Two police officers applied for a warrant to search the defendant‘s home for narcotics. Their affidavit recited that: “Affiants have received reliable information from a credible person and do believe that heroin, marijuana, barbiturates and other narcotics and narcotic paraphernalia are being kept at the above described premises for the purpose of sale and use contrary to the provisions of law.” The search warrant was issued and narcotics were found.

The affidavit did not provide facts on which probable cause could be based. The evidence was tossed out! The judge must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances on which the informant based conclusions and some of the underlying circumstances from which an officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, was credible or that his information was reliable.

In the early morning hours in a high crime neighborhood, a reliable informant told a police officer that the defendant was seated in a nearby car and possessed narcotics and a weapon. The officer approached the car and asked the defendant to get out. The defendant rolled down the window instead. When he did so, the officer reached into the car and removed the gun from the defendant‘s waistband, although he couldn’t see it.

In layman’s terms, how will you define Probable Cause for a jury. A reasonable person would believe: –that a crime has been committed –that the person to be arrested has committed that crime

Absolute Certainty Probable Cause (Articulable) Reasonable Suspicion Possibility / Hunch Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Test for Probable Cause The focus in determining probable cause is not on the certainty that a crime was committed, but on the likelihood of it. Don’t have to be RIGHT; but, you do have to be REASONABLE

 How many times the C.I. has provided reliable info  Did they see the contraband, and when?  Tell a story that includes P.C. involving the C.I.  If the C.I. is not reliable – you must show they are supervised and through what methods

The police received a tip from an anonymous caller, who reported that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. Officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, the defendant, was wearing a plaid shirt. The officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct other than the anonymous report. One officer frisked the defendant and seized a gun from his pocket. The officers arrested the defendant.

An officer cannot base reasonable suspicion on an anonymous tip alone. The officer must be able to particularly articulate something about the suspect to individualize the suspicion. What could the officers have done differently?

 INFORMATION GENERATED FROM CITIZEN COMPLAINTS  INFORMANT INFORMATION  INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHER OFFICERS OR AGENCES  “SPIN OFFS” FROM OTHER CASES  DEFENDANT WHO MAY COOPERATE IN HIS/HER OWN CASE

 SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECT/LOCATION  DEVELOPMENT OF A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT  INDEPENDENT SOURCES OF INFORMATION  COURT RECORDS  OTHER OFFICERS  OTHER INFORMANTS

 BODY TRANSMITTERS  U/C VEHICLES  TAPE RECORDERS  STILL CAMERAS  VIDEO CAMERAS  NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT  BINOCULARS  NARCOTIC FIELD TESTS KITS

 SECURED-CHANNEL 2 WAY RADIOS  EVIDENCE TAGS AND BAGS  ENTRY TOOLS FOR SEARCH WARRANT EXECUTIONS  BUY FUNDS

IS A PERSON WHO, THROUGH ANONYMITY,PROVIDES INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE ABOUT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

 A PURCHASE OF DRUGS BY A CONFIDENTAL INFORMANT

 A PURCHASE OF DRUGS MADE BY A POLICE OFFICER ACTING IN AN UNDERCOVER ROLE  MOST PREFERRED TYPE BY THE COURTS

THE ARREST OF A SUSPECT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING A DRUG PURCHASE BY AN UNDERCOVER OFFICER OR BY A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT

DRUG PURCHASE OF NARCOTICS MADE BY UNDERCOVER OFFICER OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT AND ARREST WARRANT IS ISSUED AT A LATER DATE

 FEAR OF PUNISHMENT  REVENGE  MONEY  “WANNABIES”  REPENTANCE  GOOD CITIZEN  LEARN POLICE METHODOLOGY

 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION  DOCUMENTING INFORMATION

 ESTABLISH AN INFORMANT FILE  CONTACT W/C.I. SHOULD BE IN THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER OFFICER  OPPOSITE SEX ISSUES  NEVER MAKE PROMISES OF MONEY OR SENTENCE REDUCTION  WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF PAST MISDEEDS

 JUVENILES  ON PROBATION/PAROLE  MULTIPLE CONVICTED FELONS  KNOWN TO BE UNRELIABLE

 SOCIALIZING  BUSINESS DEALINGS  ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

 BUYS  AMOUNTS OF DRUGS PURCHASED  AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT ON PURCHASES  EVIDENCE TRACKING  COPIES OF PHOTOS/VIDEOS  LAB ANALYSIS  KEEP ALL ORIGINALS IN CASE PACKAGE

 CAN BE ABSORBED THROUGH THE SKIN  ACTUAL COMPONENTS CAN BE HARMFUL  “CUT” OR ADULTERANTS CAN BE JUST AS HARMFUL

Terry v. Ohio, 1968 In Terry, the US Supreme Court upheld the authority of the police to stop or detain (or seize) a person where the officer observes unusual conduct which leads the officer reasonably to conclude, in light of his/her experience (including training), that criminal activity may be afoot. “Terry Stop” vs. “Terry Frisk”

Terry v. Ohio, 1968 A Terry Stop - an investigative detention of a suspect. Not a search! A Terry Stop - an investigative detention of a suspect. Not a search! Officers can conduct a Terry Stop with reasonable (articulable/explainable) suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Officers can conduct a Terry Stop with reasonable (articulable/explainable) suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Officers can stop a suspect and investigate that person for a reasonable period of time. Officers can stop a suspect and investigate that person for a reasonable period of time. Even though its not a formal arrest, it is a seizure under the 4 th Amendment.

Terry requires an officer to articulate a reasonable belief that a suspect is armed and poses a threat before the officer is permitted to conduct a limited “Pat Down” of the suspect’s outer clothing. Just because I can “Terry Stop” someone doesn’t automatically give me the right to frisk them for a weapon.

“…Police must obey the law while enforcing the law” because “in the end, life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves.” Spano v. New York, 360 U.S.315 (1959)

They discovered call records and stored numbers that confirmed prior calls between Smith’s phone and the informant’s phone number. Smith was charged with possession of cocaine, trafficking in cocaine, tampering with evidence and two counts of possession of criminal tools. Should the evidence obtained from the cell phone be suppressed?

…when the search is not necessary to protect the safety of law enforcement officers and there are no exigent circumstances … police must obtain a search warrant for the phones data…

Suspect Demeanor or Reaction to Officer Flight is one factor to be considered. Sibron v. New York (1968) ~ “Deliberately furtive actions and flight at the approach of strangers or law officers are strong indicia of mens rea (a guilty mind), and when coupled with specific knowledge on the part of the officer relating the suspect to the evidence of the crime, they are proper factors to be considered in the decision to make an arrest.”