Police and the Law Introduction to Procedural Law The Basis of Procedural Law is found in democratic civil rights. In particular, the right to privacy the presumption of innocence However, these values are balanced against State (police) interests in public safety and crime control. No other crime issue has influenced procedural law like the “War on Drugs”

Police and the Law What are the standards that theoretically guide police intrusion on citizen rights to privacy? –Reasonable Suspicion & Probable Cause –Reasonable Suspicion: Based upon “objective facts” & logical conclusions Tied to the circumstances or “context” of the encounter Lower legal standard May be developed from information that is not reliable (hearsay) The basis for Stops (as well as Frisks)

Police and the Law What are the standards that theoretically guide police intrusion on citizen rights to privacy? –Probable Cause Higher legal standard to meet Necessary to execute arrests Better than 50% chance

Police Accountability through the Judiciary 4 th 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. PROBABLE CAUSE lays the groundwork for a reasonable search. –What is probable cause? Brinegar v. US (1949) “the facts and circumstances within the officers knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a … belief that an offense has been or is being committed.”

Police Accountability through the Judiciary Thus PROBABLE CAUSE is SUBJECTIVE. It is open to interpretation. Absent a Search/Arrest Warrant, officers can… Articulate reasonable trustworthy information –Role of informants is increased in investigations –2 pronged test to evaluating the credibility of: 1) information & 2) source of info (informant) Gates v. Illinois (1983) loosened this standard. –Anonymous informants okay. Courts establish the Totality of Circumstances approach. More subjective standard US v. Sokolow (1989)established legal basis for the use of a profile in establishing probable cause based on Totality of Circumstances standard. –Airport: Passenger paid cash, acted nervous, did not check baggage –Racial discrimination is not legal, but race in combination with other unlawful acts (traffic violations) may be enough to meet this totality standard – should this be legal?

Police Accountability through the Judiciary EXCLUSIONARY RULE Weeks v. US (1913) federal Mapp. V. Ohio (1961) extended to states Facts of the case: Mapp refused police entry to her home. Police entered anyway and found obscene materials in a search for a wanted person. Establishes that fruit of a poisonous tree is inadmissible at trial. Real concern that Mapp would deter police from aggressive investigation. Data suggests Mapp has NOT had any real affect on police work. Is a much larger cultural issue – contributes to public’s cynicism about law and the CJS Empirical findings (of a lack of impact on police) may result from the limits on scope of the Exclusionary Rule: Nix v. Williams (1984) establishes inevitable discovery exception

Police Accountability through the Judiciary STOP & FRISK Terry v. Ohio (1968) Police possess legal power to detain & question even without probable cause. All that is necessary is an Articulable Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Act. Frisk (limited person search) is permissible in these circumstances Does not constitute an arrest How long the stop takes is an evolving issue KNOCK & ANNOUNCE: Context of War on Drugs - Wilson v. Arkansas (1995)

Police Accountability through the Judiciary ARREST Depriving one of their liberty by legal authority for the purposes of interrogation or criminal prosecution. At what point are you arrested?

Police Accountability through the Judiciary Search & Seizure of Property Search Warrant required “Written order, issued by a magistrate, instructing police t search for property connected to a crime and bring it before a court.” Must demonstrate probable cause of crime in a specific place (limiting the possibility of a general warrant) including description of what is to be seized

Police Accountability through the Judiciary Search & Seizure of Property Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement >Plain View Doctrine 2 features: 1) officer has legal right to be where contraband is visible 2) contraband is recognizable >Vehicles Carroll v. US (1925) Prohibition Era Ruling Establishes warrantless search standard to vehicles as long as PC exists that the vehicle contains items subject to seizure Delaware v. Prouse (1979) Must be PC for a vehicle stop (based on totality of circumstances) Officers not required to tell motorists they are free to go before a consent search (Ohio v. Robinette)

Police Accountability through the Judiciary –Miranda v. Arizona (1966) a. guaranteed fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination b. police must advise suspect of his/her rights c. Miranda warning (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney, if cannot afford one, right to court-appointed attorney) d. Court found that police used coercive techniques (3 rd Degree) i. environment in police station is inherently coercive ii. likely to induce suspects to waive their rights Little substantive impact on ability of police to make arrests/secure confessions. But did reduce coercive behaviors.

The impact of Supreme Court decisions Political and legal controversy a. police argued they were “handcuffed” in their crime control effort b. studies on the exclusionary rule - Empirical evidence suggests that the Exclusionary rule does not limit crime-fighting capacity of the police ii. rule largely confined to cases on how police obtained evidence (EX: drug, gambling, weapons cases) iii. few motions to suppress evidence are raised; even fewer are granted Good faith exemption: police have acted in accordance with the constitution if they act “honestly”. In US v. Leon— basis for decision when police have acted honestly. Rehnquist court—sometimes called a counter-revolution to the Warren (1960s era) court. Rehnquist (current Supreme Court Chief Justice) court focuses on speed, finality, and efficiency. Tends to value crime control needs over civil protections

The impact of Supreme Court decisions Positive effects of Supreme Court decisions a. defined basic principles of due process b. created penalties for police misconduct--basic mechanism of accountability c. stimulated police reform--improvements in recruitment, training, supervision d. increased public awareness about details of police procedure e. helped maintain high standards of police professionalism Limitations a. Court cannot supervise day-to-day operations, b. Most police work does not involve an arrest or reach court, c. Police may not be informed about current court decisions, d. Encourages evasion or lying by police officers, e. Exercise of rights may become an empty formality