© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 1 Policing: Legal.

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 2 No one is above the law…not even the police. Policing: Legal Environment

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 3 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 4 The U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect citizens from abuses in police power. Due Process is required by Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. Changing Legal Climate

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 5 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 6 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 (1953-1969)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 7 The Post-Warren Supreme Court (Burger Court [1969–1986] and Rehnquist Court [1986–2005]) 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 8  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. Changing Legal Climate: U.S. Supreme Court

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 9 Most due process requirements relevant to the police involve: 1.Evidence and interrogation (search and seizure) 2.Arrest 3.Interrogation Police and Due Process

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 10  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. Landmark Cases

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 12 “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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 13 The Fourth Amendment protects one’s privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures. Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 14  Weeks v. U.S. (1914) established the exclusionary rule.  Illegally seized evidence by the police cannot be used in a trial.  This rule acts as a control over police behavior.  Mapp v. Ohio (1961) made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states.  The Fourteenth Amendment due process applies to local police, not just federal officers. The Exclusionary Rule

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 15  Because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure. Fruits of Poisonous Tree Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 16 Clarified the scope of a search incident to an arrest. Arresting officers may search:  The arrested person  The physical area within “immediate control” (easy reach) of the arrested person 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)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 17 Court decisions relating to the exclusionary rule highlight the fact that the Fourth Amendment pertains to the rights of people, not places. Upon reviewing cases, courts must decide  Did that particular person have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Interpretation of the Exclusionary Rule

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 18  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)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 19 The 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)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 20 The 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)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 21  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)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 22  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)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 23 The U.S. Supreme Court held that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures, it is not a necessary condition.  It is okay to seize evidence found when such evidence is other than that listed in a search warrant. Plain View Doctrine Horton v. California (1990)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 24 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 25 “Fourth 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)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 26 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)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 28 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 29 The basic minimum element for an arrest under any circumstance is probable cause. Arrests

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 30 U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) The 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 31 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 32 Muehler v. Mena (2005) Officers who are conducting a lawful search under the authority of a warrant may detain persons found occupying the premises being searched while the search is taking place. “Free-to-Leave” Test

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 33 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 34 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 35 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 36 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 37 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 38 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 39 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 40 Smith v. Ohio (1990) An individual has the right to protect his belongings from unwarranted search. Reasonable Suspicion Searches

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 41 Emergency searches of persons falls under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Emergency Searches of Persons

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 42 All of the following conditions must apply. 1.At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe that evidence was concealed on the person searched. 2.At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed. 3.The officer had 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 43  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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 44 If probable cause exists or if permission is granted, warrantless vehicle searches can extend to any area of the vehicle, including:  The trunk  The glove compartment  Sealed containers within the vehicle Vehicle Searches

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 45 A permissible search of a motor vehicle does not automatically extend to a search of a person within the vehicle.  Occupants can be ordered to step out of the vehicle. Vehicle Searches

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 46 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 47 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 48 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 49 The warrantless searching of automobiles extends to include some watercraft, houseboats, and motor homes. Watercraft and Motor Homes

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 50 Suspicionless searches may be necessary in order to ensure public safety. Such searches must be based on compelling interests. Suspicionless sweeps of busses, trains, planes, and city streets are permissible, as long as: 1.Police ask permission 2.Police do not coerce people to consent 3.Police do not convey the message that compliance is necessary Suspicionless Searches

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 51 Suspicionless searches of vehicles at our nation’s borders are permitted, even when searches are extensive. U.S. v. Flores-Montano (2004) “The Government’s authority to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle’s fuel tank.” Suspicionless Border Searches

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 52  Investigating crime is making greater use of high-technology devices and practices, such as thermal imaging devices.  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. High-Technology Searches

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 54 Intelligence Function Police gather information through many sources, including:  Informants  Interrogation

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 55 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.

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 56 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 Tips

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 58 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 59 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 60 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

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 61 The Miranda Warnings 1. You have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and to have a lawyer present while you are being questioned. 4. If you want a lawyer before or during questioning but cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you at no cost before any questioning. 5. If you answer questions now without a lawyer here, you still have the right to stop answering questions at any time.

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 62 A waiver of Miranda rights can be done if such a waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Silence alone is not a waiver. Waiver of Miranda Rights

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 63 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. Inevitable Discovery Exception to Miranda

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 64 New York v. Quarles (1984) Considerations of public safety were overriding and negated the need for rights advisement prior to limited questioning that focused on the need to prevent further harm. Public Safety Exception to Miranda

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 66 Nontestimonial Evidence Nontestimonial evidence generally refers to physical evidence, including personal items that may be within or part of a person’s body, such as:  Ingested drugs  DNA  Foreign objects  Blood  Medical implants

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 67 Nontestimonial Evidence Concerns over non-testimonial evidence involve:  Right to privacy issues  Body-cavity searches  Electronic eavesdropping  Electronic evidence

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 68 Right to Privacy Schmerber v. California (1966) Warrants must be obtained for bodily intrusions unless fast action is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence by natural physiological processes.

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 69 Body-Cavity Searches Strip searches of convicts in prison, including the search of body cavities, have generally been held to be permissible. U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) The Court upheld a four-day customs detention of a body packer (until nature took its course and evidence was passed from her body).

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 70 Electronic Eavesdropping Katz v. U.S. (1967) A warrant is required to unveil what a person makes an effort to keep private, even in a public place.

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 71 Electronic Eavesdropping Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 permits officers to listen to electronic communications when one of the following conditions is met: 1.An officer is one of the parties involved in the conversation. 2.One of the parties is not the officer but willingly decides to share the communications with the officer. 3.Officers obtain a warrant based on probable cause.

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 72 Minimization Requirement U.S. v. Scott (1978) Officers must make every reasonable effort to monitor only those conversations that are specifically related to the criminal activity under investigation.

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 73 The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 The ECPA held that officers must obtain wiretap-type court orders to eavesdrop on ongoing communications. **In 2004, judges approved 1,710 wiretap requests, allowing for around 5.2 million intercepted conversations.

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 74 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Made it a federal offense to knowingly use interstate or international telecommunications device to: “create, solicit, or initiate the transmission of any comments, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication, which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person.” This act also included a provision for harassing and other types of prank phone calls.

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 75 The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 made it easier for police investigators to intercept many forms of electronic communication. The Act:  Allows for roving, multi-point wiretaps  Broadened “sneak and peek” searches  Updated the pen/trap statue  Eliminated wiretap orders except for cases of real-time telephone conversations  Updated and expanded the types of records that law enforcement can obtain with a subpoena

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 76 PATRIOT II Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act contained sunset clauses, set to expire in 2005. The 2006 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization (PATRIOT II):  Made permanent 14 of the original provisions  Extended other provisions for four more years  Addressed some of the concerns of civil libertarians  Provided additional protections for mass transportation systems and seaports  Closed some legal loopholes in laws preventing terrorist financing  Included the Combat Methamphetamine Act (CMA)

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 77 Gaining Electronic Evidence Proper digital criminal forensics has become increasingly important in today’s modern times. Electronic evidence is of special concern because it:  Is latent  Can transcend national and state borders quickly and easily  Is fragile and can easily be altered, damaged, compromised, or destroyed by improper handling or improper examination  May be time sensitive

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 1 Policing: Legal.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 1 Policing: Legal."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 1 Policing: Legal.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "© Prentice Hall 2008 Pearson Education, Inc Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger 1 Policing: Legal."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback