1. Impact of Supreme Court Cases on Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement I

2. Copyright and Terms of Service
Copyright © Texas Education Agency, These materials are copyrighted © and trademarked ™ as the property of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of TEA, except under the following conditions:
1)  Texas public school districts, charter schools, and Education Service Centers may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for the districts’ and schools’ educational use without obtaining permission from TEA.
2)  Residents of the state of Texas may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for individual personal use only, without obtaining written permission of TEA.
3)  Any portion reproduced must be reproduced in its entirety and remain unedited, unaltered and unchanged in any way.
4)  No monetary charge can be made for the reproduced materials or any document containing them; however, a reasonable charge to cover only the cost of reproduction and distribution may be charged.
Private entities or persons located in Texas that are not Texas public school districts, Texas Education Service Centers, or Texas charter schools or any entity, whether public or private, educational or non-educational, located outside the state of Texas MUST obtain written approval from TEA and will be required to enter into a license agreement that may involve the payment of a licensing fee or a royalty.
Contact TEA Copyrights with any questions you may have.

3. Criminal Procedure Purpose Protect citizens
Before arrests
During arrests
After arrests
Protect law enforcement officers
From liability
In obtaining admissible evidence
Specific methods and limitations

4. Criminal Procedure (continued)
Location
Federal Statutes
U.S. Code Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
State Statutes
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP, Art )
Case Law
From federal court decisions
From state court decisions

5. Fourth Amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable reaches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant 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.”

6. Fourth Amendment (continued)
Search – the exploration or examination of an individual’s home, vehicle, or person by a law enforcement officer to obtain items that may be used by the government as evidence in court proceedings
Seizure – the taking, by law enforcement officers, of potential evidence in a criminal case. Also applies to the exercise of dominion over a person or thing because of a law violation (i.e. stopping, deterring, or arresting a person)

7. Fourth Amendment (continued)
When the Fourth Amendment applies
An individual is stopped by an officer for questioning while walking down the street
An individual is stopped by an officer in a vehicle for a traffic violation
Search of vehicle
Questioned by officer
An individual is arrested
An officer enters an individual’s residence to place him/her under arrest
An officer enters an individual’s residence to search for evidence of a crime
An officer enters a place of business to search for evidence of a crime
An officer takes possession of an individual’s vehicle or personal property and places it under police control

8. Fourth Amendment (continued)
Requirements
Search Warrant
A written order issued by a magistrate and directed to a peace officer to look for property/evidence
Peace officers must have probable cause to request search warrants

9. Fourth Amendment (continued)
Requirements (continued)
Exceptions to search without a warrant (A COP IS ME)
Abandonment
Consent
Open view/plain view
Public place
Inventory
Search incident to arrest
Mobile Doctrine
Exigent Circumstances

10. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Facts of the Case
Police went to Dollree Mapp’s home to look for a bombing suspect thought to have bombed Don King’s home
Ms. Mapp asked for the search warrant, which they did not have
Police returned and forced their way into Ms. Mapp’s home
Ms. Mapp asked to see the warrant
Officer waived a piece of paper
Ms. Mapp grabbed paper and put it down her shirt

11. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (continued)
Facts of the Case (continued)
The paper was not a warrant, but police searched her house anyway
They found the suspect but did not find any evidence pertaining to the bombing
They also found pornography (which was illegal at the time)
She was charged with possession of obscene material (even though it did not belong to her)
Ms. Mapp was convicted and appealed the case to the US Supreme Court

12. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (continued)
Issue Addressed by the Supreme Court
Did the exclusionary rule apply to the states? And may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?
Exclusionary Rule – a provision that excludes any illegally obtained evidence by the government from being admissible in court proceedings

13. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (continued)
Rule Established by the Court’s Decision
The court found that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court"
Using the Fourteenth Amendment, the court extended the exclusionary rule to all levels of government, not just the federal government

14. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (continued)
Application of the Finding
Any evidence obtained unlawfully is inadmissible in court
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Established in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. US (1920)
The doctrine holding that if evidence is initially obtained in an illegal way, all subsequent evidence gathered from the unlawful manner is “poisoned,” as well. If the tree is poisoned, so is the fruit coming from it

15. Terry v. Ohio (1968) Facts of the Case
Plain-clothes police officer observed the Defendant and two other men suspiciously loitering near a store
Officer believed they were “casing a job, a stick-up”
Officer stopped the men and frisked them
Two of the men were armed
Defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon

16. Terry v. Ohio (1968) (continued)
Issue Addressed by the Supreme Court
Did the warrantless search of the three men violate their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Rule Established by the Court’s Decision
The search was reasonable, and the weapons seized could be introduced as evidence
The court found that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior"

17. Terry v. Ohio (1968) (continued)
Application of the Finding
Stop and Frisk – a police practice, based on reasonable suspicion, giving a law enforcement officer the ability to stop an individual in a public place, to ask questions to determine whether that person has or is about to commit a crime, and to frisk that person for weapons if the officer is reasonably concerned for his or her own personal safety
This type of search is known as a Terry stop

18. Tennessee v. Garner (1984) Facts of the Case
Police went to answer a “prowler in the house” call
Upon arrival, the resident pointed in the direction where the suspect fled
Police saw no sign of the suspect having a weapon
Police called out for the suspect to halt
Suspect continued to flee by climbing over a fence
Police officer shot the suspect in the back of the head, which later killed him

19. Tennessee v. Garner (1984) (continued)
Issue Addressed by the Supreme Court
Is the use of deadly force to stop a suspected unarmed fleeing felon unconstitutional?
Rule Established by the Court’s Decision
“The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force unless it is necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of violence to the officer or the community”
Killing a fleeing suspect is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment

20. Tennessee v. Garner (1984) (continued)
Application of the Finding
The police may not “seize” an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead
Deadly force – the amount of force used by a law enforcement officer that would reasonably pose a high risk of death or serious injury to another person

21. Resources
Del Carmen, Rolando V. Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. (8th edition) Wadsworth, 2009.
U.S. Code Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP, Art )