AJ 50 – Introduction to Administration of Justice Chapter 5 – Policing: Legal Aspects

Due-Process Amendments of US Constitution Fourth Unreasonable search and seizure Fifth Self-incrimination, double-jeopardy Sixth Charges, attorney, speedy jury trial, witnesses Eighth No excessive bail/fines, no cruel/unusual punishment Fourteenth Equal protections under the law

Checks and Balances Governmental Checks & Balances Landmark Case Legislative Judicial Executive Landmark Case Precedent-setting court decision that produces substantial changes in… Due-process requirements Day-to-day operations of CJS

Search and Seizure 4th Amendment Illegally-seized evidence People must be secure in their homes and in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures Illegally-seized evidence Evidence seized without regard for principles of due process per 4th Amendment Often result of improper/warrantless searches or improper interrogations

The Exclusionary Rule Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Exclusionary Rule Federal officers seized evidence and personal items without warrant Personal items returned at request of attorney Court said if some evidence illegal, all evidence illegal Exclusionary Rule Illegally or improperly-obtained evidence, statements, or information will be excluded from proceedings Intended to control police behavior/misconduct

Rules of the Game The Weeks case demonstrates the power of the Supreme Court in enforcing the “rules of the game” Before Weeks, officers had little reason to think they were acting in violation of due process Focusing on the “rules of the game” may allow some guilty criminals to go free Writ of Certiorari An order from an appellate court to obtain a record of the lower court’s proceedings for review

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920) Warrantless search/seizure of company’s books Books returned, but photographs used at trial Court said photos could not be used, as they were derived from illegally-obtained evidence Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Evidence developed as result of illegal search or seizure also excluded at trial

The Warren Court (1953–1969) The 1960s were a time of youthful idealism, civil rights movement, etc. Closer look at individual rights, freedoms Exclusionary Rule had been mostly applied in cases involving federal officers/issues Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Made the Exclusionary Rule applicable to criminal prosecutions at the state level Reinforced 14th Amendment to States

Searches Incident to Arrest Chimel v. California (1969) Arresting officers may search… Defendant Physical area within easy reach of the defendant Valid reasons for conducting a search Officer safety Preserve evidence Prevent escape A search becomes illegal when… It goes beyond the defendant and the area within the defendant’s immediate control It is conducted for other than a valid reason

The Burger Court (1969−1986) & Rehnquist Court (1986–Present) More conservative interpretations by the Supreme Court Greater concern for interests of those who live within the Law Citizen and Victims’ rights US vs. Leon (1984) Good-Faith Exception to exclusionary rule If search/seizure conducted on basis of good faith, but later discover mistake was made, evidence still allowed in court proceedings

Good-Faith Exceptions Probable Cause = A set of facts leading a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that a particular person has committed a specific crime Allows full searches of dwellings, vehicles, and possessions Plain-View Doctrine = Officers, without a warrant, may seize objects in plain view if officer legally in viewing area and has cause to believe evidence associated with criminal activity

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (continued) Emergency Searches Exigent Circumstances Warrantless searches by the police, justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need Public safety Likely escape of a dangerous suspect Removal or destruction of evidence

Arrest Arrest defined When do arrests occur? Search Incident to Arrest Taking a person into physical custody in a manner prescribed by law When do arrests occur? Crimes in progress After investigation/questioning Warrant issued Search Incident to Arrest A warrantless search of an arrested individual conducted to ensure officer safety

Terry vs. Ohio (1968) Detention Temporary infringement of person’s freedom of movement Officer has Reasonable Suspicion that some type of criminal activity had occurred, was occurring, or was about to occur That level of suspicion that would justify officer to make further inquiry or investigation Limited “pat-down” search allowed Officer may “pat down” (frisk) outer clothing of suspect for weapons only

Emergency Searches of Persons Conditions required for emergency, warrantless search of person Probable cause to believe evidence concealed on the person Probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence Officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant Action no greater than necessary to eliminate the threat of destruction of evidence All must apply!

Vehicle Searches “Fleeting Targets exception” to the Exclusionary Rule Officers may search vehicle with probable cause but without obtaining warrant Predicated on the fact that vehicles can quickly leave the scene and/or jurisdiction Does not automatically apply to occupants of vehicle Also applies to boats, motor homes, etc.

Roadblocks and Motor Vehicle Checkpoints Police officers have no legitimate authority to detain or arrest people who are going about their business in a peaceful manner However, community interests may necessitate a temporary suspension of personal liberty, even when probable cause is lacking

Suspicionless Searches Rare cases of compelling interests that negate individual’s right to privacy Generally conducted when based on overriding concern for Public Safety Employee drug testing Random searches at airports Border searches High-Technology searches Still require warrant

Informants Aguilar vs. Texas (1964) Informant information could establish probable cause if… The source of the informant’s information is made clear, and The officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable Anonymous tip may not be sufficient for stop-and-frisk without more information

Police Interrogation Interrogation Information-gathering process through direct questioning of suspect Police action likely to elicit incriminating response Subject to constitutional limitations Physical abuse Inherent coercion Psychological manipulation

The Right to a Lawyer During Interrogation Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Established the right to have legal counsel present during police interrogation Edwards v. Arizona (1981) Once a suspect who is in custody and is being questioned has requested the assistance of counsel, all questioning must cease until an attorney is present

Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision Miranda warnings Advisement of rights due to criminal suspects before custodial interrogation begins Miranda v. Arizona (1966) You have the right to remain silent Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law You have a right to speak to an attorney and have one present while you are being questioned If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you at no cost

Waiver of Miranda Rights by Suspects Knowing and Intelligent waiver of rights required Do you understand each of these rights I have explained? Having these rights in mind, do you wish to answer questions? Waiver must be expressed or clearly implied Silence or no response is not a waiver Exceptions to Miranda Inevitable-Discovery Evidence allowed, even if improperly obtained, if it would have been found eventually Public-Safety Overrides suspect’s individual rights

Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence Nontestimonial evidence is generally physical evidence and subject to normal search-and-seizure procedures Special class of “personal” evidence DNA samples, ingested drugs/materials, etc. Right to Privacy issues Body-Cavity searches

Electronic Eavesdropping Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968) Mostly prohibits wiretaps but does allow officers to listen to electronic communications if… Officer is one of the parties involved in conversation One of the parties is not the officer but willingly decides to share the communication Officers obtain a warrant based on probable cause U.S. v. Scott (1978) Minimization Officers must make every reasonable effort to monitor only those conversations, through the use of phone taps, body bugs, and the like, which are specifically related to the criminal activity under investigation

Electronic Eavesdropping Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986) Established due-process requirements that officers must meet to legally intercept wire communications Wiretaps/bugs Pen registers (numbers dialed from a phone) Tracing devices (where a call originated) Telecommunications Act of 1996 Federal offense for anyone to knowingly use a telecommunications device in an obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent way to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 Drafted in response to 9/11/01 Substantially increases the investigatory authority of federal, state, or local police agencies Permits longer jail terms for certain suspects arrested without a warrant Broadens “sneak and peek” search authority Search occurring in suspect’s absence Enhances the power of prosecutors