1. AJ 50 – Introduction to Administration of Justice
Chapter 5 –
Policing: Legal Aspects

2. Due-Process Amendments of US Constitution
Fourth
Unreasonable search and seizure
Fifth
Self-incrimination, double-jeopardy
Sixth
Charges, attorney, speedy jury trial, witnesses
Eighth
No excessive bail/fines, no cruel/unusual punishment
Fourteenth
Equal protections under the law

3. Checks and Balances Governmental Checks & Balances Landmark Case
Legislative
Judicial
Executive
Landmark Case
Precedent-setting court decision that produces substantial changes in…
Due-process requirements
Day-to-day operations of CJS

4. Search and Seizure 4th Amendment Illegally-seized evidence
People must be secure in their homes and in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures
Illegally-seized evidence
Evidence seized without regard for principles of due process per 4th Amendment
Often result of improper/warrantless searches or improper interrogations

5. The Exclusionary Rule Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Exclusionary Rule
Federal officers seized evidence and personal items without warrant
Personal items returned at request of attorney
Court said if some evidence illegal, all evidence illegal
Exclusionary Rule
Illegally or improperly-obtained evidence, statements, or information will be excluded from proceedings
Intended to control police behavior/misconduct

6. Rules of the Game
The Weeks case demonstrates the power of the Supreme Court in enforcing the “rules of the game”
Before Weeks, officers had little reason to think they were acting in violation of due process
Focusing on the “rules of the game” may allow some guilty criminals to go free
Writ of Certiorari
An order from an appellate court to obtain a record of the lower court’s proceedings for review

7. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920)
Warrantless search/seizure of company’s books
Books returned, but photographs used at trial
Court said photos could not be used, as they were derived from illegally-obtained evidence
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Evidence developed as result of illegal search or seizure also excluded at trial

8. The Warren Court (1953–1969)
The 1960s were a time of youthful idealism, civil rights movement, etc.
Closer look at individual rights, freedoms
Exclusionary Rule had been mostly applied in cases involving federal officers/issues
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Made the Exclusionary Rule applicable to criminal prosecutions at the state level
Reinforced 14th Amendment to States

9. Searches Incident to Arrest
Chimel v. California (1969)
Arresting officers may search…
Defendant
Physical area within easy reach of the defendant
Valid reasons for conducting a search
Officer safety
Preserve evidence
Prevent escape
A search becomes illegal when…
It goes beyond the defendant and the area within the defendant’s immediate control
It is conducted for other than a valid reason

10. The Burger Court (1969−1986) & Rehnquist Court (1986–Present)
More conservative interpretations by the Supreme Court
Greater concern for interests of those who live within the Law
Citizen and Victims’ rights
US vs. Leon (1984)
Good-Faith Exception to exclusionary rule
If search/seizure conducted on basis of good faith, but later discover mistake was made, evidence still allowed in court proceedings

11. Good-Faith Exceptions
Probable Cause = A set of facts leading a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that a particular person has committed a specific crime
Allows full searches of dwellings, vehicles, and possessions
Plain-View Doctrine = Officers, without a warrant, may seize objects in plain view if officer legally in viewing area and has cause to believe evidence associated with criminal activity

12. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (continued)
Emergency Searches
Exigent Circumstances
Warrantless searches by the police, justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need
Public safety
Likely escape of a dangerous suspect
Removal or destruction of evidence

13. Arrest Arrest defined When do arrests occur? Search Incident to Arrest
Taking a person into physical custody in a manner prescribed by law
When do arrests occur?
Crimes in progress
After investigation/questioning
Warrant issued
Search Incident to Arrest
A warrantless search of an arrested individual conducted to ensure officer safety

14. Terry vs. Ohio (1968) Detention
Temporary infringement of person’s freedom of movement
Officer has Reasonable Suspicion that some type of criminal activity had occurred, was occurring, or was about to occur
That level of suspicion that would justify officer to make further inquiry or investigation
Limited “pat-down” search allowed
Officer may “pat down” (frisk) outer clothing of suspect for weapons only

15. Emergency Searches of Persons
Conditions required for emergency, warrantless search of person
Probable cause to believe evidence concealed on the person
Probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence
Officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant
Action no greater than necessary to eliminate the threat of destruction of evidence
All must apply!

16. Vehicle Searches “Fleeting Targets exception” to the Exclusionary Rule
Officers may search vehicle with probable cause but without obtaining warrant
Predicated on the fact that vehicles can quickly leave the scene and/or jurisdiction
Does not automatically apply to occupants of vehicle
Also applies to boats, motor homes, etc.

17. Roadblocks and Motor Vehicle Checkpoints
Police officers have no legitimate authority to detain or arrest people who are going about their business in a peaceful manner
However, community interests may necessitate a temporary suspension of personal liberty, even when probable cause is lacking

18. Suspicionless Searches
Rare cases of compelling interests that negate individual’s right to privacy
Generally conducted when based on overriding concern for Public Safety
Employee drug testing
Random searches at airports
Border searches
High-Technology searches
Still require warrant

19. Informants Aguilar vs. Texas (1964)
Informant information could establish probable cause if…
The source of the informant’s information is made clear, and
The officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable
Anonymous tip may not be sufficient for stop-and-frisk without more information

20. Police Interrogation Interrogation
Information-gathering process through direct questioning of suspect
Police action likely to elicit incriminating response
Subject to constitutional limitations
Physical abuse
Inherent coercion
Psychological manipulation

21. The Right to a Lawyer During Interrogation
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Established the right to have legal counsel present during police interrogation
Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
Once a suspect who is in custody and is being questioned has requested the assistance of counsel, all questioning must cease until an attorney is present

22. Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision
Miranda warnings
Advisement of rights due to criminal suspects before custodial interrogation begins
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
You have the right to remain silent
Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law
You have a right to speak to an attorney and have one present while you are being questioned
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you at no cost

23. Waiver of Miranda Rights by Suspects
Knowing and Intelligent waiver of rights required
Do you understand each of these rights I have explained?
Having these rights in mind, do you wish to answer questions?
Waiver must be expressed or clearly implied
Silence or no response is not a waiver
Exceptions to Miranda
Inevitable-Discovery
Evidence allowed, even if improperly obtained, if it would have been found eventually
Public-Safety
Overrides suspect’s individual rights

24. Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence
Nontestimonial evidence is generally physical evidence and subject to normal search-and-seizure procedures
Special class of “personal” evidence
DNA samples, ingested drugs/materials, etc.
Right to Privacy issues
Body-Cavity searches

25. Electronic Eavesdropping
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968)
Mostly prohibits wiretaps but does allow officers to listen to electronic communications if…
Officer is one of the parties involved in conversation
One of the parties is not the officer but willingly decides to share the communication
Officers obtain a warrant based on probable cause
U.S. v. Scott (1978)
Minimization
Officers must make every reasonable effort to monitor only those conversations, through the use of phone taps, body bugs, and the like, which are specifically related to the criminal activity under investigation

26. Electronic Eavesdropping
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986)
Established due-process requirements that officers must meet to legally intercept wire communications
Wiretaps/bugs
Pen registers (numbers dialed from a phone)
Tracing devices (where a call originated)
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Federal offense for anyone to knowingly use a telecommunications device in an obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent way to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person

27. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 Drafted in response to 9/11/01
Substantially increases the investigatory authority of federal, state, or local police agencies
Permits longer jail terms for certain suspects arrested without a warrant
Broadens “sneak and peek” search authority
Search occurring in suspect’s absence
Enhances the power of prosecutors