Unit 4 Chapter 7 & 8 Reading The Legal Aspects of Policing

Due Process Due Process is required by the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Constitutional Amendments. Most due process requirements relevant to police conduct involve: Evidence and interrogation (Search and Seizure) Arrest Interrogations

Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Acting on information from a confidential informant, officers of the Burbank, Cal., Police Department initiated a drug-trafficking investigation involving surveillance of Jack Nicholson’s activities. The officer prepared an application for a warrant to search three residences and Jack Nicholson’s automobiles. Several Deputy District Attorneys reviewed the search warrant, and a judge issued a valid search warrant. Search & Seizure

Search & Seizure Police found several kilos of cocaine and the defendant was arrested. Jack hired Tom Cruise to defend him, because he did such a great job in A Few Good Men. Tom was able to convince the trial judge that the warrant was defective, even though the police were trying to do everything by the book. What happens with the evidence?

The Exclusionary Rule Mapp v. Ohio (1961) extended the rule to the Weeks v. U.S. (1914) established the exclusionary rule. Illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial. This rule acts as a control over police behavior. The decision was only binding to federal officers. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) extended the rule to the states. The 14th Amendment due process applies to local police, not just federal officers. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule U.S. v. Leon (1984) When law enforcement officers have acted in good faith, the evidence they collect should be admissible even if later it is found that the warrant they used was invalid. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Barney Fife and Andy have an incredible lead on a moonshine operation that is run out of Otis’ home at 123 Main Street on the outskirts of Mayberry. The officers prepare a pristine search warrant that is approved by a judge. Once signed, the officers hand it to the court clerk who accidently types in 321 Main Street on the warrant. Search & Seizure

The officers assemble a search warrant team and are about to raid the house. Barney and Andy do not catch the mistake until they are about to bust Otis’ door down. What should they do? What can they legally do? Search & Seizure

Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Arizona v. Evans (1995) U.S. Supreme Court created the computer errors exception to the exclusionary rule. Police officers cannot be held responsible for a clerical error. The exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not clerical mistakes made by court employees. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Search & Seizure There are many exceptions to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. These are just a few:   CONSENT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES PLAIN VIEW INVENTORY SEARCH ABANDONMENT

A police officer went to a married couple's house in Georgia concerning a domestic dispute. The wife, Marge Simpson, in the presence of her husband, Homer Simpson, volunteered to the officer that there was in the house evidence of the husband's illegal drug use. Homer then unequivocally refused the officer's request for permission for a warrantless search of the house. Search & Seizure

However, Marge then consented to a search and led the officer straight to the evidence. The police seized this evidence and, after obtaining a search warrant, seized further evidence of drug use. If you were the judge hearing these facts on a motion to suppress the evidence, what would you rule? Search & Seizure

Plain View Doctrine Harris v. U.S. (1968) Objects falling in “plain view” of an officer, who has the right to be in the position to have the view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence. The Plain View Doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Search & Seizure - Consent Georgia v. Randolph (2006) The search was invalid under the Federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment as to the husband, as (1) for Fourth Amendment purposes, a physically present occupant's express refusal of consent to a police search of a premises was dispositive as to that occupant, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant; (2) the husband's refusal was clear; and (3) nothing in the record justified the search on grounds independent of the wife's consent.

Arrest When can the police legally arrest someone?

Arrest An arrest is constitutional if there is probable cause for the arrest or is the result of an arrest warrant based on probable cause. Probable cause is when the police have knowledge of facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has occurred and that it has been committed by the defendant.

Arrest When can the police stop you? Does there always have to be probable cause?

The “Terry” Stop Terry v. Ohio (1968) Reasonable suspicion is needed to “stop and frisk.” The facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed. Justification: “We cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest.” CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Arrest Is this fair? This means the police can stop any person if they reasonably infer that the person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed an offense. Do Terry stops go too far?

Police have been on patrol and heightened alert in a section of the city that has numerous bars. Over a dozen women have been raped in the early morning hours after the bars have closed. Several have been murdered. The general description given by the women is that it is a white male with dark hair, who wears darker clothing. Arrest

The officer talks to the man and frisks him for weapons The officer talks to the man and frisks him for weapons. While patting the man down, he feels a squishy object that he thinks is bubbly packing material in his pocket. He reaches into the man’s pocket and pulls out the bubbly packing material. He searches in his pocket and finds a knife. The man is arrested and the knife, through DNA, is linked to all of the rapes. Was this search legal? Arrest

Reasonable Suspicion Stops Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) “If an officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes it immediately apparent there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons.” CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

A woman, who refuses to identify herself, calls the police department A woman, who refuses to identify herself, calls the police department. She tells the police that a man in a purple Barney suit is transporting drugs between two locations. He always makes his delivery at 10:00 a.m. and he parades down the street waving to the children, a perfect cover. Arrest

She also tells the police he walks up to 123 Main and pulls out 3 garbage bags filled with cocaine and delivers them to a purple car. He then gets a stack of bills tucked in a Baby Bop doll and leaves. The police go and watch at 10:00 a.m. Everything happens just as described. What can the police do? Arrest

Two-Pronged Test for the Use of Informants In the case of informants, a two-pronged test usually satisfies the probable cause requirement per Aguilar v. Texas (1964). In Illinois v. Gates (1983) The Court adopted a totality-of-circumstances approach for assessing informant information. #1: The source of the informant’s information is made clear. # 2: The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Anonymous Informants Anonymous tips are evaluated on the basis of the totality of circumstances approach and are considered in light of everything already known to the police. Without other information, anonymous tips may be used if they accurately predict future behavior. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Police Interrogation An interrogation refers to the information-gathering activity of police officers that involves the direct questioning of suspects. During an interrogation, there must be no: Physical abuse Inherent coercion Psychological manipulation CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) A defendant is entitled to counsel at police interrogations, and counsel should be provided when the defendant so requests. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation Miranda v. Arizona (1966) “The entire aura and atmosphere of police interrogation, without notification of rights and an offer of assistance of counsel, tends to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner.” Prior to custodial interrogation, a person must be informed of his or her rights (Miranda triggers). CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Miranda Warnings 1. You have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and to have a lawyer present while you are being questioned. 4. If you want a lawyer before or during questioning but cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you at no cost, before any questioning. 5. If you answer questions now without a lawyer here, you still have the right to stop answering questions at any time. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Interrogation Police are called to a murder scene. Sponge Bob is splattered all over the ocean floor. He was shot, stabbed, and beaten. Patrick is at the scene crying. On a table near Patrick, is a gun, hammer, and knife.

Interrogation The officers simply ask Patrick what happened. Patrick, sobbing, then gives a blow-by-blow account of how he murdered Sponge Bob. Is this confession going to be allowed in court? Why or why not?

Interrogations Miranda is only required for custodial interrogations. Here, neither element appears to be present. ‘What happened’ at the scene is not really interrogation. Moreover, there is no indication that Patrick is in custody.

Arrests An arrest occurs when a law enforcement officer restricts a person’s freedom to leave. It is: The act of taking an adult or juvenile into custody by authority of law for the purpose of charging the person with a criminal offense, a delinquent act, or a status offense, terminating with the recording of a specific offense. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Use of Force Imagine that you are a member of a SWAT team and you have surrounded a house where a person who just killed a fellow police officer has barricaded himself along with several members of his family, including women and children, inside his home. The SWAT team leader gives an order to shoot to kill anyone who comes out of the house. Tensions are high and the memory of the fallen officer is fresh in your mind.

Use of Force You have your order to shoot and two men step out on the front porch with weapons in their hands. Your fellow officers fire, striking the men, and, as the shooting is happening, a woman steps out onto the porch, you cannot see a weapon in her hands, what do you do? You have your orders. Do you shoot to kill?

Use of Force Almost this exact situation happened in 1992 at Ruby Ridge. A federal marshal had been killed, and Randy Weaver was inside his home with his wife, children and several family members. The FBI snipers had standing orders to shoot to kill. Vicki Weaver, while holding a baby, stepped outside during the firefight and one of the FBI snipers shot her in the head and killed her. To read more about Ruby Ridge, you should Google it.

Use of Force As a result of this case, virtually all law enforcement officers now agree that a standing “Shoot to Kill” order is invalid. If a law enforcement officer is going to shoot to kill, they must first be sure that either they, one of their fellow officers, or another civilian is in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. Otherwise they cannot shoot to kill. The history of Ruby Ridge has set the rules of engagement for the future of law enforcement.

The Federal Deadly Force Policy The federal policy is uses an “imminent danger” standard. Restricts the use of deadly force to ONLY those situations where the lives of officers or others are in danger. Elements of the standard: Defense of life Fleeing subject Verbal warnings Warn Vehicles ing shots CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Tennessee v. Garner (1985) fleeing felon rule guided deadly force Prior to Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the fleeing felon rule guided deadly force decision-making in most U.S. jurisdictions. The Court invalidated the fleeing felon rule and held that deadly force could be justified only where the suspect could reasonably be thought to represent a significant threat of serious injury or death to the public or the officer and where deadly force is necessary to effect the arrest.

Graham v. Connor (1989) The Court established the “objective reasonableness” standard. The determination of the appropriateness of deadly force should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time, and not in hindsight.