Unit 02 CJ Police 13 - LPSwp.lps.org/tlarson/files/2013/10/Unit-02-CJ-Police-13.pdfSearch and...

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1

Unit 02 Policing: Legal Aspects


Changing Legal Climate

The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power.


Changing Legal Climate 1960’s

The U.S. Supreme Court sped up the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.


Individual Rights Due Process

requirement of 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution


Search and Seizure • People must be

secure in their homes.

• People must also be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.


Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

•  Weeks is suspected of selling lottery tickets through the mail.

•  Weeks’ home is searched. •  His personal property is

confiscated.


• Weeks’ attorney asked that personal property be returned.

• Federal judge agreed that some of Weeks’ property should be returned.



• Weeks is convicted on remaining evidence.

• Case is appealed.




Supreme Court Decision: •  If some of Weeks’ property had

been illegally seized, then the remainder of the property is also considered to be illegally seized.

•  This case 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.

Exclusionary Rule


•  The U.S. Supreme Court in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)

•  Decision: Evidence illegally seized cannot be used in a trial, therefore, neither can evidence which derives from an illegal seizure.

Fruits of Poisoned Tree


Supreme Court Chief Justices and “case law”

•  Earl Warren 1953 - 1969 •  Warren Burger 1969 - 1986 •  William Rehnquist 1986 - 2005 •  John Roberts 2005 - Present


Warren Court

The Warren court charted a course that would guarantee nationwide recognition of individual rights by all levels of the criminal justice system.


Warren Court •  applied the exclusionary

rule to the States (Doctrine of Incorporation)

•  Mapp v. Ohio (1961)


Mapp v. Ohio (1961) • Mapp was suspected of hiding a

bombing suspect. • Mapp refused police admittance. •  Police forced their way in,

showing Mapp a paper they said was a search warrant for her house.


• Mapp grabbed the “warrant” and placed it inside her blouse.

• Police retrieved the “warrant” and searched house.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)


• Police found pornographic material in a trunk in the basement.

• The bombing suspect was not found.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)


• Mapp was convicted of possession of pornographic material.

• No search warrant was produced at the trial.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)


•  U.S. Supreme Court decided: 14th Amendment due process applied to local police, not just federal officers.

•  Evidence against Mapp was illegally obtained.

•  Overturned conviction based on inadmissibility of the evidence.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)


Chimel v. California (1969) •  Chimel is convicted of burglarizing a

coin shop based on evidence gathered at his arrest.

•  Police have an arrest warrant, but did not have a search warrant.

•  Police search his whole house, including the garage, attic, and little workshop.


•  Police realize the search might be contested.

•  Police feel they can justify the search as part of the arrest process, not to gather evidence.

•  Searches prior to arrest are necessary for police officer protection and should not require a search warrant.

Chimel v. California (1969)


•  Chimel is convicted.

•  U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and decided that the search became invalid when it went beyond the arrested person’s area of “immediate control.”




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


Burger Court Upholds the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process right…


...need to bear the responsibility of showing that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties.

Burger Court


U.S. v. Leon (1984) •  Leon is placed under

surveillance for drug trafficking.

•  Police obtain a search warrant based on their observation of Leon.

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

• Police search Leon’s homes and discover drugs.

• Leon is convicted of drug trafficking.

U.S. v. Leon (1984)


U.S. v. Leon (1984) •  Federal court overturns the case

based on lack of probable cause.

• State appeals to U.S. Supreme Court.


U.S. v. Leon (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Decision: When law enforcement officers have

acted in objective good faith, the evidence they have collected should be admissible even if later it is found the warrant was invalid.

“good faith exception to

exclusionary rule”


Plain View Doctrine


U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

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.

Harris v. U.S. (1968)


Plain View Situations

Police can use evidence if they observe it during emergencies such as: •  crimes in progress •  fires •  accidents


The plain view doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances.

Plain View Situations


Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Hicks is arrested when police enter his apartment to check a report of a gun being fired.


• Police see two stereo systems in a corner of the room that they believe may be stolen.

• Police write down serial number of first stereo because it is plainly visible.

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)


• Second stereo has to be moved to see serial number.

• Stereos have been reported as stolen.



• Hicks is convicted of robbery based on the seized stereos.

• Hicks appeals his conviction.



Supreme Court Decision: overturned conviction

Justification:

Officer’s behavior became illegal when he moved the stereo to record serial number.



Persons have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which means that officers lacking a search warrant…



… even when invited into the residence, must act more like guests than inquisitors.



Emergency Searches of Property

Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless searches. •  Clear dangers to life.

•  Clear dangers of escape. •  Clear dangers of removal

or destruction of evidence.


Search and Seizure Arrest


•  Terry was believed to be “casing” a store for a robbery.

• A police veteran of 39 years conducted a “pat-down”search of Terry.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Stop and Frisk

Landmark Case


Stop and Frisk

Landmark Case

•  The officer testified that the “man did not look right.”

•  A gun was found on Terry.



Terry v. Ohio (1968) • Terry was convicted of

carrying a concealed weapon.

• Terry appealed based on fact that the officer had no probable cause to search.


U.S. Supreme Court Decision: appeal rejected

Stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion, 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.”



Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) •  Timothy Dickerson was seen leaving a

building known for trafficking cocaine. •  Minneapolis police stopped Dickerson after

they observed him acting suspiciously. •  A pat-down search revealed no weapons,

but it did reveal a small lump in his jacket. •  Police suspected the lump was cocaine. •  Officer retrieved a lump of crack cocaine.


Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) “The officer never thought the lump was a weapon, but did not immediately recognize it as cocaine.” The lump was determined to be cocaine only after the officer squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the pocket’s contents.


The court took the position that the police went far beyond Terry v. Ohio.

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)


Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

decision overturned Justification:

“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.”


Smith v. Ohio (1990) •  Smith was approached by two

plain clothes officers who asked Smith to “come here a minute.”

•  Smith kept walking until the police identified themselves.

•  Smith put a paper bag he was carrying on the hood of his car to keep it from the police.


• The police inspected the bag and found marijuana and arrested Smith for possession.

• Smith was convicted. • Smith appealed.

Smith v. Ohio (1990)


U.S. Supreme Court: overturned conviction

Justification: An individual has the right to protect his belongings from

an unwarranted search, because, in this case, there was little reason to stop the suspect and because control over the

bag was not thought necessary for the officer’s protection.

Smith v. Ohio (1990)


Carroll v. U.S. (1925) • The first U.S. Supreme Court

case to involve an automobile.

• U.S. Supreme Court ruled a warrantless search of an automobile is valid if based on a reasonable belief that contraband is present.


Intelligence Function

Police need to gather information through many sources. •  informants •  police interrogation


In the case of informants, there is a two-pronged test that can be used to establish probable cause.



• The source of the informant’s information is made clear.

• The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable.



interrogation - Any behaviors “that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”



Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) •  Danny Escobedo is arrested, without

a warrant, for the murder of his brother-in-law.

•  Danny makes no statements during the initial interrogation and is released.

•  A few weeks later, someone identifies Danny as the murderer.

•  Danny is, again, brought in for interrogation


Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) •  Danny is told they “have him cold.” •  Danny asks to see his lawyer and is

told he cannot since the interrogation is underway.

•  Danny’s lawyer arrives and asks to see his client but is told he has to wait until questioning is complete.

•  Meanwhile, Danny is told that his lawyer does not want to see him.


• Danny confesses to the crime.

• Danny is convicted and appeals his conviction.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)


U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

conviction overturned



Justification: Escobedo is entitled to counsel at police

interrogations to protect his rights, and

counsel should be provided when the defendant desires.



Miranda v Arizona (1966) •  Ernesto Miranda was arrested in

Phoenix, Arizona and was accused of kidnapping and rape.

•  Miranda was identified by the victim. •  Miranda was interrogated for two hours,

signed a confession, and was convicted. •  He appealed his conviction to the U.S.

Supreme Court.


Miranda v Arizona (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

conviction overturned Justification:

“ 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.”


Nontestimonial Evidence •  right to privacy issues

• body cavity searches

• Electronic eavesdropping

• electronic evidence

Unit 02 CJ Police 13 - LPSwp.lps.org/tlarson/files/2013/10/Unit-02-CJ-Police-13.pdfSearch and...

Documents

Transcript of Unit 02 CJ Police 13 - LPSwp.lps.org/tlarson/files/2013/10/Unit-02-CJ-Police-13.pdfSearch and...