1. Police Citizen Contacts
Chapter 8

2. The Legal Relationship Formed During Street Encounters With Citizens
Two competing tensions form the basis for the relationship
The need for safety of the officer and society
The Constitutional protections afforded citizens
All interactions between police officers and citizens take one of three forms
Voluntary contact
Seizure (Investigatory detentions)
The Terry Stop
The Stop & Frisk
Arrest

3. Why do we care? Liability Evidentiary standards
Making a stop without the required level of evidence places officers and the department unnecessarily at risk
Evidentiary standards
Upon making a Stop, Stop & Frisk or Arrest with inadequate evidence precludes, in general, the prosecution from using that evidence and everything that follows it’s discovery

4. Example:
You see an unknown male approach a group of known drug addicts on the street at the Soup Kitchen. After speaking with the addicts for awhile, the man walks away while simultaneously placing his hand in his pocket.
Stop
Stop & Frisk
Arrest

5. Example Answer No stop allowed
See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)
Where the act of speaking with a group of known drug addicts and placing one’s hand into a pocket does not create a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in drug trafficking
You approach that same unknown male after observing that incident and request to speak to him…he flees.
Stop
Stop & Frisk
Arrest

6. Example Answer Stop and Frisk allowed
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000)
Where unprovoked flight from officers in a high crime area known for drug trafficking is enough to establish reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity
Why the frisk?
Drug trafficking is a crime known to involve weapons
The suspect is nervous about being stopped
The suspect’s hand is concealed in his clothing

7. General Rules
The level of information possessed by the police officer must match the level of evidence needed for the action taken
Both the quality and amount of information, given the totality of the circumstances, must be taken into account
Police officers can utilize the information possessed by other police officers
In general, the same rules apply to pedestrian and vehicle stops
The final determination of the police officer’s decision to stop contains both a subjective and objective component

8. Objective v. Subjective Standard
The police officer’s actions are objectively reviewed according to the reasonableness of the police officers subjective training, education and experience
Objectively speaking, would a similarly trained, educated & experienced officer similarly situated take similar actions?
From a disinterested point of view, given the police officer’s knowledge base, and taking into account all of the circumstances, was this a reasonable thing to do?

9. Four Basic Rules
(1) An officer needs no level of suspicion to initiate a voluntary questioning of a person even if for the purposes of obtaining criminally culpable information against that person or another party. Texas v. Brown , 460 U.S. 730,742 (1983)
(2) An officer must have reasonable suspicion that a person is somehow connected to criminal activity in order to legally restrict the movement of that person. Terry v. Ohio

10. Four Basic Rules
(3) An officer must have probable cause that a person has committed a crime in order to arrest them. State v. Parkinson 389 A 2d 1,8 (ME. 1978)
(4) The standards by which the above actions are held to is an objective one. The issue turns on what similar situation reasonable and prudent third person could think, not necessarily what the actual persons involved did think. Terry v. Ohio

11. Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion
Specific facts (more than a “feeling” or “hunch”) that the person is involved in criminal activity. Less than probable cause.
Suspicion is articulable when an officer in fact subjectively (meaning in his/her own mind) possesses it and can communicate the specific facts leading to the suspicion. Suspicion is reasonable when it can be viewed and understood objectively (meaning outside the officer’s subjective impression). State v. Lear ME. 1998

12. Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause…Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent on both the content of information possessed by the police and its degree of reliability. Both factors – quality and quantity are considered in the ‘totality of the circumstances – the whole picture.’ Alabama v. White 1990

13. Probable Cause
A reasonable belief by a prudent and cautious officer that the person committed a crime
“Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officers and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information would warrant a prudent and cautious person to believe that the arrestee did commit or is committing the [crime].” State v. Parkinson 389 A 2d 1,8 (ME. 1978)

14. Voluntary Contacts How initiated Level of evidence necessary
By police officer
Precatory (wish but not a demand) language of request
By citizen
In any way
Level of evidence necessary
None
Compliance mechanisms available to officer
Constitutional Protections afforded citizens
None (for testamentary evidence)
No search, no show or use of authority

15. Voluntary Contacts Durational Limits Identification
None, however the longer the duration the more exposure to a custody challenge
Identification
The citizen is not required to produce identification
Asking for ID may expose the contact to a custody challenge

16. Warrantless Seizures
For our purposes, three kinds of warrantless searches
The Terry Stop
Investigatory detention
The Stop & Frisk (Terry Pat Down Search)
The arrest
Formal custody

17. Terry Stop How initiated Level of evidence necessary
Show of authority
Level of evidence necessary
Reasonable and Articulable
Compliance mechanisms available to officer
Show of authority, minimum use of force
Constitutional Protections afforded citizens
None (for testamentary evidence)
Miranda not required unless the stop evolves into arrest
No search absent PC
Durational Limits
Once the suspicion is relieved the subject must be released

18. Terry Stop Identification
The person is not required to produce identification absent a reason to enforce a city ordinance, state or federal law
Officers can ask for ID without fear that the constitutionality of the stop will be infringed. However, they cannot demand ID unless there exists PC that the suspect is in violation of something the officer can enforce

19. The Stop & Frisk (Terry Pat Down Search)
How initiated
Show of authority, reasonable use of force (includes handcuffing)
Level of evidence necessary
Reasonable and Articulable suspicion (1) for the stop and (2) that the suspect is armed and dangerous
Compliance mechanisms available to officer
Show of authority, reasonable use of force
Constitutional Protections afforded citizens
None (for testamentary evidence)
Miranda not required even if handcuffed as long as the questioning is related in scope out of a concern for public safety. New York v. Quarles (1984)
No search absent PC
Durational Limits
Once the suspicion is relieved the subject must be released

20. The Stop & Frisk (Terry Pat Down Search)
Identification
The person is not required to produce identification absent a reason to enforce a city ordinance, state or federal law
Officers can ask for ID without fear that the constitutionality of the stop will be infringed. However, they cannot demand ID unless there exists PC that the suspect is in violation of something the officer can enforce
Implementation
The search is limited in scope to a pat-down of the suspect’s outer clothing for weapons
The “plain feel” exception: If an officer feels something to which it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item is contraband (without manipulation of the object), the officer may seize it. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

21. Warrantless Arrest
The police officers intention to take the person into custody
Detention or restraint of the person arrested either by a submission to authority or the use of physical force
An understanding by the person that they are being arrested. California v. Hodari D. (1990)

22. Miranda
Miranda applies to street level encounters only when two factors are present:
Custody
A formal arrest
Custodial factors outside the scope of an investigatory detention
This is called a De Facto Arrest or Seizure Tantamount to arrest
Interrogation
Spontaneous Statement Exception
Clarification is allowed
Administrative Statement Exception (Booking questions)
Public Safety Exception

23. Interrogation
Any action on the part of the police officer designed to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
Public Safety Exception New York v. Quarles (1984)
Administrative Questioning Exception State v. Griffin ME 2003
Volunteered or Spontaneous Statements Miranda v. Arizona
Clarification of Spontaneous Statements Allowed State v. Philbrick ME (1981)

24. Custodial Factors Indicative of Miranda
Location
Party who initiated contact
Existence of PC to arrest
Show of authority
Use of force
Duration and character of the interrogation

25. Waiver Must obtain a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver
Need not be signed (waiver can be obtained by conduct)
Video?
Miranda Rights must be asserted affirmatively and expressly
Silence is not an affirmation of the suspect’s Miranda Rights Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)
If counsel is affirmatively requested, questioning must cease on all matters which could affect the person’s criminal liability