1. Irwin/McGraw-Hill © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000 Irwin/McGraw-Hill © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000 Chapter 7 The Rule of Law in Law Enforcement Chapter 7 The Rule of Law in Law Enforcement

2. Irwin/McGraw-Hill © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000 Requirements for “Stop and Frisk” and Requirements for Arrest C7-S1 Table 7.2 “Stop and Frisk”“Arrest” 1.Degree of certainty“Reasonable suspicion”“Probable cause” 2.ScopeVery limited—only patFull body search down for weapons 3.PurposeStop—to preventTo take person into criminal activitycustody 4.WarrantNot neededMay or may not need Source: Rolando del Carmen, Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole, 1991)., p. 109.

3. Irwin/McGraw-Hill © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000 Cases Affirming and Eroding Miranda C7-S2 Table 7.3a Cases Affirming Miranda: Evidence Ruled Not Admissible Factual Situation 1.U.S. v. Henry (1979)Questioning of defendant without a lawyer after indictment. 2.Edwards v. Arizona (1981)No valid waiver of right to counsel. 3.Smith v. Illinois (1985)After invocation of right to counsel during questioning. 4.Michigan v. Jackson (1986)Right to counsel invoked at arraignment. 5.Arizona v. Roberson (1988)Invoking Miranda for one offense, admissible for second offense? 6.Minnick v. Mississippi (1990)When counsel is requested, the suspect has the right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Source: Rolando del Carmen, Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole, 1991)., p. 307.

4. Irwin/McGraw-Hill © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000 Cases Affirming and Eroding Miranda C7-S3 Table 7.3b Cases Eroding Miranda: Evidence Ruled Admissible Factual Situation 1.Harris v. New York (1971)Impeachment of credibility. 2.Michigan v. Tucker (1974)Collateral derivative evidence. 3.Michigan v. Mosley (1975)Questioning on an unrelated offense. 4.New York v. Quarles (1984)Threat to public safety. 5.Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)Roadside questioning of a motorist pursuant to routine traffic stop. 6.Oregon v. Elstad (1985)Confession obtained after warnings given following earlier voluntary but unwarned admission. 7.Moran v. Burbine (1986)Failure of police to inform suspect of attorney retained for him. 8.Colorado v. Connelly (1986)Confession following advice of God. 9.Connecticut v. Barrett (1987)Oral confession. 10.Colorado v. Spring (1987)Shift to another crime. 11.Arizona v. Mauro (1987)Officer recorded conversation with defendant’s wife. 12.Pennsylvania v. Bruder (1988)Curbside stop for traffic violation. 13.Duckworth v. Eagan (1989)Variation in warning. 14.Michigan v. Harvey (1990)Impeachment of testimony. 15.Illinois v. Perkins (1990)Officer posing as inmate. 16.Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)Routine questions and videotaping DWI. 17.McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991)Invoking a suspect’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not amount to an invocation of the right to counsel derived by Miranda. Source: Rolando del Carmen, Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole, 1991)., p. 307.

5. Irwin/McGraw-Hill © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000 C7-S4 Figure 7.6 Source: Adapted from Rolando del Carmen, Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole, 1991), p. 61. Illegal police act 1. Illegally seized evidence —not admissible. Evidence illegally obtained 2. “Fruit of the poisonous tree” —not admissible. Evidence obtained from illegally obtained evidence Inevitable discovery. Independent untainted source. Purged taint. Good faith. 3. Admissible Except How Evidence Becomes Inadmissable and the Exceptions that Make it Admissible