Chapters Summary
CHAPTER 5
Police and the Law
Introduction
- Constitution grants and limits police powers
- Constitution gives citizens inalienable rights
- Fourth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Sixth Amendment
- Fourteenth Amendment
Search and Seizure
- Police must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to take action against suspect
- To conduct search, police must either
- Receive permission from property owner
- Obtain search warrant
- Search warrant
- Present affidavit of probable cause to judicial officer
- Totality of the circumstances rule
The Exclusionary Rule
- Prohibits introduction of illegally obtained evidence into a criminal trial
- Weeks v. United States (1914) established rule; applied only to federal officers
- Silver platter doctrine
- Mapp v. Ohio (1961) extended exclusionary rule to states
Exclusionary Rule Exceptions
- Inevitable discovery rule
- Evidence obtained illegally but that would have eventually been discovered during lawful investigation is admissible
- Good faith exception
- Illegally obtained evidence admissible if police had good reason to believe actions were legal
- Knock-and-announce rule
“One Arm’s Length” Rule
- Chimel v. California (1969)
- Upon arrest, police may search the suspect and the immediate area occupied by the suspect
- New York v. Belton (1981) applied Chimel rule to automobile searches
Stop and Frisk
- Terry v. Ohio (1968)
- Legal stop must be based on officer’s reasonable suspicion
- Officer may frisk only if officer has reasonable fear for own safety or that of others
- Does not apply in all cases; officer must establish reasonable suspicion first
- Reasonable suspicion established by totality of circumstances
Motor Vehicle Searches
- Carroll doctrine: warrantless searches of vehicles allowed if police have probable cause for assuming vehicle involved in illegal activities
- Series of Supreme Court cases have established how exhaustive a vehicle search may be
Vehicle Search Cases
- United States v. Ross (1982)
- California v. Acevedo (1991)
- Illinois v. Caballes (2005)
- Delaware v. Prouse (1976)
- Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990)
Plain View Doctrine
- Established in Harris v. United States (1968)
- Police may seize evidence if it is inadvertently discovered in a place where police have a legal right to be
Open Field Searches
- Commonly used by law enforcement in searches for drug grows and manufacturing in pastures and agricultural fields
- Court ruled that open field searches were legal
- Hester v. United States (1924)
- Oliver v. United States (1984)
- Florida v. Riley (1989)
Consent Searches
- Warrantless search legal when consent is given voluntarily by someone with authority to give consent
- Florida v. Bostick (1991): police may board buses, trains, and planes and ask passengers to consent to being searched, without a warrant or probable cause
- Georgia v. Randolph (2006)
- Police may not enter a home to conduct a search if one resident gives permission but the other does not
- Exception: evidence of abuse or other circumstances requiring immediate entry
Abandoned Property
- Court consistently held that police can conduct warrantless searches of abandoned property
- California v. Greenwood: garbage left in public place has no reasonable expectation of privacy
Border Searches
- United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)
- Police do not need probable cause to stop cars and question passengers at fixed checkpoints
- Purpose is to seize illegal drugs and control illegal immigration
Electronic Surveillance
- Olmstead v. United States (1928): electronic eavesdropping does not violate constitutional rights
- Federal Communications Act of 1934: no person not authorized by the sender shall intercept any communications
- Katz v. United States (1967): Fourth Amendment protects privacy regardless of place of offense
- Kyllo v. United States (2001): government electronic surveillance is an unreasonable search and requires a warrant
Arrest
- When police establish probable cause or directly observe a crime, they can make an arrest
- Arrest occurs when police physically take a suspect into custody based on the belief that the suspect has committed a crime
Arrest Warrant
- Written order instructing police to arrest specific person for specific crime
- Granted if police can demonstrate probable cause
- Faulty arrest warrant can create issues of legal liability
Police Liability
- Affidavit must establish probable cause
- Good faith defense (United States v. Leon): officer must prove
- Officer believed in good faith that actions were lawful
- Officer believed legality of conduct was reasonable
Judicial Liability
- Judicial officers have absolute immunity from criminal and civil prosecution
- Judicial officers must rely on information given to them
- Defendant cannot file civil suit against a judge who issues a search warrant when no probable cause exists
Warrantless Arrests
- Police may make warrantless arrests if:
- Observe a felony in progress
- Have knowledge that a felony has been committed and probable cause to believe it was committed by a particular suspect
- Law of jurisdiction permits police to arrest without a warrant
- In-presence requirement: police cannot make warrantless misdemeanor arrests unless crime committed in officer’s presence
- Police do not need to delay an arrest because they lack a warrant
Miranda Warning
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966): police must inform accused of certain constitutional rights
- Legal triggers
- Person in physical custody
- Interrogation
- Police may not use interrogation procedures that intimidate the suspect
Cases Affecting Miranda
- Brewer v. Williams (1977)
- Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
- New York v. Quarles (1984)
- Arizona v. Roberson (1988)
- Berghois v. Tompkins (2010)
Booking
- Process of officially recording
- Name of the person arrested
- Place and time of the arrest
- Reason for the arrest
- Name of the arresting authority
- Other information collected
- Photographs and fingerprints
- Handwriting, voice, blood samples
- Once booked, suspect held in police custody until initial appearance before judicial officer
Line-Ups
- Pretrial identification procedure
- Several people are shown to a victim or a witness of a crime
- Person is asked whether anyone in the line-up committed the crime
- Police cannot suggest that one of the people in the line-up is the suspect
Interrogation and Confessions
- Interrogation
- Stage in the pretrial process where police ask suspects questions to obtain information that might not otherwise be willingly disclosed
- Confession
- Voluntary declaration to another person by someone who has committed a crime in which he or she admits to involvement in the offense
- Confession cannot be precipitated by promise, threat, fear, or torture
What is a Coerced Confession?
- Long delays coupled with constant interrogation was form of psychological torture
- Coercion can be mental or physical
- Courts determine admissibility of confessions by examining totality of circumstances
Can Delay Constitute Coercion?
- McNabb v. United States (1943): no unnecessary delay between arrest and arraignment
- Mallory v. United States (1957): broadened McNabb
- Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968)
- Abolished McNabb-Mallory rule
- Admissibility of a confession based on voluntary nature of confession
- Delay in arraignment one factor in determining whether confession was “voluntary”
Do Suspects Have a Right to Counsel During Interrogation?
- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): any person charged with a felony has the right to counsel
- Argersinger v. Hamlin: accused has right to counsel in misdemeanor cases if facing possibility of incarceration
- Escobedo v. Illinois (1964): felony suspects may request that attorney be present during police interrogation