Criminology

CHAPTER 6: POLICE AND THE

RULE OF LAW

1

THE IMPORTANCE OF JUSTICE, LAW, AND ORDER

• Rule of law: fundamental principle of the CJS.

• Based on the belief that all government

officers pledge to uphold and follow the

Constitution.

• Law enforcement

must follow the rule of law to maintain

legitimacy and trust.

2

THE IMPORTANCE OF JUSTICE, LAW, AND ORDER

• Where did it start?

• In early 1900s, the U.S. Supreme Court began to establish rules concerning individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

• Weeks v. United States (1914): Court unanimously ruled that

repeated warrantless search of Weeks’ home and seizure of private possessions violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

• Set the precedent for future court decisions by ruling that warrantless seizure of property from a private home is a violation of Fourth

Amendment.

3

POLICE AND THE COURTS

• Due process: Rules designed to protect private rights found in

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

• Fifth Amendment: Guarantees federal due process.

• Fourteenth Amendment: Guarantees state due process.

• Procedural due process is applicable to arrest and trial

procedures.

• Place limits on police powers.

• Guarantees against:

• Double jeopardy, ensures proper arrest procedures, the right to remain silent,

right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizures, and the right to an

attorney.

4

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITIES – Probable cause

Probable Cause

• Probable cause: Standard established by criminal law to make an arrest, obtain a warrant, or conduct a search.

• “Circumstances sufficiently strong” à leads to probably true.

• Due process rights related to search and seizure are based on a body of rulings.

• Focus on arrests, warrants, and searches, and addresses many important interrelated concepts.

• Examples: visible drugs in a person’s car, a baby left in a car unattended

5

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITES - Reasonable suspicion Reasonable Suspicion

• Reasonable suspicion: Like probable cause, is an objective measure, but based on minimal

or no evidence.

• Terry v. Ohio (1968): ruled that an officer might stop and frisk a person based on reasonable suspicion.

• Stop and frisk are also known as “Terry Stops”

• Think: what does reasonable suspicion look like to you?

• Sibron v. New York (1968): ruled that mere observation of Sibron without hearing any of his conversations with the addicts failed to provide probable cause for a

warrantless search. 6

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITIES – Reasonable suspicion

Reasonable Suspicion

• Peters v. New York (1968): officer gave chase to the

suspect after observing him sneaking around an

apartment building, officer patted down the suspect

and found burglary tools, and the court upheld the

legality of stop and frisk.

7

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITES – Stop and frisk

Stop and Frisk

• Adams v. Williams (1972): ruled reasonable cause for a stop and

frisk may be based on information supplied by another person,

such as a police informant.

• What is stop and frisk? Again, it is oftentimes referred to as a “Terry stop”

• Procedure allows police to detain and search a person when the officer

reasonably suspects that a crime HAS BEEN or WILL BE committed.

• Alabama v. White (1995): court decided an anonymous tip to

police provided reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop.

8

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITES – Stop and frisk

9

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITIES - Searches

Searches

• Mapp v. Ohio (1961) found evidence obtained in the

midst of unreasonable search and seizure may not be

used in criminal prosecution in state courts.

10

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITIES – Exclusionary rules

Exclusionary Rules

• United States v. Leon (1984): found the need for a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

1. Inevitable discovery: The police with or without a warrant would have discovered the evidence and therefore, it could be admissible in court.

• “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine: Any evidence obtained during an illegal search would be disallowed at trial. • Modified Mapp decision and now allowed for an inevitable discovery rule and good

faith exceptions

11

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITIES – Exclusionary rules

Exclusionary Rules

• United States v. Leon (1984): found the need for a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

1. Inevitable discovery: The police with or without a warrant would have discovered the evidence and therefore, it could be admissible in court. 1. Example? John Wayne Gacy: map of

buried bodies underneath his house.

12

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITIES – Exclusionary rule

Exclusionary Rule

“Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine: Extension to the

exclusionary doctrine. Any evidence obtained during an

illegal search would be disallowed at trial. • Modified Mapp v. Ohio decision and now allowed for an inevitable

discovery rule and good faith exceptions.

13

DUE PROCESS AND POLICE ACTIVITIES – Seizures Seizures

• Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches/seizures of either

person or property.

Privacy

• Privacy: citizens are afforded a reasonable expectation to privacy in their homes and in certain public places

• Katz v. United States (1967): Searches are anything that violate privacy.

• California v. Greenwood (1988): Ruled that no warrant was necessary to search trash.

TECHNOLOGY • Changed law enforcement tactics and made the ability to

monitor activities and behaviors easier.

• First revolution that altered the way the police were organized:

• Telephone, two-way radio, and the car.

Current revolutions include:

• Record management systems, automated fingerprint

identification system, computer assisted dispatch, less than

lethal force technologies, gunshot location technology, and

many more.

• Body cameras, which are popular with the public. 15

TECHNOLOGY - Surveillance

Surveillance

• Essential to criminal investigations and may be

conducted through computers, satellites, and mobile phones.

• Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (1994) allows federal agencies to more easily

monitor phone calls and Internet messages.

• Currently, courts are still struggling over the

question of monitoring cellphones and whether or not a warrant is needed in nonemergency

situations.

16

TECHNOLOGY - Surveillance

Surveillance

• U.S. Supreme Court has yet to hear a case dealing with

cellphones, though in 2012, they ruled a search warrant is

needed to install a GPS tracking device on private property such

as a vehicle.

• Kyllo v. United States (2001): Use of thermal imaging requires a

warrant.

17

TECHNOLOGY – Canine searches

Canine Searches

• Supreme Court is tasked with determining limits of search

and seizures with police dogs.

• In most cases, the court has determined canine sniffs are

allowed under the Fourth Amendment.

• In 2013, Supreme Court’s decision limited the use of dog sniffs

outside a home for illegal drugs.

18

WARRANT REQUIREMENTS &

SERVING WARRANTS

19

• Warrants: Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before police can conduct a search, with some exceptions.

• Key to obtaining a warrant is probable cause.

• Most search warrants are executed during the day and require the police to identify themselves.

• Knock-and-announce warrants commonly used.

• No-knock warrants allow officers to enter the house forcibly without identifying themselves as law enforcement.

WARRANT REQUIREMENTS & SERVING WARRANTS - Exceptions

Exceptions to Warrants

1. Consent: agreement must be made without coercion such as a threat to arrest. • Ex. A verbal consent to an officer.

2. Plain view: allows police to seize illegal materials or evidence without a warrant, if an officer enters a house and sees illegal contraband on the table. • Ex. Cocaine found on a kitchen counter, even though the officer was there for a

domestic violence call.

3. Exigent circumstances: emergency circumstances are narrowly defined by the Court. • Ex. Escape, harm to officer or others, and destruction of evidence.

20

WARRANT REQUIREMENTS & SERVING WARRANTS - Exceptions

Exceptions to Warrants

4. Incident to a lawful arrest: allows law enforcement to search any person without a warrant once a person is lawfully arrested. • Ex. Arrested for domestic violence, but searched for drugs.

5. Automobiles: should police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, fruits of a crime, evidence and/or instrumentalities of a crime, the vehicle can be searched. • Ex. Human trafficking.

21

WARRANT REQUIREMENTS & SERVING WARRANTS - Exceptions

Exceptions to Warrants 6. Regulatory searches: by government officials such as health

inspections of restaurants, vehicles crossing borders, airport screenings, and fire inspections.

• Ex. TSA checks before flight.

7. **Suspicionless search: Based on place and reasonable potential of wrongdoing.

• This is specific to a place like an airport, school, international boarder

8. **Emergency doctrine: If danger or destruction of evidence is

imminent. • This is specific to evidence that might be destroyed.

22

WARRANT REQUIREMENTS & SERVING WARRANTS - Arrests

• Arrest: someone is under arrest when a reasonable person believes she/he is not free to leave.

• Courts are still unclear if the words “you are under

arrest” are necessary and sufficient.

• A lawful arrest entails taking a person into legal custody either under a valid warrant or based on probable cause the person committed the crime.

23

WARRANT REQUIREMENTS & SERVING WARRANTS - Mirandized

Being informed of rights: Mirandized

• Miranda v. Arizona (1966):

• Establishment of guidelines that must be followed when informing a suspect of her or his rights.

• Exceptions to Miranda:

• Harris v. New York (1971).

• Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010).

24

CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION

• Right to counsel:

• The third degree (1930s).

• Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel during

questioning.

• Escobedo v. Illinois (1964): ruled the Escobedo’s Sixth

Amendment right to counsel was violated by police when he

was refused access to an attorney.

25