CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Policing: Legal Aspects CHAPTER 7

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ No one is above the law…not even the police. Policing: Legal Environment

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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. Policing: Legal Environment

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ THIS RIGHT IS GUARANTEEDBY THIS AMENDMENT The right against unreasonable searches and seizuresFourth The right against arrest without probable causeFourth The right against self-incriminationFifth The right against “double jeopardy”Fifth The right to due process of the lawFifth, Sixth, Fourteenth The right to a speedy trialSixth The right to a jury trialSixth The right to know the chargesSixth The right to cross-examine witnessesSixth The right to a lawyerSixth The right to compel witnesses on one’s behalfSixth The right to reasonable bailEighth The right against excessive finesEighth The right against cruel and unusual punishmentEighth The applicability of constitutional rights to all citizens, regardless of state law or procedure Fourteenth

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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. Changing Legal Climate: The Warren Court ( )

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ The Post-Warren Supreme Court (Burger Court [ ] and Rehnquist Court [ ]) reflected a more conservative Court philosophy.  “Reversed” some of the Warren-era decisions.  Created exceptions to some of the rules and restraints. Changing Legal Climate: Post- Warren Court

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Most due process requirements relevant to the police involve: 1. Evidence and interrogation (search and seizure) 2. Arrest 3. Interrogation Police and Due Process

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ  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. [Law Latin "to be more fully informed"] An extraordinary writ issued by an appellate court, at its discretion, directing a lower court to deliver the record in the case for review. Landmark Cases

Pearson Education, Inc Search and Seizure

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ “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.” Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ The Fourth Amendment protects one’s privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures. Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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. The Exclusionary Rule

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ  Because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure. Fruits of Poisoned Tree Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Clarified the scope of a search incident to an arrest. 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 Search Incident to Arrest Chimel v. U.S. (1969)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ  The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but it protects people, not places.  A limited area search following arrest may be acceptable. Search Incident to Arrest U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ  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. v. Leon (1984)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Arizona v. Evans (1995)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ  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. Plain View Doctrine Harris v. U.S. (1968)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ  Restricted the plain view doctrine  Officers cannot move objects to gain a view of evidence otherwise hidden from view.  Officers cannot move or dislodge objects to create “plain view.” Plain View Doctrine U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Emergency Searches of Property Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless searches (searching during exigent circumstances). 1. Clear dangers to life 2. Clear dangers of escape 3. Clear dangers of removal or destruction of evidence

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ “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.” Emergency Searches Warden v. Hayden (1967)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Police can search locations in a house where a potentially dangerous person could hide while an arrest warrant is being served.  Primarily meant to protect officers from danger.  Can apply when officers lack a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. Emergency Searches Maryland v. Buie (1990)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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.” Emergency Searches Bringham City v. Stuart (2006)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ The Court upheld the constitutionality of anticipatory warrants—search warrants issued on the basis of probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime, while not currently at the place described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed. Anticipatory Warrants U.S. v. Grubbs (2006)

Pearson Education, Inc Arrest

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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. Arrests

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) 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, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” “Free-to-Leave” Test

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) Whether a person is actually free to leave can only be determined by examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. “Free-to-Leave” Test

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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.” The “Terry” Stop

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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. Reasonable Suspicion Versus Probable Cause

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ U.S. v. Sokolow (1989) Stops must be evaluated based on a “totality of circumstances” criterion—in which all aspects of the defendant’s behavior, together, provide the basis for a legitimate stop based on reasonable suspicion. Reasonable Suspicion Stops

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ U.S. v. Arvizu (2002) “Officers are allowed to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available.” Reasonable Suspicion Stops

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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.” Reasonable Suspicion Stops

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Brown v. Texas (1979) Officers may not stop and question an unwilling citizen whom they have no reason to suspect of a crime. Reasonable Suspicion Stops

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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.” Reasonable Suspicion Searches

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Smith v. Ohio (1990) An individual has the right to protect his belongings from unwarranted police inspection. Reasonable Suspicion Searches

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Emergency searches of persons falls under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Emergency Searches of Persons

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ All of the following conditions must apply. 1.Probable cause to believe that evidence was concealed on the person searched. 2.Probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed. 3.No prior opportunity to obtain a warrant authorizing the search. 4.The action was no greater than necessary to eliminate the threat of destruction of evidence. FBI Guidelines for Conducting Emergency Warrantless Searches of Persons

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ  Investigatory stops of vehicles required reasonable suspicion.  Warrantless searches of vehicles must be based on probable cause (fleeting-targets exception).  Mobility of vehicles would allow them to quickly flee.  Warrants are necessary if time and circumstances permit them. Fleeting Targets: Vehicle Searches

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Illinois v. Caballes (2005) The use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine and lawful traffic stop is permissible and may not even be classified as a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Vehicle Searches

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) The Fourth Amendment prohibits even a brief seizure of a motorist under a program whose primary purpose is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interests in crime control. Checks for drivers’ licenses and registrations are okay because they do not intend to “detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing”. Roadblocks and Checkpoints

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Illinois v. Lidster (2004) Information-seeking highway roadblocks are permissible. “The law ordinarily permits police to seek the public’s voluntary cooperation in a criminal Investigation.” Roadblocks and Checkpoints

Pearson Education, Inc The Intelligence Function

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Intelligence Function Police gather information through many sources, including:  Informants  Interrogation

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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. Two-Pronged Test for the Use of Informants #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 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. Anonymous Informants

Pearson Education, Inc Police Interrogation

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

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ 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). The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation