipe before seizing it. 特段の処置なく物
理的に理解することが可能だから。
d. Car “Frisks”
When conducting a traffic stop, if an officer believes that a suspect is dangerous, he may
search the passenger cabin of the suspect’s vehicle, limited to those areas in which a
weapon may be placed.

Hypo: An informant tells the police that, the following evening between 11:00PM and 1:00 AM, two
teenagers are planning to transport stolen electronics from a hiding place located within a 10-block
radius downtown. The following evening, Officer Eve spots two teenagers pushing a baby carriage
downtown at midnight in a desolate commercial area located within that 10-block area.
• Does Eve’s observation justify a Terry stop
YES. The teenagers’ conduct, coupled with Eve’s corroboration of predictive detail in the tip,
provide reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is present . 合理的な疑いはある。
• Does Eve’s observation justify a Terry frisk
Only if additional facts suggest that either or both of the teenagers is armed and dangerous.
捜査機関への危険がないとダメ。
捜索対象物 捜索の範囲
逮捕に伴う捜索・差押 weapons and evidence Wingspan of arrestee
Automobile exception contraband and evidence whole car (including interior and trunk)
provided that may reasonably contain the
item
Terry Frisk weapons pat down only

23
Summer 2016

13. Special Needs

“Special needs” of law enforcement, governmental employers and school officials justify
dispensing with the warrant requirement.
(1) Random drug testing 抜き打ち薬物検査
(the most important category)
The U.S. Supreme Court has approved warrantless, random drug tests in a variety of
contexts, including;
(i) Railroad employee’s following impact accident; 事故後に鉄道職員に対して
(ii) Custom’s official responsible for drug interdiction;　薬物担当の税関職員に対して
(iii) Public school children participating in extra-curricular activity クラブ活動も含む
*However, suspicionless drug tests are NOT permitted where the primary purpose is to
gather criminal evidence for general use by law enforcement.
OK: primary purpose is for public safety
NG: primary purpose is gathering evidence of crime
(2) Parolees (仮出所者)
Warrantless, suspicionless searches of a parolee and his home are PERMISSIBLE as a
condition of parole. (probable cause も不要)
(3) Students’ “effects” in public schools 校則違反発見のための所持品検査→合理性・相当性
Warrantless searches of the effects (e.g, purses, back packs) of public schoolchildren are
permissible to investigate violation of school rule , such as the prohibition of smoking on
school grounds, provided the search is reasonable at its inception and is not excessively
intrusive, in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.
Example: U.S. Supreme Court held that the warrantless strip search of a 13-year-old middle
school student suspected of carrying prescription-strength ibuprofen (Advil) was excessively
intrusive in light of her age and in relation to the potential danger to other students ..(Stanford
United School District v. Redding(2009)] 13 歳の子供につきイブプロフェンの処方箋を持っているとして
持ち物検査。最高裁では子供の勝訴。子供が持っていたイブプロフェンの量では誰にも危険はない。
(なお、この判決でバックパックと服の外側の search については合憲とされている)

(4) Government employees’ desks and files 公務員の職場

Warrantless searches of government employees’ desks and files are permitted to investigate
work-related misconduct.
(5) Border searches 国境でのルーティーンの検査
Neither citizens nor non-citizens have any Fourth Amendment rights at the border with
respect to routine searches of person and effects.
(6) “Non-law-enforcement primary purpose” test (=Community Caretaker exception)
The “special needs” doctrine does NOT include law enforcement programs or practices
whose primary purpose is to gather criminal evidence for general use by law enforcement.
Special needs で認められるのは、あくまでも Public safety のための検査であり、刑事証拠の収集を目的
とした検査は認められない

Example: The Indianapolis police department set up a “checkpoint” in a part of the city
associated with drug trafficking that subjected randomly stopped vehicles to a search for
drugs. The U.S. Supreme Court disallowed the practice, finding that – unlike sobriety
checkpoints （ 飲 酒 検 問 所 ） – this checkpoint’s primary purpose was to gather criminal
evidence for general use against drug dealers, not to protect motorists from an imminent

24
Summer 2016

threat to physical safety. 飲酒検問所を public safety のために設けることは認められているが、薬物

取引の証拠を見つけることを目的にランダムに車両を止めるチェックポイントを設けることは許され
ない（令状を取って麻薬犬を使うなどして捜査するべき）。
Emanuel-63 規制業種において、定期的な検査の実施を法令で義務付けることは違法な無令状捜索には該当
しない（事例は中古車販売業者に関し、盗難車・盗難パーツの売買を抑止するために定期的な検査を実施
するという事例）。

RECAP: ISSUES ONE THROUGH THREE

Searches and seizures conducted by government agents satisfy the Fourth Amendment if:
1. They are supported by a valid and properly executed warrant; or
2. They are supported by a properly executed but defective warrant saved by officers’ “good
faith;” or
3. They are warrantless and comply with the requirements and limitations of one of the eight
(8) categorical exceptions to the warrant requirement. If any of these three situations exists,
the evidence gathered is fully admissible and you do not need to move on to Issue Four.
However, if none of these three scenarios applies to your facts, you are faced with an
unconstitutional search and seizure.
If so, you must now move on to ISSUE FOUR, which addresses the extent to which evidence
obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is nonetheless admissible against a defendant in
court.
Was the Search/Seizure performed
by a government agent?
•Publicly Paid Police
•Any Private Individual acting at
the direction of the public police No
•Privately Paid Police

Search is not challengable under

Yes
Fourth Amendment 第 4 修正条
Did the search violate D's 項の問題とならない。
reasonable expectation of privacy?
(1) No Standing
(2) Public Nature

Yes

Did government agent have a

warrant? No Was it a Wiretapping or
Eavesdropping Situation? If so,
it requires a warrant
Was the warrant valid? Search is valid under
Was the search within a Yes
Probable Cause
particularity the place and things warrantless search exception? Fourth Amendment
neutral and detached judicial 捜索は適法
officer. No Searches incident to a lawful
or arrest. 適法な逮捕に基づく捜
Was the government agent's 索
reliance on the warrant in good Automobile exception. 自動車
faith? の例外
Plain view. 明視の法理
Consent. 同意
Yes Stop and Frisk. 停止・検認 Search is invalid under
Hot pursuit and evanescent No
evidence*. 現行犯追跡・緊急
Fourth Amendment
Was the warrant properly executed?
Without unreasonable delay 証拠 捜索は違法
No
After announcement (unless officers
or evidence would be endangered)
Person or place searched or seized
within scope of warrant
25
Yes

Search is valid under 4th

Amendment 捜索は適法
Summer 2016

V. EXCLUSIONARY RULE AND ITS LIMITS RE 4TH AMENDMENT

ISSUE: To what extent can prosecutors use the evidence gathered in an unconstitutional search
and seizure against the defendant in court? 違法に捜索され、差押えられた証拠の証拠能力

1. Exclusionary rule　証拠排除法則:
Evidence, whether physical or testimonial, that is obtained in violation of a federal statutory or
constitutional provision is inadmissible in court against the individual whose rights were
violated. １９６１年の憲法で採用された。原則として証拠能力がないが、以後多くの例外が認められている。
2. Fourth Amendment limits on the exclusionary rule:
(1) Case-in-chief vs. impeachment of defendant cross-examination: [弾劾証拠としての利用]
Unconstitutionally obtained evidence is excluded from the prosecutors’ case-in-chief only;
it may be introduced to impeach the defendants’ testimony on cross examination.
憲法違反の方法によって収集された証拠は検察官の主たる争点のためには使えない。被告の公判での
証言の信用性の弾劾目的であれば利用可能
(2) “Knock and Announce” violations [knock and announce 違反の場合]
A failure to comply with the knock and announce rule does NOT require suppression of the
evidence subsequently discovered. knock and announce rule 違反があったとしても警察に対して civil
claim が立つだけで、証拠としての利用は可能

(3) Police misconduct [故意又は無配慮又は重過失でない場合]

To trigger application of the exclusionary rule, police misconduct must be deliberate,
reckless or grossly negligent (単なる negligent misconduct では exclude されない)
(e.g.) Exclusionary rule did not apply to bookkeeping error by police employee that led to an
unlawful arrest where the error was the result of simple, not gross, negligence.
(4) An officer's “reasonable” mistakes: [合理的誤解に基づく場合]
The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence erroneously obtained by the office when
executing the search warrant, provided the officer mistake was reasonable.
Hypo(最高裁判決に基づく Hypo) : The police obtained a warrant to search “the premises known as
2036 Park Avenue third floor.” Upon arriving at the location, six police found two open doors and,
reasonably believing they were doors to a single, one-floor apartment, they entered both. By the time
they realized that there were two separate apartments, they found drugs in the one that they had
erroneously entered.
Q. Are the drugs admissible?
Yes, because the officer’s mistaken belief that they were searching the right apartment was
reasonable and they stopped the search as soon as they realized their mistake.
(5) Certain proceeding exempted:
The exclusionary rule does not apply to;
(i) Grand jury proceeding 大陪審の行為には適用されない。
* Grand jury witness may be compelled to testify based on illegally seized evidence. 大
陪審証人は違法収集証拠に基づいて証言するよう強制されうる。
PR-57 Grand Jury では、Hearsay も Inadmissible Evidence も判断の基礎としてよい。
(ii) Civil proceeding 民事裁判手続きに適用なし。
(iii) Parole Revocation Hearings 仮釈放取消手続には適用されない。
3. “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” 毒樹の果実の理論

26
Summer 2016

(1) What is “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”?

Evidence derived by exploiting prior unconstitutional conduct is “Fruit of the Poisonous
Tree” and is inadmissible in the prosecutor’s case-in-chief. 違法収集証拠排除法則の効力は、違
法な手続により直接獲得された証拠のみにかぎらず、違法な手続から間接的に派生した証拠にも及ぶ。
(a) Direct Evidence:
Most of unlawfully seized evidence that we have addressed thus has been directly
linked to the constitutional violation
(b) Derivative Evidence:
Evidence, both physical and testimonial, can also be obtained by exploiting prior
unconstitutional conduct. This derivative or secondary evidence is called as “fruit of the
poisonous tree” and inadmissible in the prosecutor case-in-chief.
(2) Admitting tainted fruit
How can the prosecution nullify “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” so as to allow the
introduction of derivative evidence?
To nullify “nullify “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”, prosecutors must show a break in the
“causal link” between the original illegality and the criminal evidence that is later
discovered. 最初の違法行為と派生した証拠の関連性の切断による、毒樹の果実理論の 3 つの例外
a. “Independent Source” doctrine: 独立入手源
This doctrine applies where there is a source for the discovery and the seizure of the
evidence that is distinct from the original illegality.
(e.g.) a parallel process initiated by other officers　別の警察官が全く別に捜査していた場合
b. “Inevitable Discovery” doctrine: 不可避的発見
It applies when the evidence necessarily had been obtained by the police lawfully.
(e.g.) The body of dead girl, discovered by the police through an unlawful interrogation,
would necessarily have been found lawfully by police who were presently conducting a
“grid search” of the area in question.　弁護士が到着する前に D との casual conversation の中で
D が死体のありかについて答えた場合において見つかった死体は 1 度証拠排除された。しかし、その７
年後に検察官が網羅的な捜索により（被告人の回答によらずとも）死体の場所を発見できたことを証明し
た。
c. “Attenuation” doctrine: 希釈化の法理（時の経過・介在事情）
This doctrine admits derivative evidence where the defendant’s free will has been
restored through the passage of time and intervening events.
Hypo: The defendant is illegally arrested on Friday night released on bail on Saturday,
meets with his attorney on Monday and then, on Tuesday, returns to the police station
and confesses.
Q. Is his confession admissible?
Yes, because it is not the product of the unlawful arrest on Friday. Free will has been
restored through the passage of time release from confinement, meeting with counsel
and the voluntary decision to confess.
BIM-66 窃盗犯が盗品を売却していたが、買主が逮捕され、窃盗犯との取引関係が記録された帳
簿と盗品が押収され、買主が起訴された。最終的には捜索差押令状に違法性ありとして証拠能力
が認められず、買主は無罪。公判過程で窃盗犯との関係が明らかになり、指紋が合致したため窃
盗犯も起訴された。買主の申立が認められたとしても、窃盗犯の公判とは関係がないため、違法
収集証拠の問題とならない。

PR-25 (毒樹の果実の理論の切断) 共犯は、他の共犯から違法に取得された証拠の差押に対して、

異議を唱える地位を自動的に取得するわけではない。共犯の一方をだまして(たとえばもう一人の
共犯は自白したから、といって自白させるなど)取得された供述は違法であり、それを元に差し押

27
Summer 2016

さえられたものは毒樹の果実理論によれば証拠能力はないが、他の共犯者に対しては証拠能力あ
り。

28
Summer 2016

VI. WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING 盗聴

1. Wiretapping　電話盗聴
(1) Do you need a warrant?
Yes wire tapping is Fourth Amendment search requiring warrant.
(2) Four major requirements for a valid wiretap warrant:
Mnemonic: “Screen, Telephone Call Carefully”
S Suspected person- the warrant must name the suspected person whose conversation are
to be overheard
T Time – wiretap warrant must be for a strictly limited time period.　普通は 30 日。
C Crime – There must be probable cause that a specific crime has been committed.
C Conversation – The wiretap warrant must describe with particularity the conversation
can be overheard.
2. Eavesdropping　 盗み聞き（通信傍受）
“Unreliable Ear” doctrine and Assumption of the Risk:
If you speak to someone who has agreed to a wiretap or some other form of electronic
monitoring, you have no Fourth Amendment claim; you assume the risk that the other party
will not keep your conversation private. 通信の受け手相が傍受に同意している場合（e.g.,捜査協力者）、
第 4 修正条項に基づく主張はできない（∵通信の秘密が守られるかは受け手に依存している）。

29
Summer 2016

VII. THE LAW OF ARREST　逮捕

1. When does an arrest occur?
It occurs when the police take a person into custody against his will for interrogation or
prosecution. 取調べ又は起訴のための拘留
*It is considered “de facto arrest” when the police compel someone to come to the police station
for questioning or fingerprinting. 質問又は指紋採取の為に警察署に強制的に連行した場合は、（事実上
の）逮捕に該当
2. Requirements
(1) Standard of proof applies to arrests
Probable cause　逮捕するためには嫌疑の「相当な理由」が必要
(2) Procedural requirement: Warrant
(a) Arrest someone in a public place: 公共の場での逮捕
(i) Felony: NO need a warrant [felony 令状不要]
(ii) Misdemeanor: NO need a warrant, if committed in officer’s presence
[misdemeanor 令状不要。ただし、警察官が現在する必要あり]
(b) Arrest someone in their home: 被疑者宅での逮捕→緊急性がなければ令状が必要
NEED a warrant, if it is nonemergency arrest
(c) Arrest someone in the home of a third party: 第三者の家→逮捕令状＋捜索令状
NEED arrest warrant (for defendant) and search warrant (for third party).
If you don’t have search warrant, you should wait the one until he comes out.
（但し、上記の場合、公判で被告人が第三者の権利侵害（ search warrant の欠缺）を主張することはでき
ない。なぜならば被告人には第三者の権利侵害を主張する standing がないため。）

3 For what offenses does the Fourth Amendment permit a custodial arrest?
[いかなる犯罪であっても逮捕可]Any offense even though punishable by a monetary fine only.
4. “Common enterprise” theory:
In a traffic stop, where a police officer discovers evidence of crime that suggests a common
unlawful enterprise between the driver and his passenger(s), the officer may arrest any or all of
them based on the reasonable inference of shared dominion and control over contraband.
OPE4-14
Arrest warrant の執行は、対象場所に対象者が存在すると合理的に信じることが必要である。そのため、対象
者が不在であることが分かっているにもかかわらず、対象場所に立ち入り、禁制品を発見して plain view の法
理によって差し押さえるという方法は認められない。

30
Summer 2016

VIII. CONFESSIONS (MIRANDΑ RULE)　自白

Second most important topic
1. Overview:
What are the three federal constitutional challenges that can be brought to exclude a confession?
(1)14th amendment – Due Process Clause
(2)6th amendment – Right to counsel
(3)5th amendment – Miranda doctrine

Emanuel-59 これらのルールはあくまで自白（供述）に関するルールであり、そのため、供述以外の不利益
証拠の提出には適用されない。例えば、犯人が作成した手書き書面が存在する際に、捜査官が被疑者にハ
ンドライティングのサンプルを提出させる場合。

2. Excluding ①：the Due Process Clause:

What is the standard for excluding a confession under the Due Process Clause?
Involuntariness – confession is a product of police coercion that overbear the suspect’s will.
被疑者の意思に反して警察によって強制された自白。違法排除説の発想に近い。
Hypo: Believing that the God has commanded him to do so, the defendant flew across the country to
confess to a murder he had committed years earlier. Before the officer took the confession, he gave the
suspect his Miranda rights and obtained a waiver. In the next 24 hours, the suspect decompensated mentally
and became overtly psychotic. A psychiatrist later testified that he was psychotic at the time he confessed.
Q. Does admitting the confession violate the suspect's due process rights?
No, because the confession, even if unreliable, is not the product of police coercion. 警察は何も強制して
いない。
BarBri Set 5-14 共犯者と会わせ、密室での会話であると被告人に誤認させて、自白させ、共犯者との会話
を証拠提出することは許されない。

31
Summer 2016

3. Excluding ②：Right to Counsel under the Sixth Amendment:

憲法上の明確な権利ではあるが範囲は狭い。
(1) This is an express constitutional guarantee.
(2) It attaches when the D is formally charged (indicted), NOT upon arrest.
起訴時のみ。警察が捜査をした、逮捕をしただけではダメ。
(3) It applies all “critical stages” of the prosecution that take place after the filing of formal
charges, including arraignment, probable cause hearings, police interrogation and plea
bargaining.
罪状認否、相当の理由の聴取、起訴後の取調べ、司法取引といった起訴後の各重要な手続きに適用され
る。
(4) * This right is “offense specific”.
It applies only to the crimes with which a D is charges filed against the suspect.
It provides no protection for uncounseled interrogation for other uncharged criminal
activity.
起訴された犯罪についてのみ保証される。起訴対象に含まれていない犯罪についての取調べには適用なし。

(5) Incriminating statements obtained from the defendant by law enforcement about charged
offenses violate the Sixth Amendment if those statements are deliberately elicited and the
defendant did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to have his
attorney present.

Hypo: Kevin is charged with burglary. At the bail hearing, a public defender is appointed to represent
him and he is remanded to custody. Two weeks later, during questioning by Assistant District Attorney
Tamara outside the presence of Kevin’s attorney, Kevin makes incriminating statements about the
burglary and an unrelated murder. Did Tamara’s conduct violate Kevin’s Sixth Amendment Right to
Counsel:
With respect to the burglary?
YES. Tamara deliberately elicited incriminating statements from Kevin without first obtaining a
valid waiver of his right to counsel.
With respect to the murder?
NO. Kevin had not been formally charged with the murder when Tamara questioned him about it.

PR-13 被告人の主尋問が長引いたために、反対尋問を翌日に行うことになり、裁判所が被告人に対し反対尋問が行
われるまで弁護人と相談しないように命令することは効果的な弁護活動を排除するものであり第 6 修正条項の権利
に違反する。
PR-16 同一犯罪で起訴されている共同被告人を一人の弁護人が代理する場合、利益相反がない限りは第 6 修正条項
に違反しない。⇒利益相反がある場合に、代理を続けさせる場合には、第 6 修正条項違反となる。
PR-43 第 6 修正条項に基づく弁護士依頼権には、被告人が弁護士を依頼する資力がない場合に無料で弁護士を利用
することができるという権利も含む。
PR-45 BSM-75 最高裁判所は、弁護士に代理されていないかぎり、 Petty、Misdemeanor、Felony のいずれの犯罪で
あろうとも懲役を科されないと判断している。これに対して、実際に懲役が科されず、罰金となるような場合には
弁護士に代理させる必要はないと判断することも認められる。裁判官が弁護士に代理させる必要はないと判断した
場合には、懲役を課すことができないため、罰金のみを課すということはできる。→ 法定刑で判断しないこと。実
際に課される刑罰が重要。
被告人から弁護士の同席を求められたのでなければ、家族が手配した弁護士が警察に向かっている最中に取り調べ
を続けても問題はなく、その間になされた自白も任意ならば有効。

32
Summer 2016

14. Excluding ③：Fifth Amendment Miranda doctrine:

(1) Implied rights:
They are implied rights grounded in the self-incrimination clause of the 5th amendment.
(2) Four core Miranda warnings 以下の 4 点を被疑者に対し事前に説明しなければならない
a. Right to remain silent
b. Anything you say can and will be used against you
c. You have the right to an attorney
d. If you cannot afford one, you have the right to have an attorney appointed for you
(3) When are Miranda warnings necessary?
There are two core requirements: Custody and Interrogation 「勾留中」の「取調べ」にのみ適用
拘留されての取り調べ中に話したのではなく、被疑者がパトカーの中でうっかり口を滑らせて(blurt out)自分からしゃ
べった場合にはミランダ警告がなくても憲法違反ではない。
a. Custody　勾留
A two-part, totality-of-the-circumstances test is used to determine if a suspect is in
custody for Miranda purposes.
(a) Part One: A reasonable person would have felt that she was not at liberty to end the
interrogation and leave; and
(b) Part Two: The environment presents the same intermittently coercive pressures as the
station-house questioning at issue in Miranda.
(c) Age and custody: While the custody inquiry is objective, it should take account of a
juvenile suspect’s age, where age is relevant and when the officer knew or should
have been aware of a child’s age at the time of questioning.
拘留に該当するかは、(i)取調べを終了してその場を離れる自由があると合理的に考えられたかと
(ii)警察署での取調べと同様のプレッシャーがあったかを総合考慮する。最近の判例で、(iii)未成年
については被疑者の年齢も考慮するとされた。
b. Interrogation 取り調べ
The Fifth Amendment Miranda doctrine defines interrogation as any conduct the police
knew or should have known was likely to elicit an incriminating response .
有罪答弁を引き出すものであると警察官が知り、又は、知り得べき行為に対し適用
Remember: Miranda does not apply to incriminating statements made spontaneously,
since they are not the product of interrogation. 自発的にした自白には適用されない
Hypo 1: Four police officers entered the defendant’s bedroom at 4:00 AM. They awakened him
and immediately began questioning him about his involvement in a homicide earlier that evening.
During the course of the interrogation, the defendant incriminated himself.
Q. The prosecution argued that the interrogation was not custodial for purposes of the Miranda
doctrine. Is this argument persuasive?
No, because having 4 police officers question you in your bedroom at 4 a.m. is police
dominated and coercive. 朝 4 時に警察官 4 人で来て尋問するのは支配的・威圧的
Hypo 2: Police officer, posing as an inmate, is placed in a jail cell with the defendant, who is
being detained pending trial on a charge of aggravate battery. The officer be friends the defendant
and questions the defendant about his involvement in an unrelated murder.
Q. In response to the officer/inmate's questions, the defendant incriminates himself. Did the
officer's conduct violate the defendant's Miranda rights?

 No, because the essential ingredients of police domination and coercion are absent since the
defendant thought he was talking to friends.

33
Summer 2016

Note: No Sixth Amendment violation because the interrogation concerned uncharged

criminal activity.
☆Interrogation の場所ではなく、状況が coercive かで判断。HYPO 二つは判例に基づくものであるが、自
分の家であるかどうか、といった場所が重要ではないことに注意する。
c. “Public Safety” Exception:
If custodial interrogation is prompted by an immediate concern for public safety,
Miranda warnings are unnecessary and any incriminating statements are admissible
against the suspect.

(4) A valid Miranda waiver: ミランダの放棄

a. Two core requirements:
(a) “Knowing and Intelligent”: [知っていること、認識していること]
A Mirαnda waiver is “knowing and intelligent” if the suspect understands (i) the
nature of the rights and (ii) the consequences of abandoning them.
(e.g.,) Attorney had asked to be called for interrogation, but the police carried out
interrogation during the night without informing attorney. The defendant not
knowing his attorney could have been present, waived his Miranda Rights
and confessed. SC ruled that the defendant understood his rights, and thus
the confession was valid.
(b) Voluntary: [任意性]
A Miranda waiver is voluntary if it is NOT the product of police coercion.
“totality of circumstance” をもって判断される。 ((i) competence of D and (ii)
conduct of Police)。amendment 4, 5, 6 で voluntary が出てくるが全て同じ意味。
※欺罔が含まれていないことに注意
b. Burden of Proof
In proving a valid waiver of a suspect’s Miranda rights, the prosecution bears the
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
Does silence or shoulder-shrugging satisfy this burden?　
No. 沈黙や肩をすくめる動作では放棄したとは扱われない。
Hypo: Upon learning that Leigh has been arrested, her lawyer calls the station house
and tells the desk sergeant that he wants to be present if she is interrogated that evening.
An hour later, the sergeant sees detectives take Leigh into an interrogation room, but he
does not notify Leigh’s attorney and does not tell Leigh about her attorney’s call. After
receiving her Miranda rights, Leigh acknowledges that she understands them. She then
signs a waiver form and confesses, in response to the detectives’ questions. Is her waiver
valid?
→YES. Leigh understood her rights and the consequence of her actions and was not
coerced by the detectives.
Note: Justice O’Connor has commented, in this regard, that suspects are not entitled
to “a flow of information to calibrate their self-interest.”
Essay-42 未成年が knowing, voluntary and intelligent に弁護士依頼権を放棄できるかどうかは疑問。
PR-2 Voluntary の判断基準としては、以下の二つの事情の Totality of Circumstances で判断される。
(i) 被告人の性質 e.g.年齢、性別、人種、精神状態、身体状態、薬物又はアルコール乱用歴
(ii) 警官の行為の性質
PR-2 警察が偽の友人を雇って、 たとえば刑務所の囚人をスパイとして被告人に近づけて、被告人
をだまして、警官がなりすましていると知らずに被告人に自白させた場合は必ずしも自発的になさ
れていないとは言えない。被告がうっかりとその者を信じてしまった場合も同じ。
PR-2 Where actual or threatened physical harm or brutality are involved, the Court has readily found there to

34
Summer 2016

be coercion sufficient to negate the defendant’s free will. Arizona v. Fulminante.物理的な被害又は暴力が

実際に行われ、又はその恐れがある場合、裁判所は被告による自由意思を否定するのに十分な強迫
があったと認めることが出来る。

(5) Invoking Miranda rights 権利行使した場合の扱い

そもそも Miranda right は原則として保証されており、積極的に権利放棄をしない限り取調べは禁止
される。そのため、権利行使の場面が問題になるのは、いったん権利放棄をした後に、権利行使に
転じた場合がほとんどである。

a. Invoking right to remain silent　黙秘権行使の主張

(a) Suspect must unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent. (Just remaining
silence is not enough) 単に黙っているのではなく黙秘権を行使する旨を示すことが必要
(b) Once the suspect invokes the right to remain silent, police officers must
“scrupulously honor” the invocation.
(i) the police cannot invite suspect into talking;
(ii) the police must wait a significant period of time before reinitiating questioning
(iii) the police must first obtain a valid Miranda waiver before initiating
questioning.
黙秘権行使は厳正に取り扱う必要がある。話させようとしたりしてはいけないし、有効な権
利放棄があってからしか質問を再開できない。
b. Invoking right to counsel　弁護人依頼権行使の主張
(a) The request for counsel must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer in the
same situation would understand the statement to be request for counsel.
OPE4-28 "maybe I should talk to lawyer"では clear ではなく、権利行使に該当しない。帰結と
して、その後の取調べの結果得られた被告人の供述を証拠として提出可能になる。

(b) Once a suspect asks for counsel (“lawyers up”), all interrogation must cease unless
initiated by the suspect.
(c) Unlike the Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment Miranda Right to Counsel is NOT
offense specific. Therefore, interrogation following a request for counsel under
Miranda is prohibited as to all topics outside the presence of suspect’s attorney.
第 6 修正の問題とは異なり、起訴されている犯罪のみならず、
他の犯罪についても弁護士の立会いなしには取り調べできない。

(d) The request for counsel expires 14 days after suspect is released from custody , a
waiver of the Miranda right to counsel obtained after this period is valid, provided it
is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. 勾留終了後 14 日間は弁護人依頼権が有効。15 日目以
降は改めて権利放棄を得られるが、その際にはまたミランダ警告が必要

BIM-29 被告人は弁護人依頼権に加えて、弁護人依頼権を放棄して行使せずに自分自身で防御活動
を行う権利を有する。裁判所がこれに反して弁護人を選任した場合、憲法違反であり、有罪判決は
覆される。

35
Summer 2016

(6) Respecting Miranda：evidentiary exclusion　ミランダ違反による証拠排除

Unless the public safety exception applies, incriminating testimonial responses obtained
through custodial interrogation are admissible, only if police officer does two things:　
(a) “reasonably conveyance” to the suspect his or her core Miranda rights; and
(b) thereafter obtains a valid waiver of a suspect's Miranda rights to silence and counsel.
勾留の取調べにおける供述で、被疑者を有罪にするものは、 (i)捜査官による 4 つの権利の告知、及び、
(ii)それに基づく被疑者の権利放棄がなされていない限り証拠排除される。
BIM-41 修正第 5 条の黙秘権には、他人を有罪の危険から守る権利は含まれていない。被告人自身
が共謀者の一人である共謀罪についての捜査への協力を拒否（証言･供述拒絶）した場合には、こ
の事実を考慮に入れて判決がなされたとしても、違法ではない。Robert v. United States (1980), US
Supreme Court
PR-19 最高裁判所は、交通事故にあったドライバーに、事故後に停止し、名前と住所を報告するこ
とを義務として課す法律は、憲法上の Self-incrimination 自己負罪には当たらないと判断した。
Carifornia v. Byers (1971)
PR-38 自白の証拠能力に対する反論方法
(1) Miranda Warning ミランダ警告なし（ただし、自発的であれば弾劾に利用可能）
(2) Right to counsel approach 弁護人依頼権
(3) Voluntariness approach 自発的でない自白。
(4) Fruits of illegal conduct 違法行為に基づく自白
PR-14 警察署へ向う警察の車の中で、ミランダ警告を受け、供述を否定していた被疑者が、警察官
が取調を行う意図もなく言及した銃で撃たれた子供についての話題を聞いて、自発的に銃のありか
を発言したというような場合には、「取調べ」による供述とは言えない。
最高裁判所は、ミランダ警告で言う「取調べ」とは、明示的な質問だけでなく、警察によるいかな
る行為又は発言が被疑者から不利な反応を引き出すことになると合理的に考えられると警察が知り
又は知りうべき場合に該当すると判断している。
PR-38 強盗容疑で逮捕され、ミランダ警告を受けて弁護人依頼権を行使した被疑者が弁護士に電話
して、「強盗をしたあとに逮捕された件で相談したい。」と弁護士に対して話した場合、取調べに
よってなされた供述ではないので、証拠能力あり。

(7) Limitations on evidentiary exclusion as applied to Miranda violations:

a. Prosecutor’s case-in-chief vs. impeachment of defendant on cross-examination:
Incriminating statements obtained in violation of a suspect's Miranda rights are
inadmissible in the prosecutors’ case in chief but may be used to impeach the
defendant’s testimony on cross-examination.被告人の弾劾証拠として使うことは可能
b. “Physical Fruits”:
Failure to give suspect Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the physical
fruits of incriminating statements, providing the statements are voluntary.
ミランダ警告を受けずに取調べが行われた場合、それに基づく自白自体は証拠排除されるが、
かかる自白に基づき発見された物理的証拠について、自白が任意になされている限りは証拠排
除されない。
HYPO: A suspect (i) confesses to killing his business partner and (ii) tells the officer where he
hid the murder weapon.
Q. If the entire interrogation is found to violate Miranda, are either the statements or the
weapon, which the officer later retrieves, admissible against the suspect?
The weapon is admissible because it is a physical fruit.

36
Summer 2016

c. Subsequent statements
If a statement is inadmissible due to a Miranda violation, are subsequent statements
also inadmissible if they are made after obtaining a Miranda waiver?
NO, provided the initial Miranda violation was not obtained through the use of
inherently coercive police tactics offensive to Due Process.
ミランダ警告なく供述（第 1 供述）したあとに、ミランダ警告を受け knowing, voluntary and
intelligent に放棄して供述した場合（第 2 供述）、第 1 供述は修正第 5 条違反なので証拠能力が認
められないとしても、第 2 供述については有効な放棄が成立し、修正第 5 条違反とならず、証拠
能力も認められる。 但し、第 1 供述がデュー・プロセスに反するその性質上強圧的な戦略に
よって得られたものある場合を除く。
d. If testimonial evidence that should have been excluded as violation of Miranda was
improperly admitted at trial and the defendant was convicted, is the court required to
vacate the guilty verdict?
 It depends. The guilty verdict will stand if the government can prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the error is harmless because the defendant would have been
convicted without the tainted evidence.
(This rule also applies to improperly admitted physical evidence.)

BarBri Set 5-13 ミ ラ ン ダ 警 告 違 反 と involuntary confession と 両 方 が 主 張 で き る 場 合 に は 、 被 告 人 は

involuntary confession を主張するべき。ミランダ警告違反は後続の供述や物理的証拠について排除が及ばな
い。(best defense はどれ、という問題への対応)
BarBri Set 1-10
Miranda 警告後に被告人が沈黙していたという事実を、被告人に不利益に扱うことは禁止されている。
取調べの場面だけではなく、被害者が被告人と直接会って特定した際に、被告人が犯人として特定された
のにもかかわらず、特に反論せず黙っていたという事実を、被告人に不利益に扱うことも認められない。

37
Summer 2016

IX. PRETRIAL IDENTIFICATION 公判前の同一性確認

1. The three types of identifications:
(1) Line ups:
witness is asked to identify the perpetrator(犯人) from a group.
証人の前にガラス越しにずらっと並んだ人から犯人を特定する。
(2) Show ups 面通し
one-on-one confrontation between the witness and the suspect.
証人が一人一人対面し、その中から犯人を特定する。
(3) Photo arrays:
witness asked to pick out the perpetrator from a series of photos.
証人が写真の中から犯人を特定する。

15. There are two substantive challenges to pretrial identifications:

(1) Denial of the Right to Counsel:
a. NO Fifth Amendment:
There is NO Fifth Amendment right to counsel under the Miranda doctrine for pre-trial
identification procedures.　第 5 修正条項（ミランダルール）に基づく弁護人依頼権なし
b. *Sixth Amendment:
A right to counsel exists under the Sixth Amendment at line-ups and show-ups that take
place after formal charging;　
There is no Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel at photo arrays.
( because there is no face-to-face adversary) (This is a Bar favorite!)
第 6 修正条項に基づく弁護人依頼権は、起訴後の line-up と show-up にはあるが Photo Arrays にはな
い。
(2) Denial of Due Process standard:
a. A pretrial identification procedure violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment when it is so unnecessarily suggestive that there is a substantial
likelihood of misidentification.
b. In making this determination, courts must weigh the reliability of a suggestive
identification against its corrupting effect.
→ ただし、Even an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure will not violate due
process if the identification itself was reliable under all the circumstances.
Emanuel 47: pretrial における写真による犯人特定で、捜査協力者が、捜査官に対して、「この人が犯人
か」などと聞き、それに対して捜査官が答えた場合 unnecessarily suggestive だが、その他の事情も考慮し
て、犯人特定自体が信頼できるのであれば、当該捜査協力者は証人から排除しなくてよい。

38
Summer 2016

16. Remedial Considerations

(1) What is the remedy for constitutional violations in pretrial identifications?
Exclusion of witnesses’ in court identification.
憲法違反の時の救済方法は公判における同一性確認において証人から排除すること。
(2) How can the prosecution avoid this result?
Even if there is a constitutional violation in a pretrial identification procedure, an in-court
identification will still be allowed if the prosecution can prove that it is based on
observation of the suspects other than unconstitutional show-up, line-up, or photo-
array.
(3) What sort of evidence can the prosecution point to make this showing?
To make this showing, the prosecution can point factors such as
(i) the witnesses’ opportunity to view the defendant,
(ii) the certainty of identification, and
(iii) specificity of the description provided to the police.

IDENTIFICATIONS HYPO:
A man commits bank robbery and takes a teller hostage as he exits. They drive to a remote location an
hour away. They remain there for two hours, during which time the teller and robber are in close
proximity, and the robber does not disguise his identity. He then drives away alone and is apprehended
the next day. The teller provides an accurate and detailed description of the robber to the police. The
next day, she picks the defendant out of a line-up, commenting that she is “100% sure" he is the
robber. The line-up, which occurs after formal charging, is conducted outside the presence of the
defendant's counsel, and thus violates the defendant's Sixth Amendments rights. Notwithstanding the
constitutional violation, the witness should be allowed to make an in-court identification because:
her ample opportunity to view the suspect, her detailed description, and the certainty of her
identification demonstrates that the in-court identification is based on the teller's observations at the
crime scene and hide out, not at the uncounseled line-up.

39
Summer 2016

X. GRAND JURIES 大陪審 (MINOR TOPIC)

1. What do they do? They issue indictment.　起訴すべき相当な理由があるかを決定する。

2. Are the proceedings public? Nothey are secret.

3. Do states have to use grand juries as part of the charging process?

No, it’s not constitutional requirement.

Emanuel 50　Grand Jury による起訴について、起訴の基礎となった証拠の一部又は全部が inadmissible な証拠である

場合、裁判所は当該証拠を証拠排除するべきではあるが、起訴自体を dismiss することはできない。

40
Summer 2016

XI. PRETRIAL DETENTION 拘留 (MINOR TOPIC)

1. The “First Appearance”:
Soon after arrest, a defendant must be brought before a magistrate who will (a) advise of his right,
(b) set bail, and (c) appoint counsel if necessary.
(b): To comply with the constitutional prohibition on “excessive” bail, the amount should
generally be no greater than what is necessary to ensure the accused’s presence at trial:
however, bail may be denied, and the accused detained pending trial, based on proof of
danger to the community.
2. Standard of proof:
The government needs probable cause both to bind a defendant over for trial and to detain him
in jail before trial.
3. Detention hearings:
A hearing to determine probable cause (sometimes called a Gerstein hearing) is unnecessary to
justify pretrial detention if
a. grand jury has issued the indictment; or
b. a magistrate has issued a warrant for arrest.

4. Decisions regarding bail(保釈) are immediately appealable.

41
Summer 2016

XII. TRIAL RIGHTS (“FAST FACTS”)

1. Speedy Trial: 迅速な裁判
All criminal defendants have the constitutional right to a speedy trial; to determine whether that
right has been violated, courts should consider the totality of the circumstances, including:
(i) the length of the delay;
(ii) the reason for the delay; and
(iii) prejudice to the defendant
2. Evidentiary disclosure:
A prosecutor must disclose to a criminal defendant ALL material exculpatory evidence
3. Judges: The right to an unbiased judge;
“Unbiased” means
(i) Judge has no financial stake in the outcome of the case, and
(ii) no actual malice towards the defendant.
4. Jury
(1) Fundamental protections: All criminal defendants have the right to a fair and impartial jury.
(2) Criminal defendant has the right to a jury trial when the maximum authorized sentence
exceeds 6 months.
(3) The fewest number of jurors allowed in a criminal trial is Six.
(4) Jury verdicts in criminal trials must be unanimous only if 6 jurors are used. Verdicts in 12
person juries need not be unanimous. これは federal constitution の要件の話で州によっては felony に
ついては 12 unanimous verdict を要求する所もある。
BSM 6 人の陪審員で構成される jury について、5 人の賛成でもって有罪判決を出すことができるとす
ることは上記(4)の要件に違反する（6 人の jury の場合全員一致でないと有罪判決は出せない）。

(5) “Cross-sectional" requirement regarding jurors. (人口分布要件)

Pool from which the jury is drawn must represent a cross-section of the community.
Hypo: Does a jury that contains all white women over the age of 60 violate the cross-
sectional requirement?
No, provided the pool from which the jury was drawn was appropriately diverse.
(6) Peremptory challenges: 忌避
Peremptory challenges permit both sides to exclude respect Jurors without stating their
reasons for doing so. But they CANNOT be used by either side to exclude prospective jurors
on account of race or gender.
PR-29 被告人は第 6 修正条項の適正手続に基づいて公平な陪審審理を受ける権利を有する。たとえ
ば、陪審員が裁判所の指示に違反して、被告について記載された予断・偏見を持つような新聞記事を
読んだ場合には、公平な陪審とは言えない。

17. Confrontation Clause

The defendant's right to confront adverse witnesses under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth
Amendment does not apply where face-to-face confrontation would contravene important
public policy concern.
(e.g.) traumatizing a child witness (in an abuse case)

42
Summer 2016

18. The right to effective assistance of counsel

(Appeal において一番よくある主張だが、ほとんどのケースでは認められない)
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are subject to a two-prong test.
(1) “Deficient Requirement”: Counsel’s performance is deficient
Defendant must show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness, which means that counsel made errors so serious that he was not functioning
as counsel—かなり厳しい要件
(2) “Prejudice Requirement”: But for the deficiency, the outcome would have been different.
(3) Upshot:
Because of the strictness of the two-prong test, unless there is some colorable argument
that the defendant is not guilty, always deny relief under an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim.
 Example of strictness of deficiency standard: Insufficient showing of deficiency where
attorney took “cat naps” during trial but was otherwise effective. 弁護人が公判中に寝ていて
もその他の点で effective であれば要件を満たさない。
 Example of strictness of prejudice standard: Insufficient showing of prejudice where
attorney slept through entire 15-minute testimony of a witness for the prosecution and
thus could not engage in any cross- examination; no prejudice because the witness
testified as to “non- contested matters” only. 証人尋問の間弁護人寝ていて反対尋問ができな
かったとしても証言の内容によって被告人の処遇が変わらない限りこの要件を満たさない。
BSM-180 6th amendment の right to councel の侵害が認められるのは実際に懲役刑（執行猶予を含む）が宣
告された場合のみ。

43
Summer 2016

XIII. GUILTY PLEAS AND PLEA BARGAINING　有罪答弁・司法取引

1. Guilty Plea:
For a guilty plea to be valid, the judge must establish that it is voluntary and intelligence.
2. “Plea-Taking Colloquy” 答弁取得手続き:
Before accepting the plea, the judge must conduct a colloquy ( 対話 ) in open court in which she
addresses on the record: 代理人ではなく、被告人本人に対して
(1) the nature of the charges, including required elements of the charged offense;
(2) the maximum possible penalty and the mandatory minimum penalty; and
(3) the consequences of the plea, i.e.,
(i) waiver of the right to plead not guilty: and
(ii) waiver of the right to a jury trial.
19. Withdrawal of guilty plea 有罪答弁の撤回
Once a defendant who has pled guilty is sentenced, it is difficult for him to withdraw his plea.
However, a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing if:
(i) the plea is involuntary, due to a defect in the plea-taking colloquy
(ii) defendant prevails on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 代理人の不十分な弁護活動
Special circumstance – deportation risk: If a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation,
counsel’s failure to inform her client of that fact satisfies the deficiency requirement of
ineffective assistance of counsel claims; to establish prejudice, a defendant must further prove
that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.
(iii) the prosecutor fails to fulfill his part of the bargain.答弁取引の合意についての検察官による違反
(e.g.) Prosecutor agrees to make no sentencing recommendation but, at the sentencing
hearing, he tells the judge to impose the maximum penalty.

44
Summer 2016

XIV. PUNISHMENT
1. Eighth Amendment Standard
The Eighth Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment disallows criminal
penalties that are grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense committed. 満たすの
は難しい要件
(e.g.) A repeat offender convicted of felony grand theft for stealing golf clubs worth $1,200 was
sentenced to life in prison under California’s “three strikes” law, which greatly enhanced
penalties for individuals with two or more prior convictions for “serious” or “violent”
felonies.
HELD: In light of the defendant’s long felonious history, the sentence was not grossly
disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and, thus, did not violate the Eighth
Amendment. 再犯を繰り返している重罪被告人が 1200 ドルのゴルフクラブ窃盗の事案で終身刑を
宣告されたが、違反とは認められなかった。

2. Eighth Amendment and Death Penalty

(1) Statutory Limits
A death penalty statute would violate the Eighth Amendment if it creates an automatic
category for the imposition of the death penalty. 死刑以外の選択肢がない犯罪を定める法律は
違憲。
(e.g.) A statute that provides that “any conviction for first degree murder where the victim
is a police officer requires the imposition of a sentence of death.”
(2) Evidentiary Requirement
In deciding whether to impose the death penalty, jurors must be allowed to consider all
potentially mitigating evidence.
死刑を出す際は刑を軽くする方向に働く証拠を全て勘案しなければならない。
(3) Categorical Exclusion
(a) Against whom does the Eighth Amendment prohibit the imposition of the death penalty?
(three categories)被告人の特性により死刑を科してはいけない場合
(i) Defendants with mental retardation(知能発達の遅れ).
(ii) Defendants who are presently insane
( if they get better, you can kill them, but not if they are insane at present).
(iii) Defendants who were under the age of 18 at the time the relevant offense
occurred (not their present age).
Note: It is also unconstitutional to sentence juvenile offenders to mandatory life in
prison without the possibility of parole. [少年犯罪について parole の可能性の
ない終身刑]
(b) 犯罪の内容により死刑を科してはいけない場合
(i) on crimes against individual persons, e.g., child rape, where the victim did not
die.
(ii) felony murder where the defendant, as an accomplice, did not take or attempt or
intend to take life, or intended that lethal force be employed. BarBri Set 6-5
felony murder の共犯で自分は直接は何もしていない場合。判例あり。

45
Summer 2016

3. Sentence Enhancement
Any fact that increases either the statutory maximum or the mandatory minimum sentence for a
crime must be found by the jury, not the judge. 法定刑の上限・下限を変更する事実は Jury が認定
(e.g.) Where evidence that a crime is motivated by hate allows a sentence to be increased by
10 years beyond the statutory maximum, such finding must be made by the jury, beyond a
reasonable doubt.
However, the decision as to whether sentences for multiple crimes are to run consecutively or
concurrently may be made by the judge. 複数の犯罪について刑の執行を連続的に行う（合計の期間は長
く成る）か同時的に行う（合計の期間は短くなる）は裁判官が決める。

46
Summer 2016

XV. DOUBLE JEOPARDY 二重の危険

being put “twice in jeopardy for the same offense of life or limb” by the same sovereign
1. General Rule
“Jeopardy” attach when;
(1) Jury trial: when the jury is sworn 陪審審理の場合は陪審の宣誓
(2) Bench trial: when the first witness is sworn 非陪審審理の場合は最初の証人の宣誓
(3) Guilty plea: when the court accepts the defendant’s plea unconditionally
有罪答弁の場合は裁判所が有罪答弁を無条件で受諾した時点
PR-5, Emanuel 48 二重の危険は終局的判決（無罪又は有罪）が出された後に、同一の犯罪について再起
訴されないというものであり、問題となる法律が憲法違反であることによりケースが Dismissal の場合
には、終局的判決とならず、二重の危険は適用されない。

Double jeopardy clause does NOT apply to civil proceedings [民事事件には適用なし]

（e.g.）if the SEC prosecutes civilly for insider trading, the U.S. Attorney can later prosecute the
same individual for securities fraud without implicating double jeopardy.
2. The “same offense” requirement:
(1) Federal rule:
Two offenses are NOT the “same offense" for purposes of the double jeopardy clause if
each has an element that the other does not.
[それぞれに含まれていない構成要件がある場合]
(e.g.): Consider these two statutes:
Vehicular Manslaughter Hit-and-Run

*1. Causing death of another 1. Causing bodily injury to another

2. Through the use of an auto 2. Through the use of an auto
3. Operated negligently 3. Operated negligently
4. And unlawfully leaving the scene of the accident
Q. Are Vehicular Manslaughter and Hit-and-Run the same offense for double jeopardy
purposes?
No, because manslaughter requires the proof of death which hit-and-run does not AND
hit-and-run requires the defendant to unlawfully leave the scene, which manslaughter does
not. それぞれが他方に含まれない要件を含むため same offense ではない。
その他の例：larceny と burglary BarBri Set 5-8

47
Summer 2016

(2) Greater and “Lesser-Included" offenses:

Two offenses are the “same offense” if only one offense has an element not contained in
the other. １つの犯罪が他の犯罪の構成要素を全て含んでいるとき、どちらか一方で起訴された場
合は、他の犯罪では起訴できない

Consider, for example, the following statutes:

Auto Theft　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Joyriding
1. Taking and operating an auto 　 1.Taking and operating an auto
2. Without owner's consent 2. Without owner’s consent
3. With intent to permanently deprive owner of possession
Both offenses contain the first two elements; however, only Auto Theft contains a third,
additional element. Thus, “Joyriding" is a lesser-included offense of Auto Theft.
Now consider the following facts:
A man steals a car from a parking lot and is apprehended while driving it two weeks later.
He faces charges for Auto Theft and Joyriding.
a. If he is prosecuted for Joyriding, can he later be tried for Auto Theft?
No, prosecution for the lesser included offense precludes later prosecution for the
greater offense.
b. Is the reverse permissible? That is, if he is first tried for Auto Theft, can he later be
prosecuted for Joyriding?
No, prosecution for the greater offense likewise precludes later prosecution of the
lesser included offense.

PR-48 Burglary と Felony Murder は Burglary が被包含犯罪である（∵during Felony）ため、同一犯罪と

なる。Underlying Crime である Burglary が無罪となった場合には、全体として無罪となる。

20. The “same sovereign” requirement: 同一主権の要件

Double Jeopardy bars retrial for the same offense by the same sovereign ONLY.
a. State and federal government?  Not the same sovereign
b. Different states?  Not the same sovereign
c. States and municipalities within them?  Same sovereign
(e.g.) State of Florida and the City of Miami

48
Summer 2016

21. The exceptions to the double jeopardy rule that permit retrial:
(1) a hung-jury  jury can’t reach a verdict. 評議不成立
(2) a mistrial for manifest necessity 明白な必要性のための無効審理
(e.g.) defendant needs to be hospitalized halfway through the trial
(3) a retrial based on the successful appeal 上訴成功後の再審理
(4) a breach of plea-bargaining by the defendant 被告による答弁取引の合意の違反
Hypo: Bill and Ted commit murder. Bill cooperates and is allowed to plead to second degree murder
in exchange for his testimony against Ted at Ted's trial. Ted is convicted of first degree murder, based
largely on Bill's testimony, but Ted successfully appeals his conviction on other grounds. Bill refuses
to testify at Ted's retrial.
Q. Does double jeopardy prevent the prosecutor from recharging Bill for first degree murder?
No, because Bill breached the terms of plea-agreement.
(5) a later occurrence 前審の後の出来事
BarBri Set 5-5 If all of the elements for the greater offense had not occurred at the time of prosecution
for the lesser offense, retrial is permitted.
(e.g.) robbery 後の逃走中に交通事故を起こして歩行者に怪我をさせた事案で、robbery について有罪判
決、reckless driving について無罪判決が出た後、歩行者が怪我により死亡した。歩行者の死亡につい
て felony murder で罪に問われた場合、felony murder での retrial は二重の危険違反にならない。

PR-47 Double Jeopardy では Multiple Punishment を禁止しているが、Concurrent Sentences 同時執行の刑の宣

告は認めている。
concurrent sentences：同時執行の刑の宣告
同一被告人に対する複数の訴因につき有罪決定があり, その 2 つ以上に対して自由刑を選択する場合, 各訴
因ごとに刑期を定めて言い渡すが, その全部または一部の執行を同時的とし, 最長期の刑期をもって関係
訴 因 に 関 す る 現 実 の 刑 期 と す る 刑 の 言 渡 し . 　 ＃ consecutive sentences; cumulative sentence;
accumulative judgment
consecutive sentences：逐次執行の刑の宣告
同一被告人に対する複数の訴因につき有罪決定があり, その 2 つ以上に対して自由刑を選択する場合, 各訴
因ごとに刑期を定めて言い渡し, その全部または一部の執行を逐次的として, 関係訴因に関する刑期の総
和を現実的な刑期とする刑の言渡し (→accumulative judgment; cumulative sentence; multiple sentences). 　＃
concurrent sentences

49
Summer 2016

XVI. FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPELLED TESTIMONY

自己負罪拒否特権

1. Who may assert it?

[誰でも主張できる]Anyone (e.g.) defendant, witness, party to civil proceeding
2. When and where can the privilege be asserted?
[宣誓を行う手続]Any proceeding where individuals testify under oath
(e.g.) civil, administrative and Congressional hearings
Remember: It must be asserted at the FIRST opportunity or it is forever lost.
3. Can the failure to assert the privilege in a civil proceeding undermine the ability to
assert it in a later criminal proceeding?
[民事手続で自己負罪拒否特権を行使せずに供述した場合には、刑事事件で当該供述の
排除を主張できない]→YES. If an individual responds to questions in a civil proceeding, he
cannot exclude that evidence in a subsequent criminal proceeding on self- incrimination grounds.
4. What is the scope of this “testimonial” privilege?
(1) Because this is a testimonial privilege, it disallows negative prosecutorial comment on
(i) a defendant’s decision not testify at his trial, or
(ii) a defendant’s invocation of his right to silent or counsel.
(e.g.) However, prosecutors MAY comment negatively on the noncustodial silence during
police interrogation of a defendant who has NOT invoked his Miranda rights.
(2) Because this is a testimonial privilege, it does NOT apply to the production of documents
whose production was mandated by subpoena.
5. The three ways to eliminate the privilege:
(1) Grant of immunity
Prosecutorial grant of “use and derivative use” immunity, which means that the prosecution
cannot use (i) your testimony or (ii) anything derived from it to convict you.
検察官は起訴に対する免責を与えることで、自己負罪拒否特権を剥奪できる。
免責を与えた以上、検察官は(i)当該証言及び(ii)当該証言に由来する証拠を証言者に対する起訴の証拠
に用いることができない。
OPE4-21 当該供述において言及した犯罪以外の犯罪との関係でも使用不可になる。即ち、当該証言
（及び派生証拠）は供述者の刑事責任を追及するための証拠としては一切使えないことになる。た
だし、免責以前に取得していた証拠に基づく起訴は禁止されない。

* Remember: An individual can, however, be convicted based on evidence obtained prior to

the grant of immunity and on evidence that is not derived from the immune testimony.
Hypo: Erin testifies at Amanda’s trial that the two of them robbed a bank together. Through a different
witness, the prosecutor introduces footage from the bank’s surveillance cameras that clearly show Erin
and Amanda perpetrating the crime. Can the prosecutor use this footage to convict Erin of bank
robbery in a separate trial if her testimony is subject to use and derivative use immunity?
→YES. The footage was not derived from Erin’s testimony.
(2) Defendant taking the stand:
By taking the stand, the defendant waives the ability to take the 5th as to anything properly
within the scope of cross-examination.　被告人が自己負罪拒否特権を放棄して証言台に立った場
合には、反対尋問の場面で自己負罪拒否特権を行使できない。
(3) Statute of Limitations: 時効の場合

50
Summer 2016

The privilege is unavailable if the statute of limitations has run on the underlying crime since,
in this circumstance, a witness’s testimony could not expose him or her criminal prosecution.
すでに時効が経過している場合には、罪に問われる恐れがないので、自己負罪特権を行使できない。
(e.g.) If the statute of limitations was five years for the issue at hand, you cannot take the
Fifth on a question asked regarding something that happened seven years ago.

51