LEGALCONSIDERATIONSIN CRIME SCENEINVESTIGATION

“The true measure of a civilized society is how

it treats people accused of crimes.”

Winston Churchill

4th AmendmentU. S. Constitution• The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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.

5th AmendmentU. S. Constitution• No person shall be held to answer for a

capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th AmendmentU. S. Constitution

• In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

14th AmendmentU. S. Constitution

• Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Terminology

• Search Warrant: judge’s written order for a peace officer to search a specified place and to seize evidence

• Anticipatory—certain evidence will be found in a specific place at a given time

Terminology

• Doctrine of Particularity: warrant must state specifically what is to be searched

• Four Corners Rule: all information perti-nent to search warrant affidavit must be included “within the four corners of the affidavit”

Terminology

• Probable Cause: The facts or apparent facts that would lead a “reasonable person” to believe that a crime has been committed or that evidence of the crime could be found at a specific location

• Standing: Person must have reasonable expectation of privacy to protest an illegal search

Recap: Warrants and Probable Cause • Warrants are issued and arrests made if the

evidence can demonstrate probable cause. • Probable cause is defined by the Fourth

Amendment as “a necessary element of a legitimate or legal search and seizure; a reasonable ground to believe that someone is committing or has committed an offense. It must amount to more than just suspicion but need not rise to the level of evidence justifying conviction.”

• http://law.yourdictionary.com/probable-cause

Terminology

• Exclusionary Rule: Illegally obtained gambling evidence was inadmissible (Weeks v. U.S., 1914) This is a prophylactic rule—formulated by judges to protect a fundamental right.

• Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: if illegal evidence leads to evidence that would otherwise have been legally obtained (derivative evidence), that latter evidence is also inadmissible (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. USA, 1920)

The Warren Court, 1953-1969

Chief Justice Earl Warren

Front: Harlan, Black, Warren, Douglas, Brennen; Back: Fortas,

Stewart, White, Marshall

Landmark Cases

• Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Dollree Mapp convicted of possession of obscene materials based upon fruits of illegal search (for bomb-making materials). The ruling made the Exclusionary Rule binding upon all states.

Dollree (Dolly) Mapp—a one-time girlfriend of boxing champ Archie Moore

Dolly’s home in Shaker Heights

Landmark Cases

• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Clarence Gideon, an indigent, had been convicted of breaking into a pool hall. He asked for but was denied a court-appointed attorney. Court-appointed attorneys were appointed only in capital cases in Florida. Conviction overturned under the 6th Amendment. Gideon was subsequently acquitted at retrial.

Clarence Gideon

• "It has become almost axiomatic that the great rights which are secured for all of us by the Bill of Rights are constantly tested and retested in the courts by the people who live in the bottom of society's barrel . . . ."

(Tobias Smith, Florida Civil Liberties Union, in a comment regarding Gideon)

Landmark Cases

• Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Danny Escobedo questioned for murder; denied access to his attorney. Conviction reversed.

Danny Escobedo

Landmark Cases

• Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Miranda convicted of murder; his confession was obtained without his having been apprised of his right of silence. That he had been through the system several times was insufficient evidence that he understood his 5th Amendment right. Conviction reversed (but he remained in prison).

Ernesto Arturo Miranda

Landmark Cases• Mincey v. Arizona (1978) Rufus Mincey convicted

of murder, assault, and narcotics charges based upon 4-day warrantless search, justified by “murder scene exception”. There is no murder scene exception. A warrantless search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation," Conviction reversed.

• http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/437/385

Search Warrants: the Affidavit• Items to be searched for—specified and no

blanket warrants• Person / place to be searched• Owner, occupant, etc., of place• Crime that has been or is being committed• Facts and circumstances which form the basis for

the conclusion of probable cause

Affidavit• “..have reason to believe and do believe..”

• “..said belief is based upon..”

Items to Be Searched For

• Fruits or instrumentalities of the crime

• Contraband

Warrantless Searches

• Presumed illegal unless otherwise proven to be reasonable

• Decided on case-by-case basis

Exceptions

• Consent

• Plain View

• Probable Cause / Exigent Circum-stances

Exceptions

• Incident to arrest

• Hot pursuit of fleeing felon

• Stop & Frisk (temporary detention for investigation); Terry v. Ohio, 1968

Exceptions• Inventory Search

• Abandonment

• Lockers, etc.

• Vehicles (U. S. v. Ross, Houghton v. Wyoming)

Other Cases

Chimel v. California, 1969Maryland v. Buie, 1990United States v. Sokolow, 1989

• Permissibility of searching areas within the immediate reach of arrestees

United States v. Leon, 1984Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 1984

• The evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial when it is established that the police acted in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 1990• Regarding third-party consent to search, it was

reasonable to conclude that the consenting party had authority over the premises, based on the facts available at the moment; thus, the evidence was admissible.

Nix v. Williams, 1984• The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine allows for

evidence to be used, even if it was collected illegally, if the prosecution can show that the evidence would have been discovered from a hypothetical, independent source.

Arizona v. Evans, 1995• A search was found to be reasonable, even though

the officer had justified the search based upon an arrest warrant—which had been canceled earlier but was erroneously still showing to be active.

Corpus Delecti• “Body of the crime”

• All of the physical evidence and facts of the crime

Elements of the Offense

• Venue—jurisdiction

• The indictment: must prove up all of the elements specified in the indictment

The Indictment

• In the name and by authority of the State of Texas: The grand jury of Tarrant County, State of Texas, duly organized at the April term, A.D. 2010, of the 213th District Court of said county, in said court at said term, do present that John Doe (hereinafter styled the defendant) on or about the 20th day of March A.D. 2010, in said county and State, did then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of Joe Blow by stabbing him with a knife, against the peace and dignity of the State,

............, Foreman of the grand jury."

Elements to Prove:• Who (John Doe)• What (caused the death of Joe Blow)• When (On or about…)• Where (Tarrant Co., Texas)• How (by stabbing him with a knife…)• Why? Not necessary

Rules for Admissibility of Scientific Evidence:

More Cases…

Rules for Admissibility of Scientific Evidence

• To determine the admissibility of scientific evidence, there must be method validation and laboratory validation. The evidence must also be relevant to the investigation and reliable. After the case Frye v. United States, the court issued a test, called the Frye rule, for determining admissibility.

• The Frye rule states that “the principle governing admissibility is the general acceptance of the test’s underlying principles by the scientific community to which the test belongs.”

Frye v. United States: Summary

• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100206123400AABJ4yB

• Basically, the evidence and the analysis method must have general acceptance in the scientific community.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

• http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Daubert+standard

• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals:• Whether a "theory or technique . . . can be (and has been) tested"

• Whether it "has been subjected to peer review and publication".

• Whether, in respect to a particular technique, there is a high "known or potential rate of error"

• Whether there are "standards controlling the technique's operation".

Daubert Standard• The federal courts have since issued a set of

criteria for scientific evidence called the Daubert Standard after case William Daubert. ux. etc., et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This standard creates a more rigorous test for scientific admissibility.

Frye and Daubert

• Using both the Frye rule and Daubert Standard, the federal courts have developed the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE).

• These rules apply to federal cases only, but many states have adopted them.