CHAPTER - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

chapter n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CHAPTER PowerPoint Presentation
play fullscreen
1 / 63
CHAPTER
128 Views
Download Presentation
kelton
Download Presentation

CHAPTER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. CHAPTER 7 • Policing: Legal Aspects

  2. No one is above the law…not even the police. Policing: Legal Environment

  3. 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

  4. The U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect citizens from abuses in police power. Due Process isrequired by 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Constitutional Amendments. Changing Legal Climate

  5. There are three areas of police action that are infused with due process: Search and seizure of evidence Arrest Interrogation Due Process Environment

  6. The Warren Court (1953–1969): Clarified individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution. Was considered “liberal.” Burger (1969–1986) and Rehnquist Courts (1986–2005): Was more conservative. “Reversed” of some of the Warren-era decisions. Was called the “greater good” era. Adhered to the principle that defendants should bear most of the responsibility in showing the police went beyond the law. Changing Legal Climate: U.S. Supreme Court

  7. Courts often deal with issues involving rights. Rights violationshave become the basis for dismissal of charges, acquittal of defendants, or release of convicted offenders upon appeal. Changing Legal Climate: U.S. Supreme Court

  8. Landmark cases clarify the “rules of the game”—the procedural guidelines by which the police and the rest of the justice system must abide. Landmark Cases

  9. “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

  10. The Fourth Amendment protects one’s privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures. Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment

  11. Weeks v. U.S. (1914) established the exclusionary rule. Evidence illegally seized 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 14th Amendment due process applies to local police, not just federal officers. The Exclusionary Rule

  12. 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)

  13. 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)

  14. 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)

  15. 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)

  16. 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)

  17. 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)

  18. 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)

  19. 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)

  20. 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)

  21. Emergency Searches of Property • 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

  22. “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)

  23. Search and Seizure: Arrest

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. Terry v. Ohio (1968) Reasonable suspicionis 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

  28. Reasonable suspicionis 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. Smith v. Ohio (1990) An individual has the right to protect his belongings from unwarranted search.” Reasonable Suspicion Searches

  34. Emergency searches of persons falls under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Emergency Searches of Persons

  35. All of the following conditions must apply. At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe that evidence was concealed on the person searched. At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed. The officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant authorizing the search. The action was no greater than necessary to eliminate the threat of destruction of evidence. FBI Guidelines for Conducting Emergency Warrantless Searches of Persons

  36. Warrants are necessary if time and circumstances permit them. Investigatory stops of vehicles are permissible under the Fourth Amendment if supported by reasonable suspicion. Warrantless searches of vehicles must be based on probable cause (fleeting-targets). Vehicle Searches

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. The warrantless searching of automobiles extends to include some watercraft, houseboats, and motor homes. Watercraft and Motor Homes

  40. 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: Police ask permission Police do not coerce people to consent Police do not convey the message that compliance is necessary Suspicionless Searches

  41. 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. High-Technology Searches

  42. The Intelligence Function

  43. Intelligence Function • Police gather information through many sources, including: • Informants • Interrogation

  44. In the case of informants, a two-pronged test usually satisfies the probable cause requirement: The source of the informant’s information is made clear. The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable. Informants

  45. 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. Informants

  46. 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

  47. 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

  48. 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

  49. 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.

  50. A waiver of Miranda rights can be done if such a waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Waiver of Miranda Rights