© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1 Chapter 7 Policing: Legal Aspects

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 2 ABUSE OF POLICE POWER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS SEARCH AND SEIZURE ARREST THE INTELLIGENCE FUNCTION

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 Changing Legal Climate The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 4 Changing Legal Climate 1960’s The U.S. Supreme Court sped up the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 5 Individual Rights Due Process requirement of 5 th, 6 th, and 14 th Amendments of the Constitution

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 6 Search and Seizure People must be secure in their homes. People must also be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 Searches & Seizure EXCLUSIONARY RULE Weeks vs. U.S. FRUIT OF THE POISONED TREE DOCTRINE Silverthorne Lumber vs. U.S. EXCLUSIONARY RULE FOR THE STATES Mapp vs. Ohion INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST U.S. vs. Rabinowitz Chimel vs. California

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 8 Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Supreme Court Decision: If some of Weeks’ property had been illegally seized, then the remainder of the property is also considered to be illegally seized. This case established the exclusionary rule.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 9 Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial. This rule acts as a control over police behavior. Exclusionary Rule

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 10 Fruits of Poisoned Tree Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918) Silverthorne was accused of not paying taxes. Federal agents wanted the company books. Silverthorne refused to turn over books.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 The U.S. Supreme Court decided to overturn the conviction. They ruled that evidence illegally seized cannot be used in a trial, therefore, neither can evidence which derives from an illegal seizure. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 12 U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950) The Fourth Amendment provides against unreasonable searches, but the search of the one room office following a legal arrest was alright. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 13 Supreme Court Chief Justices Earl Warren Warren Burger William Rehnquist present

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 14 Warren Court The Warren court charted a course that would guarantee nationwide recognition of individual rights by all levels of the criminal justice system.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 15 Warren Court applied the exclusionary rule to States Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 16 U.S. Supreme Court decided: 14th Amendment due process applied to local police, not just federal officers. Evidence against Mapp was illegally obtained. Overturned conviction based on inadmissibility of the evidence. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 17 Chimel v. California (1969) Officers may search: the arrested person the area under the arrested person’s “immediate control” Officers can search for following reasons: to protect themselves to prevent destruction of evidence to keep defendant from escaping

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 18 Burger Court Adherence to the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process right…

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc need to bear the responsibility of showing that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties. Burger Court

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 20 Exclusionary Rule Exceptions Good FaithU.S. vs. Leon Illinois vs. Krull Plain View DoctrineU.S. vs. Harris Emergency Searches of Property Warden vs. Hayden

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 21 U.S. v. Leon (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Decision: When law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith, the evidence they have collected should be admissible even if later it is found the warrant was invalid. “good faith exception to exclusionary rule”

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 22 Rehnquist Court continuing the trend of the Burger Court in having defendants bear the burden of proving violations of due process rights

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 23 Illinois v. Krull (1987) U.S. Supreme Court held that the good-faith exception applied to warrantless searches supported by state law even where the state statute was later found to violate Fourth Amendment rights.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 24 Plain View Doctrine

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 25 U.S. Supreme Court Decision: appeal rejected Justification: 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. Harris v. U.S. (1968)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 26 Plain View Situations Police can use evidence if they observe it during emergencies such as: crimes in progress fires accidents

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 27 Emergency Searches of Property Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless searches. Clear dangers to life. Clear dangers of escape. Clear dangers of removal or destruction of evidence.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 28 Warden v. Hayden (1967) There was a report that a robber fled into a building. The police search residence without a warrant. The defendant was convicted.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 29 Supreme Court Decision: rejected appeal of illegal search Justification: “4th Amendment does not require police to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.” Warden v. Hayden (1967)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 30 Search and Seizure Arrest

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 31 Arrest & Searches FREE TO LEAVE TESTU.S. vs. Mendenhall STOP AND FRISKTerry vs. Ohio EMERGENCY SEARCHES OF PERSONS Sanders vs. Arkansas VEHICLE SEARCHESU.S. vs. Caroll SUSPICIONLESS SEARCHESNational Treasury Employees Union vs. Von Raob

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 32 U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) “Free-to-Leave” Test U.S. Supreme Court said: “A person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, …

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 34 Fleeing Felon Doctrine Historically, the fleeing felon doctrine dictated the use of force. Deadly force could be used to apprehend any fleeing felony suspect. This was law in most states until 1960’s.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 35 U.S. Supreme Court Decision : appeal rejected Stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion, the facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed. Terry v. Ohio (1968)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 36 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.” Terry v. Ohio (1968)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 37 U.S. Supreme Court: overturned conviction Justification: An individual has the right to protect his belongings from an unwarranted search, because, in this case, there was little reason to stop the suspect and because control over the bag was not thought necessary for the officer’s protection. Smith v. Ohio (1990)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 38 Carroll v. U.S. (1925) The first U.S. Supreme Court case to involve an automobile. U.S. Supreme Court ruled a warrantless search of an automobile is valid if based on a reasonable belief that contraband is present.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 39 Intelligence Function Police need to gather information through many sources. informants police interrogation

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 40 In the case of informants, there is a two-pronged test that can be used to establish probable cause. Intelligence Function

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 41 The source of the informant’s information is made clear. The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable. Intelligence Function

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 42 interrogation - Any behaviors “that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Intelligence Function

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 43 The Intelligence Function INFORMANTS TWO-PRONGED RULEAguilar vs. Texas POLICE INTERROGATION PHYSICAL ABUSEBrown vs. Mississippi INHERENT COERCIONAshcroft vs. Tennessee PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATION Leyra vs. Denno

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 44 The Intelligence Function Right to a LawyerEscobedo vs. Illinois Suspect’s RightsMiranda vs. Arizona Miranda Rights Waiver Moran vs. Burbine Miranda Rights Exception Quarles vs. New York

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 45 Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Danny Escobedo is arrested, without a warrant, for the murder of his brother-in-law. Danny makes no statements during the initial interrogation and is released. A few weeks later, someone identifies Danny as the murderer. Danny is, again, brought in for interrogation

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 46 Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Danny is told they “have him cold.” Danny asks to see his lawyer and is told he cannot since the interrogation is underway. Danny’s lawyer arrives and asks to see his client but is told he has to wait until questioning is complete. Meanwhile, Danny is told that his lawyer does not want to see him.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 47 Danny confesses to the crime. Danny is convicted and appeals his conviction. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 48 U.S. Supreme Court Decision: conviction overturned Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 49 Justification: Escobedo is entitled to counsel at police interrogations to protect his rights, and counsel should be provided when the defendant desires. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 50 Miranda v Arizona (1966) Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona and was accused of kidnapping and rape. Miranda was identified by the victim. Miranda was interrogated for two hours, signed a confession,and was convicted. He appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 51 Miranda v Arizona (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Decision: conviction overturned Justification: “ 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.”

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 52 Nontestimonial Evidence right to privacy issues body cavity searches electronic eavesdropping electronic evidence