BCCO PCT #4 PowerPoint

INTERMEDIATE

CRIME SCENE SEARCHTCOLE Course # 2106# 2106

32 to 40-hours

AND

INTRO & UNIT ONE

• Please complete the BCCO PCT #4 Registration form and turn it in now.

• Make sure you sign TCOLE Report of Training (PID#, Full Name and DOB).

• All cell phones off please – pay attention to course materials and show common respect & courtesy.

ADMINISTRATIVEADMINISTRATIVE

Your Instructor – Course Facilitator Your Instructor – Course Facilitator and Mentor Trainerand Mentor Trainer

04/19/23 3

Deputy Chief George D. Little

A.S. & B.S. Criminal Justice & SociologyB.S.CJ Wayland Baptist University, San Antonio

M.S. Criminology & Counter-Terrorism University of the State of New York(P)

2012 T.C.O.L.E. Professional Achievement AwardCertified Crime Prevention Specialist (C.C.P.S.)

TCOLE Basic Instructor Certificate 1984TCOLE Advanced Instructor 2012TCOLE Master Peace Officer 1991

MP Special Operations Operator Counter-Terrorism 1988Military Police Investigations (MPI) & Criminal Investigation Division

(CID) Special AgentGraduate Drug Enforcement Administration Academy 1977

43- years Law Enforcement Experience 43- years Law Enforcement Experience 39-Years Teaching & Instructor Experience39-Years Teaching & Instructor Experience

George D. Little

A.S. & B.S. Criminal Justice & SociologyB.S.CJ Wayland Baptist University, San Antonio

M.S. Criminology & Counter-Terrorism University of the State of New York

2012 T.C.L.E.O.S.E. Professional Achievement AwardCertified Crime Prevention Specialist (C.C.P.S.)

TCLEOSE Basic Instructor Certificate 1984TCLEOSE Master Peace Officer 1991

MP Special Operations Operator Counter-Terrorism 1988Graduate Drug Enforcement Administration Academy 1977

42- years Law Enforcement Experience 42- years Law Enforcement Experience 39-Years Teaching & Instructor Experience39-Years Teaching & Instructor Experience

About Your InstructorAbout Your InstructorCourse Facilitator - Mentor Course Facilitator - Mentor

FORWARDThe Intermediate Crime Scene Search Course is designed to provide additional information on this subject area. This course is one of the seven courses required for Intermediate certification. It is not meant to override department policy and current laws.

Course Overview Course Overview 1.0 Legal Aspects of a Crime Scene Search

2.0 Preparing for a Crime Scene Investigation

3.0 Investigating a Crime Scene

4.0 Sketching & Photographing

5.0 Fingerprinting

6.0 Identification, Collection, and Preservation of Evidence

7.0 DNA Evidence

8.0 Specific Crime Scene Searches

9.0 Simulated Crime Scene

10.0 Computer and Other Electronic Evidence

Crime Scene Practical Exercises Crime Scene Practical Exercises and Final TEST and Final TEST you must score 70%70% or higher to pass course.

Course OverviewCourse OverviewContinued Continued

UNIT 1.0UNIT 1.0

•Legal Aspects Legal Aspects of a Crime of a Crime Scene SearchScene Search

Learning ObjectivesLearning ObjectivesLearning Objective Learning Objective 1.1 The student will be able to summarize the legal aspects of a crime scene search.

Learning Objective Learning Objective 1.1.1 The student will be able to explain certain objectives and legal obligations that must be followed during a crime scene search.

Learning Objective Learning Objective 1.1.2 The student will be able to identify related constitutional and criminal laws related to a crime scene search.

Learning Objective Learning Objective 1.1.3 The student will be able to define a search warrant.

Learning Objective Learning Objective 1.1.4 The student will be able to describe certain requirements of a search warrant.

Learning Objective Learning Objective 1.1.5 The student will be able to discuss search warrants according to Texas statutes.

Learning ObjectiveLearning Objective1.1.6 The student will be able to explain some advantages of using a search warrant

Learning Objective Learning Objective 1.1.7 The student will be able to explain some exceptions of a warrantless search.

Learning Objective Learning Objective 1.1.8 The student will be able to explain some justifications for denying unauthorized persons access to a crime scene.

1.01.0 Legal Aspects of Legal Aspects of a Crime Scene a Crime Scene SearchSearchA. A. Objectives of a crime scene searchObjectives of a crime scene search.

1. A crime scene search is a plannedplanned and coordinatedcoordinated legal search of a crime scene to locate physicalphysical evidenceevidence or witnesseswitnesses to the crime under investigation.

2. The objectives in conducting a search of a crime scene are to aid in the following:

Objectives of a crime scene search (2.)

a. Can help establish that a crimecrime has been committed. (i.e., identify the type of crime and establish the elements of the crime.)

b. Can be used to place the suspectsuspect at the scene (i.e., shoe impressions may match those of a known suspect in the community.)

c. Can be used to eliminateeliminate persons, such as through DNA testing.

Objectives of a crime scene search (2.)

d. Can cause suspects confronted with physical evidence to confessconfess the crime.

e.Witness’s testimony can be supported with physicalphysical evidence.

f.Can help establish wherewhere the crime was committedcommitted? HowHow the crime was committed

(M.O

WhyWhy the crime was committed (motive)?

WhenWhen the crime was committed?

B. Follow the Law.B. Follow the Law.

1.1. LocalLocal, StateState, and FederalFederal laws must be abided to ensure admissibility of evidence in a court of law.

2. This can be done by keeping up to date with current laws current laws and agency agency policypolicy, as well as communicating with legal authorities.

3. Determine the need of a search search warrant.warrant.

4. If the crime scene does not fall under your agency’s jurisdiction, identifyidentify thethe jurisdictionjurisdiction and contact appropriate agency.

Continued:Continued:

C. Secure the RemainsC. Secure the Remains1. Ensure the bodybody is securesecure by

supervising the labeling, packaging, and removal of the remains.

2. Ensure the appropriate IDID tag is placed on the bodybody to preclude misidentificationmisidentification upon receipt at the examining agency.

3. Ensure all potential evidenceevidence is safe-guarded and property and clothing remain on the body.

4. Prior to leaving the scene, ensure the body is protectedprotected from further trauma or contamination, and unauthorized removal of therapeutic and resuscitative equipment.

5. Ensure all propertyproperty of the person is identified.

6. Ensure all DNADNA samples are recovered.

7. Ensure the bodybody is properly placed in the bag.

8. Maintain jurisdictionjurisdiction over the bodybody, and record any transactions.

9. Ensure appropriate officials sign the deathdeath certificatecertificate and other respective documents.

D. Notify next of kinD. Notify next of kin

1.  Next of kin of a deceased victim (s) should be notified as soon as possiblepossible.

2. Notification initiates closureclosure for the family, disposition of remains, and facilitate the collection of additional information relative to the case.

One of the worst jobs for a law enforcement officer is telling a Loved-

one their family member is dead.

3.  Inform the family of the following:

a. If an autopsy is required.

b. Available supportsupport servicesservices (e.g. victim assistance, police, social services, etc.)

c. Appropriate agenciesagencies to contact with questions or additional information.

d. Ensure the family is not left alone with the bodybody.

3.  Inform the family of the following:

e. Provide a timetabletimetable of how/when the victim’s information will be released (toxicology results, etc.)

f. Inform family of available reportsreports, including costs, if any.

Continued:Continued:

U.S. U.S. Constitutional Constitutional

and and

Criminal Laws Criminal Laws

A. A. Due process, Due process, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Constitution, & Bill of Rights.& Bill of Rights.

14th Amendment – three classes of rights:

a.) privilegesprivileges and immunities of citizens of the U.S.,

b.) due process of law, and

c.) equal protection under the law.

A. A. Due process, U.S. Constitution, Due process, U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights….cont’d:and the Bill of Rights….cont’d:

2. 4th Amendment – unreasonable searchessearches and seizureseizure clause; warrantwarrant clause.

3. 5th Amendment – selfself-incriminationincrimination clause.

4. 6th Amendment – right to confrontationconfrontation clause; right to counselcounsel clause.

B. Legal issues for searches. B. Legal issues for searches.

1. Probable causeProbable cause.

2. Exclusionary ruleExclusionary rule.

3. Fruit of the Poison Tree Fruit of the Poison Tree Doctrine Doctrine (duedue processprocess)

a. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 US 385 (1918)

Continued:Continued:

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States

• Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The issue in this case is whether or not derivatives of illegal evidence are permissible in court. The ruling was that to permit derivatives would encourage police to circumvent the 44thth Amendment Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence was held tainted and inadmissible. This precedent later became known as the “fruit of the poisonous treefruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine,"and is an extension of the exclusionary rule.

4. Search incident to Search incident to lawfullawful arrestarrest.

a. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

b. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)

c. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) a. Nix v. William, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)

Chimel v. California

• In Chimel, the Court held that police officers arrestingarresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a searchsearch warrantwarrant, although they may search the area within immediate reach of the person. The rule relating to searches incident to a lawful arrest searches incident to a lawful arrest within the home is now known as the Chimel rule.

Maryland v. Buie

• In 1990. In the case, the Court held that the 44thth Amendment Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrestarrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonablereasonable beliefbelief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.

United States v. Sokolow• Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents

stopped respondent upon his arrival at Honolulu International Airport. The agents found 1,063 grams of cocaine in his carry-on luggage. When respondent was stopped, the agents knew, inter alia, that (1) he paid $2,100 for two round-trip plane tickets from a roll of $20 bills; (2) he traveled under a name that did not match the name under which his telephone number was listed; (3) his original destination was Miami, a source city for illicit drugs; (4) he stayed in Miami for only 48 hours, even though a round-trip

Cont’dCont’d: from Honolulu to Miami takes 20 hours; (5) he appeared nervous during his trip; and (6) he checked none of his luggage. Respondent was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed respondent's conviction, applying a two-part test for determining reasonable suspicion. First, ruled the court, at least one fact describing "ongoing criminal activity" - such as the use of an alias or evasive movement through an airport - was always necessary to support a reasonable-suspicion finding. Second, "probabilistic" facts describing "personal characteristics" of drug couriers - such as the cash payment for tickets, a short trip to a major source city for drugs,

Cont’dCont’d: nervousness, type of attire, and unchecked luggage - were only relevant if there was evidence of "ongoing criminal activity" and the Government [490 U.S. 1, 2]   offered "empirical documentation" that the combination of facts at issue did not describe the behavior of "significant numbers of innocent persons." The Court of Appeals held the agents' stop impermissible, because there was no evidence of ongoing criminal behavior in this case.

Held: Held:

On the facts of this case, the DEA agents had a had a reasonable suspicionreasonable suspicion that respondent was transporting illegal drugs when they stopped him

5. Good Good faithfaith exception exception.

a. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

b. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984)

c. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990)

Continued:Continued:

United States v. Leon• On August 1981, police in received a tip

identifying Patsy Stewart and Armando Sanchez as drug dealers. Police began surveillance of their homes and followed leads based on the cars that frequented the residences. The police identified Ricardo Del Castillo and Alberto Leon as also being involved in the operation. Based on this surveillancesurveillance and information from a second informant, a detective wrote an affidavit affidavit and a judgejudge issued a search warrant. The police

Cont’d:Cont’d: conducted the search, but the search warrant was later found to be invalid because the police lacked the probable cause for a warrant to be issued in the first place. The evidence obtained evidence obtained in the search was upheld was upheld anyway, because the police performed the search in reliance on the warrant, meaning they “acted in good faithacted in good faith”. This became known as the good faith exception to the exclusionary good faith exception to the exclusionary rulerule.

Massachusetts v. Sheppard• A police detective drafted an affidavit to

support an application for an arrest warrant and a search warrant authorizing the search of respondent's residence. The affidavit stated that the police wished to search for certain described items, including clothing of the victim and a blunt instrument that might have been used on the victim. The affidavit was reviewed and approved by the District Attorney. Because it was Sunday, the local court was closed, and the police had a

Cont’d: difficult time finding a warrant application form. The detective finally found a warrant form previously used in another district to search for controlled substances. After making some changes in the form, the detective presented it and the affidavit to a judge at his residence, informing him that the warrant form might need to be further changed. Concluding that the affidavit established probable cause to search respondent's residence and telling the detective that the necessary changes in the warrant form would be made, the judge

Cont’d: difficult time finding a warrant application form. The detective finally found a warrant form previously used in another district to search for controlled substances. After making some changes in the form, the detective presented it and the affidavit to a judge at his residence, informing him that the warrant form might need to be further changed. Concluding that the affidavit established probable cause to search respondent's residence and telling the detective that the necessary changes in the warrant form would be made, the judge

Cont’d: some changes, but did not change the substantive portion, which continued to authorize a search for controlled substances, nor did he alter the form so as to incorporate the affidavit. The judge then signed the warrant and returned it and the affidavit to the detective, informing him that the warrant was sufficient authority in form and content to carry out the requested search. The ensuing search of respondent's residence by the detective and other police officers was limited to the items listed in the affidavit, and several incriminating pieces of evidence were discovered.

Cont’d: Thereafter, respondent was charged with first-degree murder. At a pretrial suppression hearing, the trial judge ruled that notwithstanding the warrant was defective under the Fourth Amendment in that it did not particularly describe the items to be seized, the incriminating evidence could be the incriminating evidence could be admitted because the police had acted in admitted because the police had acted in good faith good faith in executing what they reasonably thought was a valid warrant. At the subsequent trial, respondent was convicted.

Illinois v. Rodriguez• Case dealing with the issue of whether a

warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the 4th Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that such searches are valid if, at the time of the search, the authorities "reasonably believe" the third party possesses common authority over the premises. In reaching its decision,

the Supreme Court noted that "reasonableness," not consent, is the touchstone of 4th Amendment jurisprudence; the Constitution only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Therefore, the constitutional validity of a police constitutional validity of a police determination of consent to enter is not determination of consent to enter is not judged by whether the police were correct judged by whether the police were correct in their assessment, in their assessment, but by whether, based but by whether, based on the facts available at the moment, it was on the facts available at the moment, it was reasonable to conclude that the consenting reasonable to conclude that the consenting party had authority over the premisesparty had authority over the premises.

6. Inevitable . Inevitable discoverydiscovery doctrine. doctrine.

a. Nix v. William, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)

7. ComputerComputer errors exception errors exception.

a. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995)

Continued:Continued:

Nix v. William• US Supreme Court decision that created an

"inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionaryexclusionary rulerule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the 44thth Amendment to the Amendment to the United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, inadmissible in criminal trials as “fruits of the poisonous tree”. In Nix, the Court ruled that evidence that would inevitably have been discovered by law enforcement through legal means remainedremained admissibleadmissible.

Arizona v. Evans

• Was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionaryexclusionary rulerule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.

1.1.3 Definitions1.1.3 DefinitionsA.A. Definition of a searchsearch warrantwarrant (or searchsearch-and-seizureseizure warrant)– a judge’s written order authorizing a law enforcement officer to conduct a search of a specified place and to seize evidence (SOURCE: SOURCE: Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed., 1999, West Group, Inc.)

B.B. Specific types:Specific types:1.Anticipatory – based on an affidavit showing probableprobable causecause that evidence of a certain crime will be located at a specific time and place, at a future date

Apparent facts discovered through Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime. person has committed a crime.

B.B. Specific types:

2.Blanket – authorizes officials to search more than one area; serves as an unconstitutional warrant authorizing the seizureseizure of everythingeverything found at a given location, without specifying which items may be seized.

B.B. Specific types:

3.No-knock – authorizes officials to enter premises without knockingknocking and announcingannouncing their presence and purpose before entry (a prior announcement would lead to a destruction of items searched for or would endanger the safety of the police or another person).

TENNESSEE NO-KNOCK!

1.1.4 Requirements of a 1.1.4 Requirements of a Search WarrantSearch Warrant

A. A. In order for a warrant to be legallegal, it must meet:

1.) constitutionalconstitutional guidelines,

2.) legallegal requirements,

3.) the authorization of a magistratemagistrate, and

4.) contain certaincertain information.

B.B. Once a warrant is authorized, it must be executedexecuted promptly; other items of contraband/evidence should not be sought, unless they are specified in the warrant. Items seized, other than those specified in the warrant, are not considered “within the scope of the searchwithin the scope of the search” and will probably be excluded from the trial, as evidence obtained illegally.

C.C. The search process consists basically of three stages:

1)1) the affidavitthe affidavit,

2) executionexecution of the search warrant,

3) and the searchsearch warrantwarrant return.

1.1.5 Search Warrants 1.1.5 Search Warrants AccordingAccording to TEXAS Statutes to TEXAS Statutes

A. Definition of search warrant CCP 18.01

B. Grounds for issuance CCP 18.02

C. Issuance of search warrant to photograph injured child CCP 18.021

D. Search warrant may order arrest CCP 18.03

E. Contents of warrant CCP 18.04

F. Execution of warrants CCP 18.06

G. Days allowed for warrant to run CCP 18.07

H. Power of officer executing warrant CCP 18.08

I. Shall seize accused and property CCP 18.09

J. How return made CCP 18.10

K. Custody of property found CCP 18.11

L. Disposition of abandoned or unclaimed property CCP 18.17

M. Disposition of gambling paraphernalia, prohibited weapons, criminal instrument, and other contraband

CCP 18.18

N. Disposition of explosive weapons and chemical dispending devices

CCP 18.181

O. Deposit of money pending disposition CCP 18.183

P. Disposition of seized weapons CCP 18.19

Q. Interception and use of wires, oral, or electronic communications - Definitions

CCP 18.20

R. Testing for communicable diseases following certain arrests

CCP 18.22

1.1.6 Advantages of 1.1.6 Advantages of using Search Warrantsusing Search Warrants

A.A. Has proved to be one of the most valuable tooltools in criminal investigation.

B.B. Some of its many uses include:

1. To recover stolenstolen property; seize drugsdrugs or other contraband

2. To seize any other specificspecific type of property used in the commission of a crime.

C. C. Evidence seized through the use of a search warrant may be more readily acceptedaccepted by courtscourts than if seized without a warrant or incident to arrest.

D.D. An officer may be protected from civilcivil liabilityliability.

E.E. May shift the legallegal burdenburden to the defendant to show that the evidence was seized illegally.

1.1.7 Exceptions 1.1.7 Exceptions of a warrantless of a warrantless

searchsearch

1. Consent1. Consent.

• Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)

• Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968)

• Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d. 854 (1973)

• Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991)

1.1.7

Florida v. Royer• A U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with

issues involving the 4th Amendment. Specifically, the case establishes a firm line in cases where police conduct search and seizure without a warrantwarrant. The court ruled that, while it is legal for authorities to target and approach a person based on their behavior, absent more, they cannot they cannot detain or search such individual detain or search such individual without a without a warrantwarrant.

Bumper v. North Carolina

• “A search conducted in reliance upon a A search conducted in reliance upon a warrant cannot later be justified on the warrant cannot later be justified on the basis of consent if it turns out that the basis of consent if it turns out that the warrant was invalidwarrant was invalid.”

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte• U.S. Supreme Court case in which the

high court ruled that in a case involving a consentconsent searchsearch, while knowledge of a while knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor to be right to refuse consent is a factor to be taken into account, the state does not taken into account, the state does not need to prove that the one who is need to prove that the one who is giving permission to search knows that giving permission to search knows that he has a right to withhold his consent he has a right to withhold his consent under the 4under the 4thth Amendment of the U.S. Amendment of the U.S. ConstitutionConstitution.

Florida v. Jimeno• Supreme Court overturned the lower courts'

decision and ruled that the officer's search of containers within the car were notnot considered unreasonable. Since a reasonable person would expect narcotics to be carried in a container, and because the officer told Jimeno of his suspicions, the court ruled the officer acted within reason. Jimeno was thus found guilty and the officer was not in violation of the 4th amendment

2. Emergency 2. Emergency (exigent (exigent circumstances) circumstances) .

• DangerDanger.

• Threat of the suspect escapingescaping.

• Threat of the removal or destructiondestruction of evidenceevidence (e.g. flushing it down the toilet).

1.1.7

2. Emergency 2. Emergency (exigent exigent circumstancescircumstances) Relevant case law:

• Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 42 (1963)

• Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973)

• Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 303 (1967)

• Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978)

• Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995)

1.1.7

Ker v. California

• Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented and agreed with the California courts that the seizure was incident to a seizure was incident to a lawful arrestlawful arrest. The Sheriff’s officers had probable cause to make a warrantlesswarrantless arrest, and the most prominent evidence (the brick of marijuana) was in plainplain sightsight. Clark also dismissed the other reasonableness objections raised by the Ker’s.

Cupp v. Murphy

• Supreme Court held that in view of the station-house detention upon probable cause, the very limited intrusion of scraping the defendant's fingernails for blood and other material, undertaken to preserve highly evanescentevanescent evidenceevidence,

did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Mincey v. Arizona

U.S. Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, announced for the first time that, contrary to what many of us in the criminal justice system of that day thought, there absolutely, positively never was, and probably never will be, a never was, and probably never will be, a "Homicide Scene Exception" to the 4"Homicide Scene Exception" to the 4thth AmendmentAmendment. A warrantless and consent less four-day search of the defendant's premises, even though a police officer was killed therein, was unconstitutionalunconstitutional.

Wilson v. Arkansas

• Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that police officers must police officers must

"knockknock and announceannounce" before before entering a houseentering a house

3. Incident to lawful arrest3. Incident to lawful arrest.New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454

(1981)

1.1.7

• Court held that when a police officer has when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of may, as a contemporaneous incident of

that arrestthat arrest, searchsearch the passengerpassenger compartment compartment of that automobileof that automobile. Therefore, Belton extended the so-called "Chimel rule"

4. Stop-and-frisk.4. Stop-and-frisk.

• To investigate suspicioussuspicious circumstance.

• To make identification of a subjectsubject.

• Relevant case law:Terry v. OhioTerry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

Terry v. OhioTerry v. Ohio• The police can stop and briefly detain a person police can stop and briefly detain a person

for investigative purposes if they have a for investigative purposes if they have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity "may be afootfacts that criminal activity "may be afoot," even if they lack probable cause under the Fourth

Amendment. Reasonable suspicion entails some minimal level of objective justification for making a stop-that is, something more than an inchoate and un-particularized suspicion or "hunch," but less than less than the level of suspicion required for probable the level of suspicion required for probable causecause

Minnesota v. Dickerson• Supreme Court unanimously held that, when

a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels search for weapons feels something thatsomething that plainlyplainly isis contrabandcontraband, the object may be seized even though it is not seized even though it is not a weapona weapon. By a 6-to-3 vote, however, the court held that the officer in this case had gone beyond the limitslimits of a lawful pat down pat down search before he could determine that the object was contraband, making the search and the subsequent seizure unlawfulunlawful under the 4th Amendment.

5. Plain-view5. Plain-view. a. United States v. Henry (1958)

b. Harris v. United Stated, 243 F. 3d 806 (1968)

c. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 433 (1971)

d. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)

e. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978)

f. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978)

g. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)

h. United States v. Irizarry (1982)

1.1.7

United States v. Henry• Was it a violation of Henry’s 6th Amdt. right to

counsel when the Govt. paid a fellow inmate to listen to and report to the Govt. if Henry made any incriminating statements while imprisoned after he was indicted and Henry’s Attorney was not present?

• HOLDING: Yes, by intentionally creating a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements without the without the assistance of counselassistance of counsel, the Govt. violated Govt. violated his 6th Amendment right to counselhis 6th Amendment right to counsel

Harris v. United

• Sometimes referred to as the Ku KluxKlan Case, was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was it was unconstitutional for the federal unconstitutional for the federal government to penalize crimes such as government to penalize crimes such as assault and murder. It declared that the assault and murder. It declared that the

local governments local governments have the have the

powerpower to penalize these crimes. to penalize these crimes.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

• Supreme Court held that the searches and seizures of Coolidge's property were unconstitutionalunconstitutional. The warrant authorizing the seizure of Coolidge's automobile was invalid because it was not issued by a invalid because it was not issued by a

""neutralneutral and and detached detached magistratemagistrate.“ It was. found that neither the "incident to arrest" doctrine nor the "plain view" doctrine justified the search, and that an "automobile exception" was inapplicable.

Horton v. California• Case in which the Supreme Court developed

the. “Plain View DoctrinePlain View Doctrine” under the 4th Amendment. It expanded both Hicks and Coolidge cases. In Horton. That expansion included a three-part test, requiring that the police officer finding evidence in plain view be:1.1. lawfully present at the place where the lawfully present at the place where the

evidence can be plainly viewedevidence can be plainly viewed,

2.2. the officer must have a lawful right of access the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, andto the object, and

3.3. the incriminating character of the object must the incriminating character of the object must be "immediately apparentbe "immediately apparent."

Texas v. Brown

• Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso County, TX for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and

questioned in a high crime area, was was not not based on a based on a reasonablereasonable

suspicionsuspicion of wrongdoing and thus of wrongdoing and thus violated the 4violated the 4thth Amendment Amendment. It is an important case for Stop & Identify statutes in the United States

6. Automobile6. Automobile.

a. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925)

b. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)

c. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)

d. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 114 L. Ed. 2d 619, 111 S. Ct. 1982 (1991)

e. Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 116 S. Ct. 2485 (1993)

f. Wyoming v. Houghton, 525 U.S. 295, 956 P. 2d 363 (1999)

1.1.7

Carroll v. United States

• A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court

which upheld that the upheld that the warrantless search of an warrantless search of an automobile, it is known as the automobile, it is known as the “Automobile exception” “Automobile exception” The case has also been used to increase the scope of warrantless searches.

New York v. Belton• Court held that when a police officer has

made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneouscontemporaneous incident of that incident of that

arrestarrest, search the passenger search the passenger compartment of that automobile. compartment of that automobile. Therefore, Belton extended the so-called "Chimel rule" of searches incidental to a lawful arrest established in Chimel v California (1969), to vehicles.

United States v. Ross• A search & seizure case argued before the

U.S. Supreme Court. The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle (specifically, in the specifically, in the trunktrunk) to be searched as well. The court further stated that a warrantless search of a

car, like any other search, is limited to those places where the target of the search places where the target of the search might reasonably be foundmight reasonably be found

California v. Acevedo• Supreme Court interpreted the Carroll

doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches. The Court stated, "The police may search an automobile and the police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." evidence is contained." The decision also overruled the Chadwick-Sanders distinction which previously held that if probable cause existed to search an automobile the police may perform a warrantless search of the

Calif v. Acevedo Cont’d: automobile and the containers within it, but if the police only had police only had probable cause to search a container in the probable cause to search a container in the automobile, the police first had to obtain a automobile, the police first had to obtain a warrant before searching the containerwarrant before searching the container. It thereby confirmed Carroll V U.S (1925), which held that a warrantless search of an automobile based upon probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of crime in the light of an exigency arising out of the vehicle's likely disappearance did not contravene the 4th Amendments Warrant Clause

Wyoming v. Houghton

• A U.S. Supreme Court case which held that absent exigency, the warrantless search of a passenger's container capable of holding the object of a search for which there is probable cause is a violation of the 4th Amendment, but justified under the but justified under the automobile exception (Clause) as an automobile exception (Clause) as an effect of the careffect of the car.

7. Open-field7. Open-field.

a. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 181 (1984)

b. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 304 (1987)

1.1.7 Continued:Continued:

Oliver v. United States• Individual may not legitimately demand Individual may not legitimately demand

privacy for activities conducted privacy for activities conducted out of out of doors in fields,doors in fields, except in the area except in the area immediately surrounding the homeimmediately surrounding the home...The [Fourth] Amendment reflects the recognition of the Framers that certain enclaves should be free from arbitrary government interference. For example, the Court since the enactment of the Fourth Amendment has stressed ‘the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home embedded in our traditions

United States v. Dunn• The DEA arrested the respondent, seizing

chemicals and equipment, as well as bags of amphetamines they discovered in the house. After the District Court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to the warrant and the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture controlled substances and related offenses. However, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that the barn was within the residence's

Cont’d: and therefore within the Fourth

Amendment's protective ambit. The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court’s decision, finding that the barn was the barn was outside the curtilage and so all evidence outside the curtilage and so all evidence obtained by the officers while standing obtained by the officers while standing

outside the barn and looking in outside the barn and looking in waswas admissibleadmissible. Looking at whether the barn was inside the curtilage or rather in an open field, the court stated

1.1.8 Denying Persons 1.1.8 Denying Persons Access to Crime SceneAccess to Crime Scene

A.If necessary, obtain search warrantwarrant.

B.Only AuthorizedAuthorized persons may enter the Crime Scene area.

C.If possible have owner give verbalverbal authorityauthority for law enforcement to keep unauthorized persons out of crime scene area (off his/her property)

D. Possible justifications for denying unauthorized persons access to crime scene area are:

1) CriminalCriminal TrespassTrespass – PC 30.05

2) TamperingTampering with or fabricatingfabricating physical evidence – PC 37.09

3) Sealing premises of deceaseddeceased – CCP 49.22

1.1.8 Continued:Continued:

GOOD LUCK WITH EXPLAINING THESE TO THE MEDIA!

RESOURCESRESOURCESIntermediateCrime Scene Search Participant Handout

Bexar County Constable Office PCT#4

TEXAS COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENTCourse # 2106

TRAINING SUPPLEMENTHosted By:

Questions?

SOURCESSOURCES• DOJ Research Report, Death Investigation:

A Guide for the Scene Investigator, November 1999.

• DOJ Research Report, Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, October 1999.

• United States Constitution• Texas Penal Code• Texas Code of Criminal Procedures

TAKE A 15-MINUTE BREAK

THANK YOU THANK YOU STAY SAFE STAY SAFE

&&STAY VILIGANTSTAY VILIGANT

This PowerPoint This PowerPoint and all associated and all associated lesson materials lesson materials herein are the herein are the

property of BCCOproperty of BCCOPCT#4 PCT#4