The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. It provides that warrants for an arrest or for a search shall be based on probable cause, shall be supported by an oath or an affirmation, and shall describe with particularity the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.
Generally, courts in most jurisdictions do not admit the results of polygraph or other lie detector examinations. Most courts find such results quite unreliable and untrustworthy. There are a number of states that will admit polygraph or lie detector tests results into evidence if both the prosecution and defendant agree that the test results will be admitted.
If a police officer has a reasonable basis for believing that a person is involved in criminal activity or is about to be involved in criminal activity, the officer has a right to make an investigative stop of that person. Another name for an investigative stop is a "Terry Stop," which name is taken from the United States Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio. The officer may make the stop even though he or she does not have probable cause for an arrest. The purpose of the stop is to investigate criminal activity and not to make an arrest.
A stipulation is an agreement between adverse parties as to the definition or identification of a statement or pieces of evidence that are material to the case. Trial judges typically accept stipulations of fact presented by parties. However, it is within the trial judge's discretion to reject the stipulated fact if fact sought to be admitted is not relevant or constitutes a legal conclusion. When the trial court accepts a stipulated fact, the party that had the burden of proof with respect to the stipulated fact is relieved from presenting a foundation to establish that fact during the defendant's trial.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings. Effective assistance of counsel is presumed. If the defendant claims that his counsel was ineffective, he has the burden of proving that the ineffectiveness prejudiced him and that a different result would have occurred but for the ineffectiveness. Instances that do not constitute ineffectiveness include trial tactics, failure to raise an invalid defense, and failure to argue frivolous matters.
