AJ 50 – Introduction to Administration of Justice

Chapter 5 –

Policing: Legal Aspects

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

Checks and Balances

Governmental Checks & Balances– Legislative – Judicial– Executive

Landmark Case – Precedent-setting court decision that produces

substantial changes in… Due-process requirements Day-to-day operations of CJS

Search and Seizure

4th Amendment– 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

The Exclusionary Rule

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)– 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrest

Arrest defined– 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

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

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!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waiver of Miranda Rightsby 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

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

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

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

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