Chapter 5 - Lecture notes 5 PDF

Preview

Summary

lecture and slide notes...

Description

Chapter 5 Monday, February 22, 2021

1:42 PM

CHAPTER 5- CHAPTER SUMMARY • Legal restraints on police action stem primarily from the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rig especially the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, which (along with the Fourteenth Amendment) require due process of law. Most due-process requirements of relevance t police work concern three major areas: ○ (1) evidence and investigation (often called search and seizure), (2) arrest, and (3 interrogation. ○ Each of these areas has been addressed by a number of important U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and this chapter discusses those decisions and their significance police work. • The Bill of Rights was designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power. It do so by guaranteeing due process of law for everyone suspected of having committed a cr and by ensuring the availability of constitutional rights to all citizens, regardless of state local law or procedure. ○ Within the context of criminal case processing, due-process requirements mandat that all justice system officials, not only the police, respect the rights of accused individuals throughout the criminal justice process. • The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution declares that people must be secure in their homes and in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, l enforcement officers are often required to demonstrate probable cause in order to obtain search warrant from a judge if they are to conduct searches and seize the property of criminal suspects legally. Not all searches require a warrant. Many searches conducted law enforcement officers fall into the category of warrantless searches, or searches for which a warrant has not been issued by legitimate judicial authority. While most warrantless searches are permissible, some searches require the issuance of a warrant pr to the conduct of the search. The Supreme Court has also established that police officer order to protect themselves from attack, have the right to search a person being arrested to search the area under the arrestee’s immediate control. • Technically, arrest takes place whenever a law enforcement officer restricts a person’s freedom to leave. Arrests may occur when an officer comes upon a crime in progress, b most jurisdictions also allow warrantless arrests for felonies when a crime is not in progress, as long as probable cause can later be demonstrated. ○ Reasonable suspicion, which requires a lesser degree of certainty than probable cause, permits the limited detention of persons of interest in an investigation. ○ Consequently, an investigative detention is defined as a temporary seizure of an individual by a police officer for investigative purposes. • Information that is useful for law enforcement purposes is called intelligence and as th

s,

r

me r

w

r in nd

•

Information that is useful for law enforcement purposes is called intelligence, and as th chapter shows, intelligence gathering is vital to police work. The need for useful information often leads police investigators to question suspects, informants, and potentially knowledgeable citizens. ○ When suspects who are in custody become subject to interrogation, they must be advised of their Miranda rights before questioning begins. § The Miranda warnings, which were mandated by the Supreme Court in the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona, are listed in this chapter. They ensure tha suspects know their rights—including the right to remain silent—in the fac police interrogation.

LECTURE NOTES • Police officers are not above the law ○ Their actions have to follow the Bill of Rights • This chapter deals specifically with the 4th and 5th Amendment • 4th Amendment- Prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the government (police) • Search- Deals with privacy • Seizure- Deals with liberty • Police can take both of these away from you but it has to be reasonable. ○ The courts determine if the action was reasonable, it is based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case • Terry Stop- Based on landmark case Terry v. Ohio, Police can temporarily stop you to either confirm or dispel their suspicion that a crime is about to happen, is happening or happened. ○ The police only need reasonable suspicion to stop the person • Arrest- Need probable cause. Allows the officer to take a person in more permanent custody • Probable Cause- Facts and circumstances known by the officer that would make them reasonably believe that a crime is about to happen, is happening, or just happened and t person they are talking to did it. ○ Once again, the officer needs facts not hunches.

PowerPoint 1 POLICING: LEGAL ASPECTS A Changing Legal Climate • U.S. Constitution ○ Designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power

of

st

•

•

○ Designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power U.S. Supreme Court ○ 1960s § Accelerated the process of guaranteeing individual rights § Miranda v. Arizona (1966) After the Warren Court, the Supreme Court became more conservative ○ Recognize the need to ensure public safety

Individual Rights • Checks and Balances ○ Legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government ○ No one individual or agency can usurp the rights and freedoms guaranteed under Constitution • Due Process Requirements ○ Evidence and investigations § Search and seizure ○ Arrest ○ Interrogation • Landmark Case ○ A precedent-setting court decision that produces substantial changes in the

e

understanding of the requirements of due process and the practical day-to-day operations of the system Search and Seizure • Fourth Amendment ○ Warrant and illegally seized evidence § Search deals with privacy § Seizures deal with liberty ○ 3 levels § Inquiry § Terry stops □ Need reasonable suspicion □ Unconstitutional when the officer keeps the person too long § Arrest □ Probable cause needed • Exclusionary Rule ○ Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial § Acts as a control over police behavior § At the time, only binding on the federal agents • Writ of Certiorari ○ A writ issued from an appellate court for the purpose of obtaining the lower cour records of a particular case § A mechanism for discretionary review • Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine ○ Legal principle that excludes from trial any evidence later developed as a result o illegal search and seizure The Warren Court (1953-1969) • Before the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court did not intrude into the overall operations of system • Mapp v. Ohio (1961) ○ Made the exclusionary rule applicable to criminal prosecutions at the state level ○ This started the Warren Court on a course that would guarantee recognition of individual rights Searches Incident to Arrest • Chimel v. California (1969) ○ Immediate control • Minnesota v. Olson (1990) ○ Extended protection against warrantless searched to overnight guests in the name another

Searches Incident to Arrest • Chimel v. California (1969) ○ Immediate control • Minnesota v. Olson (1990) ○ Extended protection against warrantless searched to overnight guests in the name of another • Minnesota v. Carter (1998) ○ Reasonable expectation of privacy • Georgia v. Randolph (2006) ○ One resident gives permission, but the other says no The Burger Court (1969-1986) and the Rehnquist Court (1986-2005) • A swing toward conservatism • Late 1980s, the Supreme Court distanced itself from some earlier decisions of the Warren Court • Criminal defendants had most of the responsibility of demonstrating that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule • Good-Faith Exception ○ Evidence seized on the basis of good faith, but later shown to be a mistake, may still use the seized evidence in court • U.S. v. Leon (1984) • Probable Cause ○ A set of facts that would induce a reason person to believe that a crime was committed The Plain View Doctrine • Plain View ○ Evidence visible to the police mat be seized without a warrant as long as the police have a legal right to be in the viewing area and cause to believe the evidence is somehow associated with criminal activity • Cases ○ Harris v. U.S. (1968) ○ U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) ○ Arizona v. Hicks (1987) ○ Horton v. California (1990) Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry • Warrantless search justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need • Ca

•

Cases ○ Warden v. Hayden (1967) ○ Mincey v. Arizona (1978) ○ Maryland v. Buie (1990) ○ Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) ○ Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) ○ Illinois v. McArthur (2001) ○ Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

Anticipatory Warrants • Anticipatory warrant ○ Warrant issued on the basis that evidence, not currently at the place described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed • U.S. v. Grubbs (2006) Arrest • The act of taking an adult or juvenile into physical custody for the purpose of charging the person with a criminal offense • Cases ○ U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) ○ Stansbury v. California (1994) ○ Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) ○ Muehler v. Mena (2005) ○ Payton v. New York (1980) Searches Incident to Arrest • A warrantless search of an arrested individual to ensure the safety of the officer • Cases ○ U.S. v. Robinson (1973) ○ Terry v. Ohio (1968) • Reasonable Suspicion ○ Would justify an officer in making further inquiry or in conducting further investigation • Cases ○ U.S. v. Sokolow (1989) ○ U.S. v. Arvizu (2002) ○ Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) ○ Brown v. Texas (1979) ○ Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) ○ Smith v. Ohio (1990) C lif i H d i D (1991)

○

California v. Hodari D. (1991)

Emergency Searches of Persons • FBU guidelines for conducting searches ○ There was probable cause at the time of the search to believe that evidence was concealed ○ There was probable cause to believe an emergency threat to destruction of evidence existed ○ The officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant ○ Action was no greater than necessary • Cases ○ Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) ○ U.S. v. Borchardt (1987) Vehicle Searches • Cases ○ Carroll v. U.S. (1925) ○ Preston v. U.S. (1964) ○ South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) ○ Colorado v. Bertine (1987) ○ Florida v. Wells (1990) ○ Ornelas v. U.S. (1996) ○ Arizona v. Gant (2009) • Fleeting-Targets Exception ○ An exception to the exclusionary rule that permits law enforcement officers to search a motor vehicle based on probable cause but without a warrant ○ The fleeting-targets exception is predicated on the fact that vehicles can quickly leave the jurisdiction of a law enforcement agency Suspicionless Searches • Compelling interest ○ A legal concept that provides a basis for suspicionless searches when public safety is an issue • Suspicionless Search ○ A search conducted without a warrant and without suspicion The Intelligence Function • Informants • Aguilar v. Texas (1964) ○ The source of the informant's information is made clear

○

The officer has reasonable belief that the information is reliable

Police Interrogation • Interrogation ○ The information-gathering activity of police that involves direct questioning of suspects • Physical Abuse ○ Brown v. Mississippi (1936) • Inherent Coercion ○ Tactics used by police interviewers that fall short of physical abuse but pressure the suspect to talk ○ Chambers v. Florida (1940) ○ Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) Psychological Manipulation • Psychological Manipulation ○ Manipulative actions by police interviewers, designed to pressure suspects to divulge information, that are based on subtle forms of intimidation and control The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation • Cases ○ Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) ○ Edwards v. Arizona (1981) ○ Michigan v. Jackson (1986) ○ Minnick v. Mississippi (1990) ○ Arizona v. Roberson (1988) ○ Davis v. U.S. (1994) ○ Montejo v. Louisiana (2009) Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision • Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ○ Miranda Warnings § The advisement of rights due criminal suspects by the police before questioning begins § Interpreting the 5th amendment § Custody + Interrogation = miranda • Waiver of Miranda rights by suspects ○ Moran v. Burbine (1986) • Inevitable-Discovery exception to Miranda

• • • •

○ Brewer v. Williams (1977) Evidence can be used in court if it would invariably turned up in the normal course of events Public-Safety exception to Miranda ○ New York v. Quarles (1984) Miranda and the meaning of interrogation ○ Rock v. Zimmerman (1982) Miranda Triggers ○ The dual principles of custody and interrogation

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1996 • A law was passed by Congress establishing the due-process requirements that law enforcement officers must meet in order to legally intercept wire communications ○ Wiretaps and bugs ○ Pen registers recording numbers dialed from a telephone ○ Tracing devices that determine the number from which a call emanate

PowerPoint 2 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Search/ Arrest Warrant • A writ issued by a judicial officer directing a law enforcement officer to perform a specific act Arrest Warrant • Arrest warrant is for a person: Person has to be identified Search Warrant • Affidavit of Probable Cause • Neutral and Detached Judge • Oath or Affirmation • Particularly Requirement ○ Where they want to search and why Search Warrant Exceptions • Exigent Circumstances: ○ Emergency Aid • Community Caretaking • Consent ○ Voluntary

• •

•

○ Voluntary ○ Knowing ○ Intelligent Plain View ○ Lawfully in viewing area Search incident to arrest ○ Lawful arrest ○ Search is during the arrest Automobile Exception ○ Readily mobile auto ○ Probable cause

Types of Information 1. First Hand Information ○ Police Officer's senses 2. Second Hand Information ○ Citizen Informants ○ Anonymous Tips ○ Criminal Informants Informant Reliability • Citizen Informants ○ Inherently reliable • Anonymous/ Criminal ○ Basis of Knowledge § Detailed information § Personal knowledge § Factual account ○ Veracity § Motive § Track record Police Interrogation • Interrogation ○ The information-gathering activity of police that involves direct questioning of suspects • Physical Abuse ○ Brown v. Mississippi (1936) Psychological Manipulation • Psychological Manipulation...