Introduction to Constitutional Law Unit 4

CJ140-02A – Introduction to Constitutional Law Unit 4: The Fourth Amendment CJ140-02A– Class 4 Part 1

Tonight’s Topic Discussion of the Fourth Amendment with the following goals in mind: Discussion of the Fourth Amendment with the following goals in mind: – Recognize the prohibitions and requirements established by the Fourth Amendment and their application to government versus individuals – Explain the probable cause standard as applied to searches and arrests – Demonstrate the Miranda warning and when it must be used – Identify the legal principle established by the Terry v. Ohio case – Describe the Exclusionary Rule and its exceptions – Discuss the law governing various types of stops and the difference between a stop and an arrest

Bill of Rights Amendment 4 IV - Right of search and seizure regulated The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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. Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of: – Persons – Houses – Papers – Effects From Government Actors Police Officers Governmental Agents in any Capacity

Definition of Reasonable Suspicion “…an officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. While ‘reasonable suspicion’ is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop. The officer must be able to articulate more than an ‘inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' of criminal activity.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, (2000) (citations omitted).

Definition of Probable Cause “Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within their [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, ( 1949) (quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 (1925)).

Arrest  The taking of a person into custody in the manner authorized by law.  Arrested person may be subjected to reasonable restraints.  There must be probable cause or a warrant to arrest.  If the arrest is lawful, the person may be searched.

Arrest without a Warrant? Most common form of arrest. Most common form of arrest. Courts have held that to require a warrant for every arrest is impractical. Courts have held that to require a warrant for every arrest is impractical. Police generally may not enter a private home to make a warrantless arrest. Police generally may not enter a private home to make a warrantless arrest. Exception to above is when exigent circumstances exist. Exception to above is when exigent circumstances exist.

How does a police officer obtain an warrant? A written order issued by a judicial officer upon a showing of probable cause commanding the arrest of a particular person. A written order issued by a judicial officer upon a showing of probable cause commanding the arrest of a particular person. May take some time May take some time Approval by a prosecutor Approval by a prosecutor Confidential Informants? Confidential Informants? Some jurisdictions allow the use of telephonic arrest warrants. Some jurisdictions allow the use of telephonic arrest warrants.

Issues surrounding arrest Stop and Frisk: What is it? Stop and Frisk: What is it? How does the 4 th Amendment direct police officers during interaction with suspects….or those who may become suspects? How does the 4 th Amendment direct police officers during interaction with suspects….or those who may become suspects? What is “reasonable and articulable suspicion?” What is “reasonable and articulable suspicion?”

Terry v. Ohio On the continuum of contacts…this falls between a mere street encounter (no intrusion by law enforcement) and arrest (custody, substantial intrusion by law enforcement) On the continuum of contacts…this falls between a mere street encounter (no intrusion by law enforcement) and arrest (custody, substantial intrusion by law enforcement) Where intrusiveness is minimal, the standard of “reasonable and articulable suspicion” is sufficient. Where intrusiveness is minimal, the standard of “reasonable and articulable suspicion” is sufficient. Developed the concept of stop and frisk. Developed the concept of stop and frisk.

Temporary Questioning? Temporary detention for questioning is not an arrest. Temporary detention for questioning is not an arrest. If police restraint goes beyond that which is reasonably necessary for questioning, the temporary detention may ripen into an arrest. If police restraint goes beyond that which is reasonably necessary for questioning, the temporary detention may ripen into an arrest. Example……… Example……… Detention is ordinarily for a fairly short duration before it becomes an arrest. Detention is ordinarily for a fairly short duration before it becomes an arrest.

What are the rules during a “temporary detention?” Investigative Stop: Police may temporarily detain a person if officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be involved. Investigative Stop: Police may temporarily detain a person if officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be involved. Frisk: The officer may pat down the individual for weapons ONLY if the officer has additional reasonable suspicion that the pat down is necessary for safety reasons. Frisk: The officer may pat down the individual for weapons ONLY if the officer has additional reasonable suspicion that the pat down is necessary for safety reasons. So….may an officer “pat down” a suspect if the officer “reasonably and articulably” believes that the suspect may possess drugs on his person? Why? So….may an officer “pat down” a suspect if the officer “reasonably and articulably” believes that the suspect may possess drugs on his person? Why?

Miranda….what is it, why do we care? Miranda v. Arizona: changed the way police interviewed suspects Miranda v. Arizona: changed the way police interviewed suspects – For Miranda to apply, individual must be In custody In custody Under control of law enforcement Under control of law enforcement – Not free to leave And be interrogated And be interrogated Interrogation is defined for this purposes as actions by an officer designed to elicit information from the suspect. Interrogation is defined for this purposes as actions by an officer designed to elicit information from the suspect.

How does a court look at a Miranda challenge to a statement in court? Does Miranda apply? If Miranda applies, a court looks at: – Was statement voluntary? – Was the warning given? – Was there a wavier of rights by the suspect? – Was the waiver “knowingly and voluntarily” made? All above questions must be answered in the affirmative to admit statement in trial.

What does it take for a “confession” to be admissible in court? Must be given knowingly and not result of lies or deception. Must be given knowingly and not result of lies or deception. If in custody, must be given required warning. If in custody, must be given required warning. Must be voluntary. Must be voluntary. Not obtained through threats, force, use of pain, or constructive threats. Not obtained through threats, force, use of pain, or constructive threats.

Exclusionary Rule Prohibits evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. Prohibits evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights.

Exclusionary Rule - Exceptions Inevitable Discovery Inevitable Discovery – Would have inevitably be discovered through lawful means Good Faith Good Faith – Officers acting honestly and unaware acting in violation of rights – usually with defective warrants Some states do not have this exception Some states do not have this exception

Questions?