1. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 1 Policing: Legal Aspects CHAPTER 7

2. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 2 No one is above the law…not even the police. Policing: Legal Environment

3. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 3 Restraints on police behavior:  Help to ensure individual freedoms.  Must be balanced against the need for police to effectively do their jobs. Policing: Legal Environment

4. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 4 The U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect citizens from abuses in police power. Due Process is required by 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Constitutional Amendments. Changing Legal Climate

5. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 5 There are three areas of police action that are infused with due process: 1. Search and seizure of evidence 2. Arrest 3. Interrogation Due Process Environment

6. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 6 The Warren Court (1953–1969):  Clarified individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.  Was considered “liberal.” Burger (1969–1986) and Rehnquist Courts (1986–2005):  Was more conservative.  “Reversed” of some of the Warren-era decisions.  Was called the “greater good” era.  Adhered to the principle that defendants should bear most of the responsibility in showing the police went beyond the law. Changing Legal Climate: U.S. Supreme Court

7. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 7 Courts often deal with issues involving rights. Rights violations have become the basis for dismissal of charges, acquittal of defendants, or release of convicted offenders upon appeal. Changing Legal Climate: U.S. Supreme Court

8. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 8 Landmark cases clarify the “rules of the game” —the procedural guidelines by which the police and the rest of the justice system must abide. Landmark Cases

9. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 9 “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.” Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment

10. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 10 The Fourth Amendment protects one’s privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures. Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment

11. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 11  Weeks v. U.S. (1914) established the exclusionary rule.  Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial.  This rule acts as a control over police behavior.  Mapp v. Ohio (1961) made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states.  The 14th Amendment due process applies to local police, not just federal officers. The Exclusionary Rule

12. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 12  Because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure. Fruits of Poisoned Tree Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)

13. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 13  The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but it protects people, not places.  A limited area search following arrest may be acceptable. Search Incident to Arrest U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)

14. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 14 Clarified the scope of a search incident to an arrest. Officers may search:  The arrested person  The area under the arrested person’s “immediate control” Officers can search for following reasons:  To protect themselves  To prevent destruction of evidence  To keep defendant from escaping Search Incident to Arrest Chimel v. U.S. (1969)

15. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 15  When law enforcement officers have acted in good faith, the evidence they collect should be admissible even if later it is found that the warrant they used was invalid. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule U.S. v. Leon (1984)

16. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 16 U.S. Supreme Court held that the good faith exception applied to warrantless searches supported by state law even where the state statute was later found to violate Fourth Amendment rights.  Good faith can be established if the police reasonably believe they are performing their jobs in accordance with the law. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

17. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 17 U.S. Supreme Court created the computer errors exception to the exclusionary rule.  Police officers cannot be held responsible for a clerical error.  The exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not clerical mistakes made by court employees. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Arizona v. Evans (1995)

18. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 18  Objects falling in “plain view” of an officer, who has the right to be in the position to have the view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.  The Plain View Doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances. Plain View Doctrine Harris v. U.S. (1968)

19. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 19  Restricted the plain view doctrine  Officers cannot move objects to gain a view of evidence otherwise hidden from view.  Officers cannot move or dislodge objects to create “plain view.” Plain View Doctrine U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

20. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 20 The U.S. Supreme Court held that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures, it is not a necessary condition.  It is okay to seize evidence found when such evidence is other than that listed in a search warrant. Plain View Doctrine Horton v. California (1990)

21. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 21 Emergency Searches of Property Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless searches (searching during exigent circumstances). 1. Clear dangers to life 2. Clear dangers of escape 3. Clear dangers of removal or destruction of evidence

22. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 22 “4th Amendment does not require police to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.” Emergency Searches Warden v. Hayden (1967)

23. 23 Search and Seizure: Arrest

24. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 24 An arrest occurs when a law enforcement officer restricts a person’s freedom to leave. It is: The act of taking an adult or juvenile into custody by authority of law for the purpose of charging the person with a criminal offense, a delinquent act, or a status offense, terminating with the recording of a specific offense. Arrests

25. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 25 U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) U.S. Supreme Court said: “A person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” “Free-to-Leave” Test

26. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 26 Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) Whether a person is actually free to leave can only be determined by examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. “Free-to-Leave” Test

27. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 27 Terry v. Ohio (1968) Reasonable suspicion is needed to “stop and frisk.” The facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed. Justification: “We cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest.” The “Terry” Stop

28. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 28 Reasonable suspicion is a general and reasonable belief that a crime is in progress or has occurred whereas probable cause is a reasonable belief that a particular person has committed a specific crime. Reasonable Suspicion Versus Probable Cause

29. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 29 U.S. v. Sokolow (1989) Stops must be evaluated based on a “totality of circumstances” criterion—in which all aspects of the defendant’s behavior, together, provide the basis for a legitimate stop based on reasonable suspicion. Reasonable Suspicion Stops

30. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 30 U.S. v. Arvizu (2002) “Officers are allowed to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available.” Reasonable Suspicion Stops

31. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 31 Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) “If an officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes it immediately apparent there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons.” Reasonable Suspicion Stops

32. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 32 Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) The court upheld Nevada’s “stop and identify” law that requires a person to identify himself to police if they encounter him under circumstances that reasonably indicated that he “has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” Reasonable Suspicion Searches

33. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 33 Smith v. Ohio (1990) An individual has the right to protect his belongings from unwarranted search.” Reasonable Suspicion Searches

34. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 34 Emergency searches of persons falls under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Emergency Searches of Persons

35. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 35 All of the following conditions must apply. 1.At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe that evidence was concealed on the person searched. 2.At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed. 3.The officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant authorizing the search. 4.The action was no greater than necessary to eliminate the threat of destruction of evidence. FBI Guidelines for Conducting Emergency Warrantless Searches of Persons

36. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 36  Warrants are necessary if time and circumstances permit them.  Investigatory stops of vehicles are permissible under the Fourth Amendment if supported by reasonable suspicion.  Warrantless searches of vehicles must be based on probable cause (fleeting-targets). Vehicle Searches

37. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 37 Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) The Fourth Amendment prohibits even a brief seizure of a motorist under a program whose primary purpose is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interests in crime control. Checks for drivers’ licenses and registrations are okay because they do not intend to “detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing”. Roadblocks and Checkpoints

38. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 38 Illinois v. Lidster (2004) Information-seeking highway roadblocks are permissible. “The law ordinarily permits police to seek the public’s voluntary cooperation in a criminal investigation”. Roadblocks and Checkpoints

39. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 39 The warrantless searching of automobiles extends to include some watercraft, houseboats, and motor homes. Watercraft and Motor Homes

40. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 40 Suspicionless searches may be necessary in order to ensure public safety. Such searches must be based on compelling interests. Suspicionless sweeps of busses, trains, planes, and city streets are permissible, as long as: 1. Police ask permission 2. Police do not coerce people to consent 3. Police do not convey the message that compliance is necessary Suspicionless Searches

41. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 41  Investigating crime is making greater use of high-technology devises and practices, such as thermal imaging devises.  If the government searches a home using a device that is not something used by the general public, and that shows something that wouldn’t be learned without entering the house, then a warrant is required. High-Technology Searches

42. 42 The Intelligence Function

43. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 43 Intelligence Function Police gather information through many sources, including:  Informants  Interrogation

44. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 44 In the case of informants, a two-pronged test usually satisfies the probable cause requirement: 1.The source of the informant’s information is made clear. 2.The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable. Informants

45. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 45 Anonymous tips are evaluated on the basis of the totality of circumstances approach and are considered in light of everything already known to the police. Without other information, anonymous tips may be used if they accurately predict future behavior. Informants

46. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 46 Police Interrogation An interrogation refers to the information- gathering activity of police officers that involves the direct questioning of suspects. During an interrogation, there must be no:  Physical abuse  Inherent coercion  Psychological manipulation

47. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 47 Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) A defendant is entitled to counsel at police interrogations, and counsel should be provided when the defendant so requests. The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation

48. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 48 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) “The entire aura and atmosphere of police interrogation, without notification of rights and an offer of assistance of counsel, tends to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner.” Prior to custodial interrogation, a person must be informed of his or her rights (Miranda triggers). The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation

49. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 49 The Miranda Warnings 1. You have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and to have a lawyer present while you are being questioned. 4. If you want a lawyer before or during questioning but cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you at no cost before any questioning. 5. If you answer questions now without a lawyer here, you still have the right to stop answering questions at any time.

50. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 50 A waiver of Miranda rights can be done if such a waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Waiver of Miranda Rights

51. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 51 Nix v. Williams (1984) Evidence, even if it was otherwise gathered inappropriately, can be used in a court of law if it would have invariably turned up in the normal course of events. Inevitable Discovery Exception to Miranda

52. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 52 New York v. Quarles (1984) Considerations of public safety were overriding and negated the need for rights advisement prior to limited questioning that focused on the need to prevent further harm. Public Safety Exception to Miranda

53. 53 Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence

54. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 54 Nontestimonial Evidence Nontestimonial evidence generally refers to physical evidence, including very personal items that may be within or part of a person’s body, such as:  Ingested drugs  DNA  Foreign objects  Blood  Medical implants

55. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 55 Nontestimonial Evidence Concerns over non-testimonial evidence involve:  Right to privacy issues  Body cavity searches  Electronic eavesdropping  Electronic evidence

56. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 56 Right to Privacy Schmerber v. California (1966) Warrants must be obtained for bodily intrusions unless fast action is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence by natural physiological processes.

57. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 57 Body-Cavity Searches Strip searches of convicts in prison, including the search of body cavities, have generally been held to be permissible. U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) The Court upheld a four-day customs detention of a body packer (until nature took its course and evidence was passed from her body).

58. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 58 Electronic Eavesdropping Katz v. U.S. (1967) A warrant is required to unveil what a person makes an effort to keep private, even in a public place.

59. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 59 Electronic Eavesdropping Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 permits officers to listen to electronic communications when one of the following conditions is met: 1.An officer is one of the parties involved in the conversation. 2.One of the parties is not the officer but willingly decides to share the communications with the officer. 3.Officers obtain a warrant based on probable cause.

60. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 60 Minimization Requirement U.S. v. Scott (1978) Officers must make every reasonable effort to monitor only those conversations that are specifically related to the criminal activity under investigation.

61. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 61 The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 The ECPA held that officers must obtain wiretap-type court orders to eavesdrop on ongoing communications. **In 2003, judges approved 1,442 wiretap requests, allowing for around 4.3 million intercepted conversations, 1/3 of which were found to be incriminating.

62. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 62 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Made it a federal offense to knowingly use interstate or international telecommunications device to: “create, solicit, or initiate the transmission of any comments, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person.” This act also included a provision for harassing and other types of prank phone calls.

63. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 63 The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 made it easier for police investigators to intercept many forms of electronic communication. For example, the Act:  Allows for roving wiretaps  Broadens “sneak and peek” searches  Updates the pen/trap statue