1 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Chapter 7

Policing: Legal Aspects

2 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

ABUSE OF POLICE POWER

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

ARREST

THE INTELLIGENCE FUNCTION

3 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Changing Legal Climate

The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power.

4 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Changing Legal Climate

1960’s

The U.S. Supreme Court sped up the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.

5 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Individual RightsDue Process

requirement of 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution

6 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Search and Seizure• People must be

secure in their homes.

• People must also be protected

against unreasonable searches and seizures.

7 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Searches & Seizure

EXCLUSIONARY RULE Weeks vs. U.S.

FRUIT OF THE POISONED TREE

DOCTRINE

Silverthorne Lumber vs. U.S.

EXCLUSIONARY RULE FOR THE STATES

Mapp vs. Ohion

INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST

U.S. vs. Rabinowitz

Chimel vs. California

8 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

9 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

• Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial.

• This rule acts as a control over police behavior.

Exclusionary Rule

10 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Fruits of Poisoned TreeSilverthorne Lumber

Co. v. U.S. (1918) • Silverthorne was

accused of not paying taxes.

• Federal agentswanted the company books.

• Silverthorne refused to turn over books.

11 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

• 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.

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)

12 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

13 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Supreme Court Chief Justices

• Earl Warren 1953 - 1969

• Warren Burger 1969 - 1986

• William Rehnquist 1986 - present

14 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Warren Court

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

15 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Warren Court

• applied the exclusionary rule to States

• Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

16 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

• U.S. Supreme Court decided: 14th 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.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

17 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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

18 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Burger CourtAdherence to the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process right…

19 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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

Burger Court

20 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions

Good Faith U.S. vs. Leon

Illinois vs. Krull

Plain View Doctrine U.S. vs. Harris

Emergency Searches of Property

Warden vs. Hayden

21 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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”

22 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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

23 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

24 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Plain View Doctrine

25 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision: appeal rejectedJustification:

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.

Harris v. U.S. (1968)

26 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Plain View Situations

Police can use evidence if they observe it during emergencies such as:• crimes in progress• fires• accidents

27 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

28 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

29 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.”

Warden v. Hayden (1967)

30 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Search and SeizureArrest

31 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Arrest & Searches

FREE TO LEAVE TEST U.S. vs. Mendenhall

STOP AND FRISK Terry vs. Ohio

EMERGENCY SEARCHES OF PERSONS

Sanders vs. Arkansas

VEHICLE SEARCHES U.S. vs. Caroll

SUSPICIONLESS SEARCHES National Treasury Employees Union vs. Von Raob

32 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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, …

33 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

... a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”

U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)

34 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

35 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision:appeal rejected

Stop and frisk requires reasonablesuspicion, the facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

36 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.”

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

37 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

Smith v. Ohio (1990)

38 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

39 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Intelligence Function

Police need to gather information through many sources.

• informants• police interrogation

40 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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

Intelligence Function

41 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

• The source of the informant’s information is made clear.

• The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable.

Intelligence Function

42 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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

Intelligence Function

43 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

The Intelligence Function

INFORMANTS

TWO-PRONGED RULE Aguilar vs. Texas

POLICE INTERROGATION

PHYSICAL ABUSE Brown vs. Mississippi

INHERENT COERCION Ashcroft vs. Tennessee

PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATION

Leyra vs. Denno

44 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

The Intelligence Function

Right to a Lawyer Escobedo vs. Illinois

Suspect’s Rights Miranda vs. Arizona

Miranda Rights Waiver

Moran vs. Burbine

Miranda Rights Exception

Quarles vs. New York

45 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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

46 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

47 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

• Danny confesses to the crime.

• Danny is convicted and appeals his conviction.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

48 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

U.S. Supreme Court

Decision:

conviction overturned

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

49 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Justification:

Escobedo is entitled to counsel at police

interrogations to protect his rights, and

counsel should be provided when the defendant desires.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

50 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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.

51 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Miranda v Arizona (1966)U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

conviction overturnedJustification:

“ 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.”

52 © 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Nontestimonial Evidence• right to privacy issues

• body cavity searches

• electronic eavesdropping

• electronic evidence