Chapter 6: Police and Law

Learning Objectives Know the extent of police officers’ authority to stop people and to conduct searches of people, their vehicles, and other property Recognize how police officers seek warrants in order to conduct searches and make arrests Identify situations in which police officers can examine property and conduct searches without obtaining a warrant Analyze the purpose of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination

Learning objectives Understand the exclusionary rule and situations in which it applies Analyze the problems of police abuse and corruption Recognize the problems of police misbehavior and the mechanisms used to hold police accountable when they violate laws and policies

Arizona v. Grant In 2009 Arizona police arrested Rodeny Grant who had just parked his car at his house, exited his vehicle and locked the door. After arrest, the police searched his car without warrant. Grant’s attorney moved to suppress any evidence found as the police had no warrant. The Supreme Court upheld the suppression of the evidence. Why do you think the court suppressed the evidence? Were they right or wrong?

Legal Limits on Police Investigations The Bill of Rights is the foundation of American liberty The most important in interactions between the police and public are the 4th and 5th, during trial the 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments

The Fourth Amendment Restricts the powers of police when interacting with citizens Bans ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ The Supreme Court defines: Search: An intrusion on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy

Plain View Doctrine Officers may examine and use as evidence, without a warrant, contraband or evidence that is in open view at a location where they are legally permitted to be

Seizures Situations in which police officers use their authority to deprive people of their liberty or property and which must not be “unreasonable” according to the Fourth Amendment One form of seizure is an arrest, which involves taking a suspect into custody Property can also be subject to seizure, especially if it is evidence in a criminal case A stop is a brief interference with a person’s freedom of movement for a duration that can be measured in minutes

Reasonable Suspicion A situation in which specific articulable facts lead officers to conclude that the person may be engaging in criminal activity In order to be permissible under the Fourth Amendment, stops must be justified by reasonable suspicion Officers cannot legally make stops based on hunches The courts permit police officers to make many kinds of stops without reasonable suspicion, for example, at border crossing points

Arrest An arrest is a significant deprivation of liberty, because a person is taken into police custody, transported to the police station or jail, and processed into the criminal justice system Because arrests involve a more significant intrusion on liberty, they require a higher level of justification Unlike stops, which require only reasonable suspicion, all arrests must be supported by probable cause

Probable Cause An amount of reliable information indicating that it is more likely than not that evidence will be found in a specific location or that a specific person is guilty of a crime

Use of Force – Deadly Force The police may use force to make an arrest or stop, however the force is regulated Deadly force may not be used unless the suspect poses a significant threat to the life or safety of the officer or another

Tennessee v. Garner In 1974, police officers were chasing an unarmed teenager, Edward Garner, who had just committed a burglary. The police shot and killed Garner as he tried to climb a fence to escape. The Supreme Court banned the use of deadly force after this case, unless the suspect is a danger to the officer or others. Do you think the Court was right? What alternative do you think is better?

The Concept of Arrest To arrest a suspect the police need probable cause – showing it is likely or reasonable that the suspect committed a crime Arrests can be made based on information, observation or warrants Warrants are issued by judges who find that probable cause exists to arrest a suspect.

Warrants No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause Supported by oath or affirmation And particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Video – Discussion Questions What are the primary use of warrants Do you think they are outdated? What rights do they protect? Do they hurt effective law enforcement? What alternatives exist?

Video – How and Why of Warrants

Affidavit Written statement of fact, supported by oath or affirmation, submitted to judicial officers to fulfill the requirements of probable cause for obtaining a warrant

Totality of the Circumstances Created by Supreme Court Illinois v. Gates, 1983 Flexible test for identifying whether probable cause exists to justify a judge’s issuance of a warrant allowing officers to arrest

Warrantless Searches Special needs beyond the normal purposes of law enforcement Stop and frisk on the streets Search incident to a lawful arrest Exigent circumstances Consent Automobile searches

Special Needs Beyond the Normal Purposes of Law Enforcement In certain specific contexts, law enforcement officials have a justified need to conduct warrantless searches of every individual passing through at pre- designated point Examples are metal detectors at airports, searches of luggage chosen at random, sobriety checkpoints, etc. Police do NOT have the power to simply make random stops

Special Needs Beyond the Normal Purposes of Law Enforcement The U.S. Supreme Court has not given blanket approval for every kind of checkpoint or traffic stop that police might wish to use The Court forbids random stops of vehicles by officers on patrol (Delaware v. Prouse, 1979) Officers must have a basis for a vehicle stop, such as an observed violation of traffic laws The Court declared a general search for criminal evidence does not justify the use of a checkpoint Such stops must be narrowly focused on a specific objective, such as checking for drunken drivers

Stop and Frisk Police officers possess the authority to make stops and limited searches of individuals on the streets In the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio (1968) the Court upheld the stop-and-frisk procedure when a police officer had good reasons to conclude that a person endangered the public by being involved in criminal activity Police officers are entitled to protect themselves and others in the area by conducting a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault the officer

Prejudice? – Stop and Frisk In NYC stop and frisks increased 600% from 2002 to 2012 – 97,000 to 685,000. 87% of those stopped and frisked were Black or Hispanic Are the police targeting minorities? Or should they expand their practice to Whites and Asians? Is stop and frisk getting out of hand? Or is it a valuable tool?

Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest The authority to undertake a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is not limited by the crime for which the arrestee has been taken into custody The officers must make sure that the arrestee does not have a weapon that could endanger the officers or others in the vicinity The officers must also look for evidence that might be destroyed or damaged by the arrestee before or during the process of transporting the arrestee to jail Officers can search the arrestee and the immediate area around the arrestee

Exigent Circumstances Applies when officers are in the middle of an urgent situation in which they must act swiftly and do not have time to go to court to seek a warrant For example, when officers are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspected felon Can justify the warrantless entry into a home or other building and an accompanying search that flows from the officers’ response to the urgent situation

Consent If people consent to a search, officers do not need probable cause or even any level of suspicion to justify the search Consent effectively absolves law enforcement officers of any risk that evidence will be excluded from use at trial or that they will be found liable in a civil lawsuit alleging a violation of Fourth Amendment rights Consent searches provide a valuable investigatory tool for officers who wish to conduct warrantless searches

Permissible Consent Searches The consent must voluntary The consent must be given by someone who possesses authority to give consent and thereby waive the right The police may not search when one resident of a dwelling is present and objects, even if another resident consents to the search of the house

Automobile Searches Because cars are mobile, they differ greatly from houses and other buildings Police officers have significant authority to search automobiles and to issue commands to people riding in vehicles Officers can order passengers as well as the driver to exit the vehicle, even if there is no basis for suspicion that the passengers engaged in any wrongdoing

Myth or Reality? Under the Fourth Amendment’s requirements for searches, only judges make determinations of ‘probable cause’ and they do so in order to decide whether to issue a search warrant Fact: The officers themselves, rather than a judge, determine whether probable cause exists before conducting the warrantless search of the vehicle If a judge later disagrees with an officer’s conclusion about the existence of probable cause, any evidence found in the search of the automobile might be excluded from use at trial

Questioning Suspects The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination should not be viewed as simply a legal protection that seeks to assist individuals who may be guilty of crimes The Fifth Amendment discourages police officers from using violent or otherwise coercive means to push suspects to confess

Miranda Rules The 1966 decision by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona said that as soon as the investigation of a crime begins to focus on a particular suspect and he or she is taken into custody, the so-called Miranda warnings must be read aloud before questioning can begin

Miranda requires that suspects must be told four things: They have the right to remain silent If they decide to make a statement, it can and will be used against them in court They have the right to have an attorney present during interrogation or to have an opportunity to consult with an attorney If they cannot afford an attorney, the state will provide one

Miranda Rules The Miranda warnings only apply to what are called custodial interrogations If police officers walk up to someone on the streets and begin asking questions, there is no need to inform the person of his rights

Limits on Miranda Since the 1980s the Courts have steadily limited the impact of Miranda In Berghuis v. Thompkins a suspect who remained silent was NOT said to be exercising his rights, he had to affirmatively state he wished to remain silent Public Safety Exception If general public in immediate danger police need not give Miranda warnings before questioning

The Exclusionary Rule The principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial The  exclusionary rule does not necessarily require that cases against defendants be dismissed when constitutional rights have been violated The prosecution can continue, but it may not use improperly obtained evidence

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Good Faith Exception The officers acted with the honest belief that they were following the proper rules, but the judge issued the warrant improperly Inevitable Discovery Rule Supreme Court ruling that improperly obtained evidence can be used when it would later have been inevitably discovered by the police