1. Policing: Legal Aspects
Chapter 7
Policing: Legal Aspects

2. Changing Legal Climate
The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power.

3. Changing Legal Climate
1960’s
The U.S. Supreme Court sped up the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.

4. Individual Rights Due Process
requirement of 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution

5. Search and Seizure People must be secure in their homes.
People must also be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.

6. Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Weeks is suspected of selling lottery tickets through the mail.
Weeks’ home is searched.
His personal property is confiscated.

7. Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Weeks’ attorney asked that personal property be returned.
Federal judge agreed that some of Weeks’ property should be returned.

8. Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Weeks is convicted on remaining evidence.
Case is appealed.

9. Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Supreme Court Decision:
If some of Weeks’ property had been illegally seized, then the remainder of the property is also considered to be illegally seized.
This case established the exclusionary rule.

10. Exclusionary Rule
Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial.
This rule acts as a control over police behavior.

11. Fruits of Poisoned Tree
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)
Silverthorne was accused of not paying taxes.
Federal agents wanted the company books.
Silverthorne refused to turn over books.

12. Fruits of Poisoned Tree
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)
Feds seized the books without a warrant.
Silverthorne asked for books to be returned.
The prosecutor returned the books.

13. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)
Before the prosecutor returned the papers, he made copies.
Silverthorne was convicted.

14. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)
The U.S. Supreme Court decided to overturn the conviction.
They ruled that evidence illegally seized cannot be used in a trial, therefore, neither can evidence which derives from an illegal seizure.

15. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)
Rabinowitz was arrested on a federal warrant for selling altered postage stamps to defraud collectors.
The officers did not have a search warrant.

16. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)
Officers searched the office including the desk, the file cabinet, and the safe, finding 573 altered stamps.

17. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950) Rabinowitz was convicted.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the search was acceptable.

18. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)
The Fourth Amendment provides against unreasonable searches, but the search of the one room office following a legal arrest was alright.
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.

19. Supreme Court Chief Justices
Earl Warren
Warren Burger
William Rehnquist present

20. Warren Court
The Warren court charted a course that would guarantee nationwide recognition of individual rights by all levels of the criminal justice system.

21. Warren Court applied the exclusionary rule to States
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

22. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Mapp was suspected of hiding a bombing suspect.
Mapp refused police admittance.
Police forced their way in, showing Mapp a paper they said was a search warrant for her house.

23. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Mapp grabbed the “warrant” and placed it inside her blouse.
Police retrieved the “warrant” and searched house.

24. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Police found pornographic material in a trunk in the basement.
The bombing suspect was not found.

25. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Mapp was convicted of possession of pornographic material.
No search warrant was produced at the trial.

26. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
U.S. Supreme Court decided: th Amendment due process applied to local police, not just federal officers.
Evidence against Mapp was illegally obtained.
Overturned conviction based on inadmissibility of the evidence.

27. Chimel v. California (1969)
Chimel is convicted of burglarizing a coin shop based on evidence gathered at his arrest.
Police have an arrest warrant, but did not have a search warrant.
Police search his whole house, including the garage, attic, and little workshop.

28. Chimel v. California (1969)
Police realize the search might be contested.
Police feel they can justify the search as part of the arrest process, not to gather evidence.
Searches prior to arrest are necessary for police officer protection and should not require a search warrant.

29. Chimel v. California (1969) Chimel is convicted.
U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and decided that the search became invalid when it went beyond the arrested person’s area of “immediate control.”

30. Chimel v. California (1969) 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

31. Burger Court
Adherence to the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process right…

32. Burger Court
...need to bear the responsibility of showing that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties.

33. U.S. v. Leon (1984)
Leon is placed under surveillance for drug trafficking.
Police obtain a search warrant based on their observation of Leon.

34. U.S. v. Leon (1984) Police search Leon’s homes and discover drugs.
Leon is convicted of drug trafficking.

35. U.S. v. Leon (1984)
Federal court overturns the case based on lack of probable cause.
State appeals to U.S. Supreme Court.

36. “good faith exception to exclusionary rule”
U.S. v. Leon (1984)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
When law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith, the evidence they have collected should be admissible even if later it is found the warrant was invalid.
“good faith exception to exclusionary rule”

37. Rehnquist Court
continuing the trend of the Burger Court in having defendants bear the burden of proving violations of due process rights

38. Illinois v. Krull (1987)
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.

39. Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990)
Gail Fisher complained to the police that she had been assaulted.
Police accompanied her to the apartment where she said the assault took place.

40. Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990)
Gail Fisher used her key to open the door of the apartment and admit the police.
Police arrested the suspect sleeping on the couch and found drugs lying on the floor by the couch.

41. Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990)
Rodriquez was convicted.
On appeal, Rodriquez argued that Fisher had not lived in the apartment for over a month and therefore had no legal control over the apartment.

42. Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
rejected appeal based on fact that there is no Fourth Amendment violation if police reasonably believed at the time of the entry that Fisher had legal access to the apartment

43. Plain View Doctrine

44. Harris v. U.S. (1968) Harris’ vehicle is impounded by police.
Police inventory contents of vehicle.
Evidence of a robbery is found.

45. Harris v. U.S. (1968) Harris is arrested and convicted.
Harris appeals his conviction.
The conviction is based on illegal search of vehicle.

46. U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
Harris v. U.S. (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
appeal rejected
Justification:
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.

47. Plain View Situations
Police can use evidence if they observe it during emergencies such as:
crimes in progress
fires
accidents

48. Plain View Situations
The plain view doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances.

49. Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
Hicks is arrested when police enter his apartment to check a report of a gun being fired.

50. Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
Police see two stereo systems in a corner of the room that they believe may be stolen.
Police write down serial number of first stereo because it is plainly visible.

51. Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
Second stereo has to be moved to see serial number.
Stereos have been reported as stolen.

52. Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
Hicks is convicted of robbery based on the seized stereos.
Hicks appeals his conviction.

53. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Supreme Court Decision: overturned conviction
Justification:
Officer’s behavior became illegal when he moved the stereo to record serial number.

54. Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
Persons have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which means that officers lacking a search warrant…

55. Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
… even when invited into the residence, must act more like guests than inquisitors.

56. Horton v. California (1990)
A warrant was issued to search the defendant’s home for stolen jewelry.

57. Horton v. California (1990)
No jewelry was found, but guns were seized.
Horton was convicted of robbery based in part on the seized guns.
Horton appealed based on fact that if police suspected Horton had guns, they should have listed them in the warrant.

58. Supreme Court Decision: rejected appeal
Horton v. California (1990)
Supreme Court Decision: rejected appeal
Justification:
Even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures, it is not a necessary condition.

59. Emergency Searches of Property
Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless searches.
Clear dangers to life.
Clear dangers of escape.
Clear dangers of removal or destruction of evidence.

60. Warden v. Hayden (1967)
There was a report that a robber fled into a building.
The police search residence without a warrant.
The defendant was convicted.

61. Supreme Court Decision: rejected appeal of illegal search
Warden v. Hayden (1967)
Supreme Court Decision:
rejected appeal of illegal search
Justification:
“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.”

62. Search and Seizure
Arrest

63. U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) “Free-to-Leave” Test
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, …

64. U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)
... a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”

65. Fleeing Felon Doctrine
Historically, the fleeing felon doctrine dictated the use of force.
Deadly force could be used to apprehend any fleeing felony suspect.
This was law in most states until 1960’s.

66. Stop and Frisk
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Landmark Case
Terry was believed to be “casing” a store for a robbery.
A police veteran of 39 years conducted a “pat-down” search of Terry.

67. Stop and Frisk Terry v. Ohio (1968) A gun was found on Terry.
Landmark Case
A gun was found on Terry.
The officer testified that the “man did not look right.”

68. Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.
Terry appealed based on fact that the officer had no probable cause to search.

69. Terry v. Ohio (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Decision: appeal rejected
Stop and frisk requires reasonable
suspicion, the facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed.

70. Terry v. Ohio (1968) 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.”

71. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
Timothy Dickerson was seen leaving a building known for trafficking cocaine.
Minneapolis police stopped Dickerson after they observed him acting suspiciously.
A pat-down search revealed no weapons, but it did reveal a small lump in his jacket.
Police suspected the lump was cocaine.
Officer retrieved a lump of crack cocaine.

72. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
“The officer never thought the lump was a weapon, but did not immediately recognize it as cocaine.”
The lump was determined to be cocaine only after the officer squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the pocket’s contents.

73. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
The court took the position that the police went far beyond Terry v. Ohio.

74. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
conviction overturned
Justification:
“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.”

75. Brown v. Texas (1979)
Two police officers stopped Brown and asked for identification.
Brown refused to provide identification and was arrested for failing to properly identify himself.
Brown was convicted.
Brown appealed based on an illegal stop.

76. Brown v. Texas (1979)
Officers testified that Brown was not acting suspiciously, nor did they think he had a weapon.

77. U.S. Supreme Court Decision: conviction overturned
Brown v. Texas (1979)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: conviction overturned
Justification:
Under the circumstances, since there was no reason to stop Brown, he could not be punished for refusing to identify himself.

78. Smith v. Ohio (1990)
Smith was approached by two plain clothes officers who asked Smith to “come here a minute.”
Smith kept walking until the police identified themselves.
Smith put a paper bag he was carrying on the hood of his car to keep it from the police.

79. Smith v. Ohio (1990)
The police inspected the bag and found marijuana and arrested Smith for possession.
Smith was convicted.
Smith appealed.

80. U.S. Supreme Court: overturned conviction
Smith v. Ohio (1990)
U.S. Supreme Court: overturned conviction
Justification: An individual has the right to protect his belongings from an unwarranted search, because, in this case, there was little reason to stop the suspect and because control over the bag was not thought necessary for the officer’s protection.

81. Carroll v. U.S. (1925)
The first U.S. Supreme Court case to involve an automobile.
U.S. Supreme Court ruled a warrantless search of an automobile is valid if based on a reasonable belief that contraband is present.

82. Intelligence Function
Police need to gather information through many sources.
informants
police interrogation

83. Intelligence Function
In the case of informants, there is a two-pronged test that can be used to establish probable cause.

84. Intelligence Function
The source of the informant’s information is made clear.
The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable.

85. Intelligence Function
interrogation - Any behaviors “that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”

86. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Danny Escobedo is arrested, without a warrant, for the murder of his brother-in-law.
Danny makes no statements during the initial interrogation and is released.
A few weeks later, someone identifies Danny as the murderer.
Danny is, again, brought in for interrogation

87. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Danny is told they “have him cold.”
Danny asks to see his lawyer and is told he cannot since the interrogation is underway.
Danny’s lawyer arrives and asks to see his client but is told he has to wait until questioning is complete.
Meanwhile, Danny is told that his lawyer does not want to see him.

88. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Danny confesses to the crime.
Danny is convicted and appeals his conviction.

89. conviction overturned
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
Decision:
conviction overturned

90. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Justification:
Escobedo is entitled to counsel at police interrogations to protect his rights, and counsel should be provided when the defendant desires.

91. Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona and was accused of kidnapping and rape.
Miranda was identified by the victim.
Miranda was interrogated for two hours, signed a confession ,and was convicted.
He appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court.

92. U.S. Supreme Court Decision: conviction overturned
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
conviction overturned
Justification:
“ 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.”

93. Nontestimonial Evidence
right to privacy issues
body cavity searches
electronic eavesdropping
electronic evidence