Chapters Summary

profilePoliPoli26
Chapter5Slides.ppt
Home>Law homework help>Criminal homework help>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