4. Legal Limitations on Police behavior: a)Police are authorized to use coercive and intrusive measures in enforcing the law  Legal use of force = defining element  Legal constraints on police authority b)Police are authorized to carry out interrogations & evidence collection  But basic rights to privacy & freedom c)How to insure proper use of coercive procedures by police?

4. Legal Limitations on Police behavior: Major Issues a)Search and seizure  4 th Amendment concerns b)Interrogation and Self-incrimination  5 th Amendment concerns  6 th Amendment concerns  The Miranda Rule c)The Exclusionary Rule

a) Searches & Seizures:  Key issue = 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.”  Implied right to privacy

a) Legal Searches & Seizures: 1)Searches with Warrant – Obtaining a legal warrant  “probable cause” + specificity (what & where) – Executing a warrant  limits on where & how 2)Searches without Warrants (warrantless) – Searches incident to lawful arrest – Consent searches – most common type of search – Plain view searches – Stop and Frisk – Automobile searches – Open fields & abandoned property 3)“Seizures” may refer to either people or things

3) Seizures (of people & things) (cont.) ─Seizures of people Stops (“Terry stops”) – reasonable suspicion to stop, inquire, and pat-frisk ─“frisks” versus searches? ─Detaining & restricting stopped persons Arrests (custody stops) – (1) probable cause to take into custody (felonies) or (2) arrest warrant or (3) in- view violation (misdemeanor)  Allows for broader, more intrusive search  Self-incrimination rights become active (Miranda) Note a “Continuum of Intrusion”  the more intrusive the stop, the stronger the suspicion requirement ─Constitutional Right-to-Privacy? Variable = some people have less expectation or rights May be waived in exceptional circumstances

b) Interrogations  Key issue = 5 th amendment’s protection against self-incrimination “No person.... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”  Additional issue = 6 th amendment’s guarantee of right to counsel “the accused shall enjoy the right... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

b) Interrogations  For police, the freedom from self- incrimination and right to counsel apply to any interrogations where a person who is a “suspect” may supply self- incriminating info Supreme court has ruled these rights apply from the point of arrest or initial suspicion The suspected person must be aware of their rights and of police suspicion of them The Miranda Rule – informing the “suspect”

b) Interrogations (cont.)  Two major forms of interrogation: 1)Custodial (in-custody) interrogation – Physical or Constructive custody – Miranda v. Arizona (1963) = the key 2)Field interrogation  lesser degree of intrusion (stop-and-frisk actions) – “Reasonable suspicion” applies here – “Self-identification” requirement as an evolving issue 3)May also apply to physical/medical tests – Depends on degree of intrusion – DUI  “implied consent”

b) Interrogations (cont.)  When is Miranda not required? General on-the-scene questioning Volunteered statements Questioning of witnesses Field stops (stop and frisk cases) Routine questions of drunk-driving suspects During line-ups and photo-ID sessions Statements to private persons Suspect appearing before grand jury A situational threat to public safety

c) What happens if search, seizure, or interrogation is illegal? “Exclusionary Rule” (ER): Evidence seized illegally cannot be used to convict  this applies deterrent sanctions to improper police conduct ER was introduced in 1914 (Weeks v. U.S.) to apply only to federal police actions Extended to all police in 1961: Mapp v. Ohio Has been since been moderated in later decisions Note: “Derivative Evidence rule” as an extension – “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine What are effects of the Exclusionary rule?

c) Important exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: Good Faith exception Inevitable Discovery exception Harmless Error exception Independent Source exception

d) Evaluating the Exclusionary Rule Reasons for the rule? Argument against the rule? Actual effects of Exclusionary Rule on policing? – Substantial impact on standardization of police practices – Little impact on enforcement outcomes – Effects appear to be largely symbolic (but nonetheless important)

Evolving legal context of policing? 20 th Century – Explication of federal limits on policing (early decades) – Application of federal restrictions to local police (Warren Court in 1960s) – Moderation & reduction in restrictions (in Berger and Rehnquist Courts: 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, up to 2005) 21st Century – Continued moderation of restrictions on police? (Roberts Court) (but not always) – Impact of drug war and anti-terrorism legislation has introduced more complications – Future changes = difficult to predict?