1. Chapter 6: Police and Law

2. Learning Objectives
Know the extent of police officers’ authority to stop people and to conduct searches of people, their vehicles, and other property
Recognize how police officers seek warrants in order to conduct searches and make arrests
Identify situations in which police officers can examine property and conduct searches without obtaining a warrant
Analyze the purpose of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination

3. Learning objectives
Understand the exclusionary rule and situations in which it applies
Analyze the problems of police abuse and corruption
Recognize the problems of police misbehavior and the mechanisms used to hold police accountable when they violate laws and policies

4. Arizona v. Grant
In 2009 Arizona police arrested Rodeny Grant who had just parked his car at his house, exited his vehicle and locked the door. After arrest, the police searched his car without warrant. Grant’s attorney moved to suppress any evidence found as the police had no warrant The Supreme Court upheld the suppression of the evidence.
Why do you think the court suppressed the evidence?
Were they right or wrong?

5. Legal Limits on Police Investigations
The Bill of Rights is the foundation of American liberty
The most important in interactions between the police and public are the 4th and 5th, during trial the 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments

6. The Fourth Amendment
Restricts the powers of police when interacting with citizens
Bans ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’
The Supreme Court defines:
Search:
An intrusion on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy

7. Plain View Doctrine
Officers may examine and use as evidence, without a warrant, contraband or evidence that is in open view at a location where they are legally permitted to be

8. Seizures
Situations in which police officers use their authority to deprive people of their liberty or property and which must not be “unreasonable” according to the Fourth Amendment
One form of seizure is an arrest, which involves taking a suspect into custody
Property can also be subject to seizure, especially if it is evidence in a criminal case
A stop is a brief interference with a person’s freedom of movement for a duration that can be measured in minutes

9. Reasonable Suspicion
A situation in which specific articulable facts lead officers to conclude that the person may be engaging in criminal activity
In order to be permissible under the Fourth Amendment, stops must be justified by reasonable suspicion
Officers cannot legally make stops based on hunches
The courts permit police officers to make many kinds of stops without reasonable suspicion, for example, at border crossing points

10. Arrest
An arrest is a significant deprivation of liberty, because a person is taken into police custody, transported to the police station or jail, and processed into the criminal justice system
Because arrests involve a more significant intrusion on liberty, they require a higher level of justification
Unlike stops, which require only reasonable suspicion, all arrests must be supported by probable cause

11. Probable Cause
An amount of reliable information indicating that it is more likely than not that evidence will be found in a specific location or that a specific person is guilty of a crime

12. Use of Force – Deadly Force
The police may use force to make an arrest or stop, however the force is regulated
Deadly force may not be used unless the suspect poses a significant threat to the life or safety of the officer or another

13. Tennessee v. Garner
In 1974, police officers were chasing an unarmed teenager, Edward Garner, who had just committed a burglary. The police shot and killed Garner as he tried to climb a fence to escape. The Supreme Court banned the use of deadly force after this case, unless the suspect is a danger to the officer or others.
Do you think the Court was right? What alternative do you think is better?

14. The Concept of Arrest
To arrest a suspect the police need probable cause – showing it is likely or reasonable that the suspect committed a crime
Arrests can be made based on information, observation or warrants
Warrants are issued by judges who find that probable cause exists to arrest a suspect.

15. Warrants 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

16. Video – Discussion Questions
What are the primary use of warrants
Do you think they are outdated?
What rights do they protect?
Do they hurt effective law enforcement?
What alternatives exist?

17. Video – How and Why of Warrants

18. Affidavit
Written statement of fact, supported by oath or affirmation, submitted to judicial officers to fulfill the requirements of probable cause for obtaining a warrant

19. Totality of the Circumstances
Created by Supreme Court
Illinois v. Gates, 1983
Flexible test for identifying whether probable cause exists to justify a judge’s issuance of a warrant allowing officers to arrest

20. Warrantless Searches
Special needs beyond the normal purposes of law enforcement
Stop and frisk on the streets
Search incident to a lawful arrest
Exigent circumstances
Consent
Automobile searches

21. Special Needs Beyond the Normal Purposes of Law Enforcement
In certain specific contexts, law enforcement officials have a justified need to conduct warrantless searches of every individual passing through at pre- designated point
Examples are metal detectors at airports, searches of luggage chosen at random, sobriety checkpoints, etc.
Police do NOT have the power to simply make random stops

22. Special Needs Beyond the Normal Purposes of Law Enforcement
The U.S. Supreme Court has not given blanket approval for every kind of checkpoint or traffic stop that police might wish to use
The Court forbids random stops of vehicles by officers on patrol (Delaware v. Prouse, 1979)
Officers must have a basis for a vehicle stop, such as an observed violation of traffic laws
The Court declared a general search for criminal evidence does not justify the use of a checkpoint
Such stops must be narrowly focused on a specific objective, such as checking for drunken drivers

23. Stop and Frisk
Police officers possess the authority to make stops and limited searches of individuals on the streets
In the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio (1968) the Court upheld the stop-and-frisk procedure when a police officer had good reasons to conclude that a person endangered the public by being involved in criminal activity
Police officers are entitled to protect themselves and others in the area by conducting a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault the officer

24. Prejudice? – Stop and Frisk
In NYC stop and frisks increased 600% from 2002 to 2012 – 97,000 to 685, % of those stopped and frisked were Black or Hispanic
Are the police targeting minorities? Or should they expand their practice to Whites and Asians?
Is stop and frisk getting out of hand? Or is it a valuable tool?

25. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
The authority to undertake a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is not limited by the crime for which the arrestee has been taken into custody
The officers must make sure that the arrestee does not have a weapon that could endanger the officers or others in the vicinity
The officers must also look for evidence that might be destroyed or damaged by the arrestee before or during the process of transporting the arrestee to jail
Officers can search the arrestee and the immediate area around the arrestee

26. Exigent Circumstances
Applies when officers are in the middle of an urgent situation in which they must act swiftly and do not have time to go to court to seek a warrant
For example, when officers are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspected felon
Can justify the warrantless entry into a home or other building and an accompanying search that flows from the officers’ response to the urgent situation

27. Consent
If people consent to a search, officers do not need probable cause or even any level of suspicion to justify the search
Consent effectively absolves law enforcement officers of any risk that evidence will be excluded from use at trial or that they will be found liable in a civil lawsuit alleging a violation of Fourth Amendment rights
Consent searches provide a valuable investigatory tool for officers who wish to conduct warrantless searches

28. Permissible Consent Searches
The consent must voluntary
The consent must be given by someone who possesses authority to give consent and thereby waive the right
The police may not search when one resident of a dwelling is present and objects, even if another resident consents to the search of the house

29. Automobile Searches
Because cars are mobile, they differ greatly from houses and other buildings
Police officers have significant authority to search automobiles and to issue commands to people riding in vehicles
Officers can order passengers as well as the driver to exit the vehicle, even if there is no basis for suspicion that the passengers engaged in any wrongdoing

30. Myth or Reality?
Under the Fourth Amendment’s requirements for searches, only judges make determinations of ‘probable cause’ and they do so in order to decide whether to issue a search warrant
Fact:
The officers themselves, rather than a judge, determine whether probable cause exists before conducting the warrantless search of the vehicle
If a judge later disagrees with an officer’s conclusion about the existence of probable cause, any evidence found in the search of the automobile might be excluded from use at trial

31. Questioning Suspects
The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination should not be viewed as simply a legal protection that seeks to assist individuals who may be guilty of crimes
The Fifth Amendment discourages police officers from using violent or otherwise coercive means to push suspects to confess

32. Miranda Rules
The 1966 decision by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona said that as soon as the investigation of a crime begins to focus on a particular suspect and he or she is taken into custody, the so-called Miranda warnings must be read aloud before questioning can begin

33. Miranda requires that suspects must be told four things:
They have the right to remain silent
If they decide to make a statement, it can and will be used against them in court
They have the right to have an attorney present during interrogation or to have an opportunity to consult with an attorney
If they cannot afford an attorney, the state will provide one

34. Miranda Rules
The Miranda warnings only apply to what are called custodial interrogations
If police officers walk up to someone on the streets and begin asking questions, there is no need to inform the person of his rights

35. Limits on Miranda
Since the 1980s the Courts have steadily limited the impact of Miranda
In Berghuis v. Thompkins a suspect who remained silent was NOT said to be exercising his rights, he had to affirmatively state he wished to remain silent
Public Safety Exception
If general public in immediate danger police need not give Miranda warnings before questioning

36. The Exclusionary Rule
The principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial
The  exclusionary rule does not necessarily require that cases against defendants be dismissed when constitutional rights have been violated
The prosecution can continue, but it may not use improperly obtained evidence

37. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
Good Faith Exception
The officers acted with the honest belief that they were following the proper rules, but the judge issued the warrant improperly
Inevitable Discovery Rule
Supreme Court ruling that improperly obtained evidence can be used when it would later have been inevitably discovered by the police