Newspaper Article Reivew- 1 page

budsimpson

Schmalleger-CJ-Brief-lecture-ch05.pptx

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Newspaper Article Reivew- 1 page

Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction

Twelfth Edition

Chapter 5

Policing: Legal Aspects

The Abuse of Police Power

Police involvement in the deaths of Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown are examples of abuse of police power

The beating of Rodney King by LAPD officers was the most widely discussed abuse of police power prior to these events

No one is above the law, not even the police

A Changing Legal Climate

The Bill of Rights is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power

In the 1960s, the Warren Court focused on guaranteeing individual rights during criminal prosecution

More recently, a new conservative Court philosophy has reversed some Warren-era advances

Table 5–1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice (1 of 2)

This Right Is Guaranteed	By This Amendment
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures	Fourth
The right against arrest without probable cause	Fourth
The right against self-incrimination	Fifth
The right against “double jeopardy”	Fifth
The right to due process of law	Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
The right to a speedy trial	Sixth
The right to a jury trial	Sixth
The right to know the charges	Sixth
The right to cross-examine witnesses	Sixth
The right to a lawyer	Sixth

Note: The Fourteenth Amendment is not a part of the Bill of Rights.

Table 5–1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice (2 of 2)

This Right Is Guaranteed	By This Amendment
The right to compel witnesses on one’s behalf	Sixth
The right to reasonable bail	Eighth
The right against excessive fines	Eighth
The right against cruel and unusual punishments	Eighth
The applicability of constitutional rights to all citizens, regardless of state law or procedure	Fourteenth

Note: The Fourteenth Amendment is not a part of the Bill of Rights.

Checks and Balances

The Constitution provides for checks and balances among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches

One branch always held accountable to other branches

Ensures no individual or agency can become too powerful

People who feel their rights were violated can appeal to courts for redress

Due-Process Requirements

Due process required by 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments

Areas relevant to police:

Evidence/investigation (search and seizure)

Arrest

Interrogation

Landmark cases produce major changes in justice system operations

Search and Seizure (1 of 2)

Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

Exclusionary Rule

Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial

Acts as a control over police behavior

Weeks v. U.S. only applied exclusionary rule to federal officers

Search and Seizure (2 of 2)

Writ of Certiorari

A writ issued from an appellate court for the purpose of obtaining the lower court's records of a particular case

A mechanism for discretionary review

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

Evidence developed as a result of illegal search and seizure is excluded from trial

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920)

Searches Incident to Arrest (1 of 2)

Chimel v. California (1969)

Search limited to area in suspect's immediate control

Minnesota v. Olson (1990)

Extended protection against warrantless searches to overnight guests in the name of another

Searches Incident to Arrest (2 of 2)

Minnesota v. Carter (1998)

Reasonable expectation of privacy

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

Officers may not conduct a warrantless search if one resident gives permission, but the other refuses

Bailey v. U.S. (2013)

Limited the power of the police to detain people who are away from home while police search their residence

The Warren Court (1953-1969)

Before the 1960s, the U. S. Supreme Court rarely intruded into the overall operations of the criminal justice system

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Applied exclusionary rule to the states

Started the Warren Court on a course that would guarantee recognition of individual rights.

The Burger Court (1969-1986)

Court distanced itself from earlier decisions of Warren Court

Decisions supportive of a "greater good era" – emphasis on social order and communal safety

Criminal defendants had most of the responsibility of demonstrating that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties

The Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)

Strong swing toward conservatism

Renewed concern with protecting the interests of those living within the law

Court invoked a characteristically conservative approach to important criminal justice issues

Broadened police powers

Limited opportunities for appeals by offenders

The Roberts Court (2005-Today)

Court known for conservative nature, although many opinions closely divided

Court has been eroding the exclusionary rule

Herring v. U.S. (2009): Exclusionary rule may only be used if there is an intentional or reckless violation of Fourth Amendment rights or systematic police violations with regard to searches and seizures

Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

Good-faith exception

U.S. v. Leon, Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984)

Evidence seized on the basis of good faith, but later shown to be a mistake, may still use the seized evidence in court

Probable cause

A set of facts that would induce a reason person to believe that a crime was committed

The Plain View Doctrine

Officers may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant

Key cases

Harris v. U.S. (1968)

U.S. v. Irizarry (1982)

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

Horton v. California (1990)

Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry (1 of 2)

Warrantless searches are justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need

Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless action

Clear danger to life

Clear danger of escape

Clear danger of the removal or destruction of evidence

Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry (2 of 2)

Key cases

Warden v. Hayden (1967)

Maryland v. Buie (1990)

Wilson v. Arkansas (1995)

Richards v. Wisconsin (1997)

Illinois v. McArthur (2001)

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

Kentucky v. King (2011)

Anticipatory Warrants

Anticipatory warrant

Search warrant issued on the basis or probable cause to believe that evidence, while not currently at the place described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed

U.S. v. Grubbs (2006) affirmed the constitutionality of anticipatory warrants

Detention and Arrest

Arrest occurs when a law enforcement officer restricts a person's freedom to leave

Cases

U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)

Stansbury v. California (1994)

Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004)

Muehler v. Mena (2005)

Rodriguez v. U.S. (2015)

Searches Incident to Arrest (1 of 2)

A warrantless search of an arrested individual to ensure the safety of the officer

Cases

U.S. v. Robinson (1973)

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Searches Incident to Arrest (2 of 2)

Reasonable Suspicion

Would justify an officer in making further inquiry or in conducting further investigation

Searches Incident to Arrest - Cases

U.S. v. Sokolow (1989)

U.S. v. Arvizu (2002)

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

Brown v. Texas (1979)

Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004)

Smith v. Ohio (1990)

California v. Hodari D. (1991)

Emergency Searches of Persons

FBI guidelines for conducting searches

Probable cause at the time of the search to believe that evidence was concealed.

Probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed.

No prior opportunity to obtain a warrant.

Action was no greater than necessary.

Emergency Searches of Persons - Cases

Arkansas v. Sanders (1979)

U.S. v. Borchardt (1987)

Vehicle Searches - Cases

Carroll v. U.S. (1925)

Preston v. U.S. (1964)

Arizona v. Gant (2009)

South Dakota v. Opperman (1976)

Colorado v. Bertine (1987)

Florida v. Wells (1990)

Ornelas v. U.S. (1996)

Vehicle Searches

Fleeting-targets exception

Exception to the exclusionary rule that permits police to search a motor vehicle based on probable cause but without a warrant

Justified by the fact that vehicles are highly mobile and can leave police jurisdiction quickly

Roadblocks and Motor Vehicle Checkpoints

Community interests may require a temporary suspension of personal liberty even if probable cause is lacking

Highway sobriety check points legal if essential to community welfare

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)

Information-seeking highway roadblocks permissible

Illinois v. Lidster (2004)

Watercraft and Motor Homes

U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez (1983)

Police may conduct warrantless searches of watercraft

California v. Carney (1985)

Police may conduct warrantless searches of motor homes

U.S. v. Hill (1988)

Police may conduct warrantless searches of houseboats

Suspicionless Searches

The need to ensure public safety may provide compelling interest to justify limiting the right to privacy

Suspicionless search

A warrantless search conducted when a person is not suspected of a crime

High-Technology Searches

Use of high technology to discover and investigate crimes is forcing courts to evaluate applicability of constitutional protections to high-tech searches and seizures

Court generally holds that high-tech searches may violate reasonable expectations of privacy

Informants

The use of informant information to establish probable cause

Aguilar v. Texas (1964) – two pronged test

Illinois v. Gates (1983) – totality of the circumstances approach

Police Interrogation (1 of 2)

Interrogation

The information-gathering activity of police that involves direct questioning of suspects

Not limited to verbal questioning

Physical abuse

Brown v. Mississippi (1936): Physical abuse cannot be used during interrogation

Police Interrogation (2 of 2)

Inherent coercion

Tactics used by police interviewers that fall short of physical abuse but pressure the suspect to talk

Non-physical coercion, hostility, pressure to force a confession

Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944): Interrogation involving inherent coercion is not acceptable

Psychological Manipulation

Manipulative actions by police interviewers, designed to pressure suspects to divulge information, that are based on subtle forms of intimidation and control

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991): Interrogation may not involve sophisticated trickery or manipulation

The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation – Cases

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Edwards v. Arizona (1981)

Michigan v. Jackson (1986)

Minnick v. Mississippi (1990)

Arizona v. Roberson (1988)

Davis v. U.S. (1994)

Montejo v. Louisiana (2009)

Maryland v. Shatzer (2010)

Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Suspects must be advised of their rights prior to any questioning

Miranda warnings

Rights extended to illegal immigrants living in the U.S.

Waiver of Miranda Rights by Suspects

Suspects may waive their Miranda rights through a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver

Knowing waiver

Suspect must be advised of rights, must be in a condition to understand them

Intelligent waiver

Suspect must understand the consequences of not invoking rights

Inevitable-Discovery Exception to Miranda

Evidence gathered inappropriately can be used in court if it would invariably turned up in the normal course of events

Brewer v. Williams (1977)

Nix v. Williams (1984)

Public-Safety Exception to Miranda

Considerations of public safety override Miranda requirement in order to prevent further harm

New York v. Quarles (1984)

Miranda and the Meaning of Interrogation

Interrogation within the meaning of Miranda does not begin until the individual is not in custody and probable cause is lacking in the investigator's mind

Rock v. Zimmerman (1982)

Miranda Triggers

The dual principles of custody and interrogation

Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence (1 of 2)

Nontestimonial evidence

Generally physical evidence

Special category includes personal items within or part of a person's body

Gathering of very personal nontestimonial evidence complicates the issue of constitutional protections

Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence (2 of 2)

Right to privacy

The courts have placed limits on seizures of personal nontestimonial evidence

Hayes v. Florida, Winston v. Lee (1985)

Body-cavity searches

Very problematic for police

U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)

Electronic Eavesdropping

Warrant required to unveil what a person is trying to keep private, even in a public place (phone booth, etc.)

Minimization requirement for electronic surveillance

Officers must make all reasonable efforts to monitor only those conversations specifically related to the criminal activity under investigation

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986

Established the due-process requirements police must meet to legally intercept wire communications

Wiretaps and bugs

Pen registers recording numbers dialed from a telephone

Tracing devices that determine the number from which a call emanates

The Telecommunications Act of 1996

Title V made it a federal offense for anyone engaged in interstate or international communications to engage in communications that are obscene, lewd, indecent, etc. with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person

Communications Decency Act

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

Made it easier for police to intercept many forms of electronic communications

PATRIOT II extended or made permanent a number of provisions, including roving wiretap provision

President Obama extended several provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that would have otherwise expired.

Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA)

Designed to improve cybersecurity in the U.S. by facilitating information sharing about cybersecurity threats

Allows for easy sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies

Critics say it facilitates mass surveillance of private communications

Electronic and Latent Evidence

Special characteristics of electronic evidence

Latent

Transcends national/state borders

Fragile

Time-sensitive

Police must take special precautions when documenting, collecting, preserving electronic evidence