CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 8E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. 1...

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 8E PRENTICE HALL

By Frank Schmalleger ©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. 1

Policing: Legal Aspects

CHAPTER

7



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

Changing Legal Climate



1960’s

The U.S. Supreme Court clarified individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.

Changing Legal Climate



Due Process

Required by 4th, 5th, 6th, & 14th Constitutional Amendments

Individual Rights



People are to be secure in their homes.

People are to be protected against unreasonable searches and

seizures.

Search and Seizure



The Exclusionary Rule



Weeks was suspected of selling lottery tickets through the mail.

His home was searched. His personal property was

confiscated.

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

Exclusionary Rule



Weeks’ attorney asked that personal property be returned.

Federal judge agreed that some of Weeks’ property should be

returned.


Exclusionary Rule



Weeks was convicted on the remaining evidence.

He appealed.


Exclusionary Rule



Supreme Court Decision: If some of Weeks’ property had

been seized illegally, then the remainder of the property had also been seized illegally.

This case established the exclusionary rule.


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



Silverthorne was accused of not paying taxes.

Federal agents wanted the company books.

Silverthorne refused to turn over books.

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)

Fruits of Poisoned Tree



Feds seized the books without a warrant.

Silverthorne asked for books to be returned.

The prosecutor returned the books.





Before the prosecutor returned the papers, he made copies.

Silverthorne was convicted.





The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction.

It ruled that because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a

trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure.





Rabinowitz was arrested on a federal warrant for selling altered postage stamps to defraud

collectors.

The officers did not have a search warrant.

U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)



Officers searched the office including the desk, a file cabinet, and a safe, finding 573 altered stamps




Rabinowitz was convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court decided

that the search was constitutional.




The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but it protects people, not places.

A limited area search following arrest may be acceptable.




Supreme Court Chief Justices

William Rehnquist 1986-present Warren Berger 1969-1986

Earl Warren 1953-1969



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 through Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Warren Court



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 v. Ohio (1961)



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

Police retrieved the “warrant” and searched her house.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)



Police found pornographic material in the house.

The bombing suspect was not found.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)



Mapp was convicted of possession of pornographic material.

No search warrant was produced at her trial.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)



U.S. Supreme Court decided: 14th Amendment due process applies 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 is convicted of burglarizing a coin shop based on evidence gathered at his

arrest.

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

Police searched his whole house, including the garage, attic, and small workshop.

Chimel v. California (1969)



Police realized the search might be contested.

Police felt they could justify the search as part of the arrest process since searches prior to

arrest are often necessary for officer protection.




U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and decided that the search became invalid when it went beyond Chimel’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




Search and Seizure: Probable Cause



Adherence to the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process right…

Burger Court



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

Burger Court



Leon was placed under surveillance for drug trafficking.

Police obtained a search warrant based on their observation of Leon.

U.S. v. Leon (1984)



Police searched Leon’s homes and discovered drugs.

Leon was convicted of drug trafficking.

U.S. v. Leon (1984)



Federal court overturned the case based on lack of probable

cause.

State appealed to U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. v. Leon (1984)



U.S. Supreme Court Decision: When law enforcement officers have acted in

good faith, the evidence they collect should be admissible even if later it is found that the warrant they used was invalid.

“good faith exception” to exclusionary rule

U.S. v. Leon (1984)



U.S. Supreme Court held that the good-faith exception applied to warrantless searches supported by state law even where the state statute was later found to violate Fourth Amendment rights.

Illinois v. Krull (1987)



Gail Fisher complained to police that she had been assaulted.

Officers accompanied her to the apartment where she said the assault took place.

Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)



Fisher used her key to open the door to the apartment and admit the police.

Officers arrested Rodriquez, who was found sleeping on the

couch with drugs nearby.




Rodriquez was convicted.

On appeal, Rodriquez argued that Fisher had not lived in the

apartment for over a month and therefore had no legal control over the apartment.




U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

rejected appeal based on fact that police reasonably believed at the time of entry that Fisher had legal access to the apartment.




Plain View Doctrine



Harris’ vehicle is impounded by police.

Police inventory contents of vehicle.

Evidence of a robbery is found.

Harris v. U.S. (1968)



Harris is arrested and convicted.

Harris appeals his conviction.





appeal rejected,

Justification: 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.




Police can use evidence if they observe it during

emergencies such as:

crimes in progress fires accidents

Plain View Situations



The Plain View Doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances.

Plain View Situations



Hicks is arrested when police enter his apartment to check a report of a gun being fired.

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)



Officers see two stereo systems that they believe may be stolen.

They write down the serial number of the first stereo because it is plainly visible.




Second stereo has to be moved to see serial number.

Both stereos have been reported stolen.




Hicks convicted of armed robbery based on the seized stereos.

Hicks appeals his conviction.





conviction overturned,

Justification:Officer’s behavior became illegal when he

moved the stereo to record the serial number.




People 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.




A warrant was issued to search the defendant’s home for stolen jewelry.

Horton v. California (1990)



No jewelry was found, but guns were seized.

Horton was convicted of robbery based, in part, on the seized guns.

Horton appealed, saying that if officers suspected that he had guns, they should have had them listed on the warrant.





rejected appeal,

Justification: Even though inadvertence is a characteristic of

most legitimate plain view seizures, it is not a necessary condition.




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



There was a report that a robber had fled into a home.

Officers searched the residence without a warrant.

Defendant was found and convicted.

Warden v. Hayden (1967)




rejected claim of illegal search,

Justification:“4th Amendment does not require police to

delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.”

Warden v. Hayden (1967)



Search and Seizure: Arrest



“Free-to-Leave” Test

U.S. Supreme Court said:“A person has been ‘seized’ within

the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, …

U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)



“Free-to-Leave” Test

…a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”

U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)



Fleeing Felon Doctrine

Historically, the fleeing felon doctrine dictated the use of force.

Deadly force could be used to apprehend any fleeing felony suspect.

This was so in most states until the 1960’s.

But it’s no longer valid.



Stop and Frisk

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

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

Terry v. Ohio (1968)



Stop and Frisk

A gun was found on Terry.

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




Stop and Frisk

Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.

Terry appealed claiming that the officer had no probable cause to search.





appeal rejected,

Justification:Reasonable suspicion existed for stop and frisk.

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.”




Dickerson was seen leaving a building known for cocaine trafficking.

Minneapolis police stopped Dickerson after they observed him acting suspiciously.

A pat-down search revealed no weapons, but did reveal a small lump in his jacket.

Police suspected the lump was cocaine.

Officers 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 ruled that the search went too far.






Justification:“If an officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s

outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes it immediately apparent…






Justification:…there has been no invasion of the suspect’s

privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons.”




Two police officers stopped Brown and asked for identification.

Brown refused to provide identification and was arrested for failing to properly

identify himself.

Brown was convicted.

Brown appealed claiming an illegal stop.

Brown v. Texas (1979)



Officers testified that Brown was not acting suspiciously, nor did they think he had a weapon.






Justification:Under the circumstances, since there was no

reason to stop Brown, he could not be punished for refusing to identify himself.




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 police.

Smith v. Ohio (1990)



Officers inspected the bag and found marijuana

Smith arrested for drug possession.

He was convicted.

He appealed.






Justification:An individual has the right to protect his belongings

from unwarranted search. In this case, there was little reason to stop the suspect and control over the bag was not thought necessary for the officers’ protection.




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.

Carroll v. U.S. (1925)



Intelligence Function

Police gather information through many sources, including:

informants interrogation



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




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

The police officer has a reasonable belief that the

informant is reliable.




Self- Incrimination and the Right to Counsel



Interrogation:

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



Danny Escobedo is arrested, without a warrant, for the murder of his brother-in-

law.

He makes no statements during an initial interrogation and is released.

A few weeks later, someone identifies him as the murderer.

He is again brought in for questioning.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)



He is told they “have him cold.”

He asks to see his lawyer and is told he cannot since the interrogation is underway.

His lawyer arrives and asks to see his client but is told he has to wait until

questioning is complete.

Escobedo is told that his lawyer does not want to see him.




Escobedo confesses to the crime.

He is convicted and appeals.






Justification:A defendant is entitled to counsel at

police interrogations, and counsel should be provided when the defendant so requests.




Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, and accused of kidnapping and rape.

He was identified by the victim.

He 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)





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.”

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)



The Miranda Warnings

1. You have the right to remain silent.2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and to have a lawyer present while you are being questioned.



The Miranda Warnings

4. If you want a lawyer before or during questioning but cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you at no cost

before any questioning.5. If you answer questions now without a

lawyer here, you still have the rightto stop answering questions at anytime.



Nontestimonial Evidence

right to privacy issues body cavity search electronic eavesdropping electronic evidence



Electronic Evidence

is “information and data of investigative value that is stored in or transmitted by an electronic device

is increasingly important



Electronic Evidence

is latent can transcend national and state

borders quickly and easily is fragile and can easily be altered, damaged, compromised, or destroyed by improper handling or improper examination may be time-sensitive



The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 made it easier for police investigators to intercept many forms of electronic communication.

Electronic Evidence

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 8E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. 1...

Documents

Transcript of CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 8E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. 1...