CJ227: Criminal Procedure Seminar 2

Expectations For The Week Read Chapters 3 and 4 in the text Complete the unit Writing Assignment Follow the Web Field Trip(s) and/or web resource links Post to the Discussion Boards

Analysis and Application Essay Write a 2-3 page paper (excluding title page and reference page) addressing the legality of the actions of Officer Smith Identify the levels of police encounters in the fact pattern Describe the legal requirements needed to justify each of those encounters Explain whether Officer Smith’s actions were justified Include sources to support your conclusions ** The paper must be written in APA format. All text pages should be double spaced and in 12 point font. Submit the assignment in the Unit 2 Drop Box by the end of the course week.

Seminar Topic Police Encounters with Individuals and the Required Level of Police Suspicion needed to Justify these Encounters

Probable Cause An honest and reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or is about to occur More than reasonable suspicion “Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within 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)

Reasonable Suspicion Quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man under similar circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand. Based on specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant intrusion. Henry C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed., abridged (St. Paul, MN:West, 1991) p. 875

Probable Cause is established by: The officer’s knowledge of certain facts and circumstances Information given by a reliable source (informant) Information plus corroboration

Officers’ Knowledge of Facts and Circumstances is based on: Prior criminal record Suspects flight from scene of crime Highly suspicious conduct Incriminating evidence Resemblance to description of perpetrator Other relevant factors

Information Given by Informant Cases of Relevance: Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964): Established a two prong test for determining probable cause based on informant’s information- 1. Informant must be reliable and 2. The information must be reliable and not the result of mere suspicion Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969): Restated the Aguilar test Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983): Established new standard. Gates held that the totality of the circumstances should replace the two prong test of Aguilar.

Information Plus Corroboration When the officer can not establish probable cause by the information provided by the informant on his/her own, s/he can conduct an investigation to gain corroborating information. “Information received from an informant that is corroborated by an officer may be sufficient to provide probable cause for an arrest, even though such information was hearsay and would not otherwise have been admissible in a criminal trial”. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)

Terry Stops A “Terry stop” refers to a stop and frisk Form of search and seizure and therefore falls under the 4th amendment Less intrusive Probable cause not needed, but there must be reasonable suspicion

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) The last paragraph of the majority opinion states: “…where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is reasonable under the 4th amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they are taken.”

The Stop Must be based on reasonable suspicion May turn into arrest if probable cause is established A stop during which a person does not feel free to leave could turn into a seizure for which probable cause would be required.

The Frisk Limited to a pat down of a person’s outer clothing Only objects that feel like weapons may be seized If the object is not a weapon but felt like one, the frisk is still justified Officers can not manipulate objects to see if it may be contraband if they do not think it is a weapon Frisk should not be a “fishing expedition”

Arrest with a warrant What is an arrest warrant? A writ or precept issued by a magistrate , justice or other competent authority, addressed to a sheriff or constable or other officer, requiring him to arrest the body of a person therein named, and bring him before the magistrate or court to answer, or to be examined, concerning some offense which he is charged with having committed. Henry C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed. (St. Paul, MN: West, 1968) p. 1756.

Requirements of a valid warrant: Probable cause Signed by a neutral magistrate Describes the offense charged Contains the name of the accused (if unknown, must be a description from which s/he could be easily identified)

Other means of taking a person into custody or into court: Citation: order from the court for the person to appear at a specific time. May be used for less serious offenses (ex. traffic violations) Bench Warrant: made by a judge on the bench and ordering the arrest of a defendant who has not appeared as required. Capias: Issued to bring a person to court if indicted by a grand jury or if the person skips bail.

Arrest without a warrant Crime occurs in the presence of police Exigent circumstances (ex. hot pursuit) When there is danger to the arresting officer

Knock and Announce Rule requiring the police to announce themselves before breaking into a dwelling was put in place to avoid violence and give the suspect the opportunity to comply Case law has indicated that every entry does not have to include an announcement: “…This is not to say, of course that every entry must be preceded by an announcement. The 4th Am.’s flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests…” Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995)

Exceptions to knock and announce Announcement would present a danger to the officers Danger that contraband or evidence might be destroyed Officers believe someone within the premises is in danger Reasonable belief that suspect is escaping

Questions? Erego@kaplan.edu 508-728-6043 Office hours: Sundays 6:00-8:00 p.m. EST