 The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect against abuses of police power. Restraints on police behavior:  Help to ensure individual freedoms.  Must be balanced against the need for police to effectively do their jobs.  The Warren Court – The U.S. Supreme Court, under the direction of Chief Justice Earl Warren:  Accelerated the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.  Bound police to strict procedural requirements.

 The Post-Warren Supreme Court (Burger Court ] and Rehnquist Court [ ]) reflected a more conservative Court philosophy.  “Reversed” some of the Warren-era decisions.  Courts provide an area for dispute resolution between individuals and between citizens and government agencies. Courts also deal with issues involving rights violations, which have become the basis for dismissal of charges, acquittal of defendants, or release of convicted offenders upon appeal.

 Do you believe the confirmation process for the Supreme Court is balanced? Do we do a good job appointing Supreme Court Justices? Explain.

 Most due process requirements relevant to the police involve:  Evidence, arrest and interrogation (search and seizure)  Landmark cases clarify the “rules of the game”— the procedural guidelines by which the police and the rest of the justice system must abide.   The Court addresses only real cases and does so on a writ of certiorari.  A writ of certiorari is an order by a higher court ordering a lower court to send the record of the case for review

 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.”  The Fourth Amendment protects one’s privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 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.  Fruits of the Poisonous Tree - Because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure.

 Question:  Does anyone know what the Silver Platter Doctrine is?

 Search incident to arrest – Chimel v. U.S. (1969) - Clarified the scope of a search incident to an arrest. Officers may search: The arrested person and 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

 New Supreme Court Ruling – Arizona V. Gant  ruled the police should only be allowed to search a car incident to an occupant’s arrest if, at the time of the search: (1) the arrestee can reach for a weapon in the car or try to destroy evidence in the car; or (2) when it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence related to the offense for which the person was arrested.  when-arrested/ when-arrested/  In Gant’s case, he was arrested for a suspended license and was in the back of a squad when cocaine was found in a pocket of his jacket.  What is your opinion on the court’s decision??

 Good Faith Exception - 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.  Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule - 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. Good faith can be established if the police reasonably believe they are performing their jobs in accordance with the law.  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.

 Plain View Doctrine – Harris v. US (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.  Officers cannot move objects to gain a view of evidence otherwise hidden from view. Officers cannot move or dislodge objects to create “plain view.”

 Emergency Warrantless Searches - Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless searches  (searching during exigent circumstances).  Clear dangers to life, Clear dangers of escape, Clear dangers of removal or destruction of evidence  Police officers “may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing than an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such an injury.”  Arrest - 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. Basic minimum element is 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.”

 What is the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause?

 Reasonable Suspicion v. Probable Cause - Reasonable suspicion is a general and reasonable belief that a crime is in progress or has occurred whereas probable cause is a reasonable belief that a particular person has committed a specific crime.  Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) The court upheld Nevada’s “stop and identify” law that requires a person to identify himself to police if they encounter him under circumstances that reasonably indicated that he “has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.”

 High Tech searches - Investigating crime is making greater use of high-technology devises and practices, such as thermal imaging devises. If the government searches a home using a device that is not something used by the general public, and that shows something that wouldn’t be learned without entering the house, then a warrant is required.  Inevitable Discovery Exception - Nix v. Williams (1984) Evidence, even if it was otherwise gathered inappropriately, can be used in a court of law if it would have invariably turned up in the normal course of events.

 Policing Issues and Challenges – Ch 8  Issues facing police and administrators: Police personality and culture, corruption and integrity, dangers of police work, police use of force, racial profiling, police civil liability, policing in a multicultural society.  Police subculture—the set of informal values that characterize the police force as a distinct community with a common identity. Police officers learn what is considered appropriate police behavior through formal and informal socialization—through the academy and from conversations with seasoned veterans. 

 Over time, officers come to develop the police working personality. The traditional values and patterns of behavior evidenced by police officers who have been effectively socialized into the police subculture. Often extends to the officer’s personal lives.

 Grass Eating  Illegitimate activity which  occurs from time to time  in the normal course of  police work.  Most common form of  corruption.  Includes gratuities, minor  bribes, playing favorites,  intentional speeding, etc  Meat Eating  Active seeking of illicit  money-making  opportunities by officers.  More serious form of  corruption.  Includes major bribes,  role malfeasance,  committing crimes,  protecting corrupt officers  officers, denying civil  rights, committing  physical abuse.

 Police integrity can be promoted by:  Integrating police ethics training into programs  Studying departments that are models in the area of police ethics  Building trusting relationships with the public  Creating agency-wide cultures of integrity  Raising awareness of internal affairs  Most officers who are shot are killed by lone suspects armed with a single weapon. In 2006, 146 American law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty.  The 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center resulted in the greatest ever single- incident line of duty deaths when 72 officers perished.

 Police Use of Force - Law enforcement are authorized to use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary given the circumstances. Force may involve: hitting, restraining, choking, restraining with a police dog, handcuffing, threatening with a baton, flashlight, or gun.  Police use force in fewer than 20% of adult custodial arrests. Most tactics are weaponless.  Female officers are less likely to use physical force and firearms than male officers. They are more likely to use chemical force.

 Deadly Force - The FBI defines deadly force as “the intentional use of a firearm or other instrument resulting in a high probability of death.” According to a 2001 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, the number of justifiable homicides by police averages “nearly 400 felons each year.”  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

 Implications of deadly force - Social, legal, and personal complications. Officers often suffer depression and despair. Issues multiply in “suicide by cop” cases.  Racial Profiling - … any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than [1] the behavior of an individual, or [2] on information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity  Profiling originally was intended to help catch drug couriers

 In 2003, the U.S. Dept. of Justice banned racial profiling in all federal law enforcement agencies, except in cases involving possible identification of terrorists.  Qualified Immunity - Qualified immunity shields “reasonable” law enforcement officers from civil liability if they believe their actions to be lawful.  The doctrine of qualified immunity rests largely on the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Saucier v. Katz.

 That’s it for tonight everyone! Thanks for a good seminar!  Believe it or not….next week is mid term week. Congratulations…you’re halfway through the course!  Don’t forget you have a power point project due in week 5.  There will be no seminar held in week 5.  As always, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me via AIM or at  Have a great week….we’ll see you in seminar during unit 6!  Good night everyone!