Unit 02 CJ Police 13 - LPSwp.lps.org/tlarson/files/2013/10/Unit-02-CJ-Police-13.pdfSearch and...
Transcript of Unit 02 CJ Police 13 - LPSwp.lps.org/tlarson/files/2013/10/Unit-02-CJ-Police-13.pdfSearch and...
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1
Unit 02 Policing: Legal Aspects
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 2
Changing Legal Climate
The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3
Changing Legal Climate 1960’s
The U.S. Supreme Court sped up the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 4
Individual Rights Due Process
requirement of 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 5
Search and Seizure • People must be
secure in their homes.
• People must also be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 6
Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
• Weeks is suspected of selling lottery tickets through the mail.
• Weeks’ home is searched. • His personal property is
confiscated.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7
• Weeks’ attorney asked that personal property be returned.
• Federal judge agreed that some of Weeks’ property should be returned.
Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 8
• Weeks is convicted on remaining evidence.
• Case is appealed.
Exclusionary Rule: Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 9
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.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 10
• Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial.
• This rule acts as a control over police behavior.
Exclusionary Rule
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11
• The U.S. Supreme Court in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)
• Decision: Evidence illegally seized cannot be used in a trial, therefore, neither can evidence which derives from an illegal seizure.
Fruits of Poisoned Tree
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 12
Supreme Court Chief Justices and “case law”
• Earl Warren 1953 - 1969 • Warren Burger 1969 - 1986 • William Rehnquist 1986 - 2005 • John Roberts 2005 - Present
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 13
Warren Court
The Warren court charted a course that would guarantee nationwide recognition of individual rights by all levels of the criminal justice system.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 14
Warren Court • applied the exclusionary
rule to the States (Doctrine of Incorporation)
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 15
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) • Mapp was suspected of hiding a
bombing suspect. • Mapp refused police admittance. • Police forced their way in,
showing Mapp a paper they said was a search warrant for her house.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 16
• Mapp grabbed the “warrant” and placed it inside her blouse.
• Police retrieved the “warrant” and searched house.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 17
• Police found pornographic material in a trunk in the basement.
• The bombing suspect was not found.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 18
• Mapp was convicted of possession of pornographic material.
• No search warrant was produced at the trial.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 19
• 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)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 20
Chimel v. California (1969) • Chimel is convicted of burglarizing a
coin shop based on evidence gathered at his arrest.
• Police have an arrest warrant, but did not have a search warrant.
• Police search his whole house, including the garage, attic, and little workshop.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 21
• Police realize the search might be contested.
• Police feel they can justify the search as part of the arrest process, not to gather evidence.
• Searches prior to arrest are necessary for police officer protection and should not require a search warrant.
Chimel v. California (1969)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 22
• Chimel is convicted.
• U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and decided that the search became invalid when it went beyond the arrested person’s area of “immediate control.”
Chimel v. California (1969)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 23
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
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 24
Burger Court Upholds the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process right…
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 25
...need to bear the responsibility of showing that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties.
Burger Court
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 26
U.S. v. Leon (1984) • Leon is placed under
surveillance for drug trafficking.
• Police obtain a search warrant based on their observation of Leon.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Police search Leon’s homes and discover drugs.
• Leon is convicted of drug trafficking.
U.S. v. Leon (1984)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 28
U.S. v. Leon (1984) • Federal court overturns the case
based on lack of probable cause.
• State appeals to U.S. Supreme Court.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 29
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”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 30
Plain View Doctrine
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 31
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
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)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 32
Plain View Situations
Police can use evidence if they observe it during emergencies such as: • crimes in progress • fires • accidents
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 33
The plain view doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances.
Plain View Situations
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 34
Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Hicks is arrested when police enter his apartment to check a report of a gun being fired.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 35
• Police see two stereo systems in a corner of the room that they believe may be stolen.
• Police write down serial number of first stereo because it is plainly visible.
Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 36
• Second stereo has to be moved to see serial number.
• Stereos have been reported as stolen.
Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 37
• Hicks is convicted of robbery based on the seized stereos.
• Hicks appeals his conviction.
Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 38
Supreme Court Decision: overturned conviction
Justification:
Officer’s behavior became illegal when he moved the stereo to record serial number.
Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 39
Persons have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which means that officers lacking a search warrant…
Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 40
… even when invited into the residence, must act more like guests than inquisitors.
Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 41
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.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 42
Search and Seizure Arrest
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 43
• Terry was believed to be “casing” a store for a robbery.
• A police veteran of 39 years conducted a “pat-down”search of Terry.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Stop and Frisk
Landmark Case
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 44
Stop and Frisk
Landmark Case
• The officer testified that the “man did not look right.”
• A gun was found on Terry.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 45
Terry v. Ohio (1968) • Terry was convicted of
carrying a concealed weapon.
• Terry appealed based on fact that the officer had no probable cause to search.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 46
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: appeal rejected
Stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion, the facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 47
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)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 48
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) • Timothy Dickerson was seen leaving a
building known for trafficking cocaine. • Minneapolis police stopped Dickerson after
they observed him acting suspiciously. • A pat-down search revealed no weapons,
but it did reveal a small lump in his jacket. • Police suspected the lump was cocaine. • Officer retrieved a lump of crack cocaine.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 49
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) “The officer never thought the lump was a weapon, but did not immediately recognize it as cocaine.” The lump was determined to be cocaine only after the officer squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the pocket’s contents.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 50
The court took the position that the police went far beyond Terry v. Ohio.
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 51
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
decision overturned Justification:
“If an officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes it immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 52
Smith v. Ohio (1990) • Smith was approached by two
plain clothes officers who asked Smith to “come here a minute.”
• Smith kept walking until the police identified themselves.
• Smith put a paper bag he was carrying on the hood of his car to keep it from the police.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 53
• The police inspected the bag and found marijuana and arrested Smith for possession.
• Smith was convicted. • Smith appealed.
Smith v. Ohio (1990)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 54
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)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 55
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.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 56
Intelligence Function
Police need to gather information through many sources. • informants • police interrogation
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 57
In the case of informants, there is a two-pronged test that can be used to establish probable cause.
Intelligence Function
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 58
• The source of the informant’s information is made clear.
• The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable.
Intelligence Function
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 59
interrogation - Any behaviors “that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”
Intelligence Function
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 60
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
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 61
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.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 62
• Danny confesses to the crime.
• Danny is convicted and appeals his conviction.
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 63
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
conviction overturned
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 64
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)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 65
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.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 66
Miranda v Arizona (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
conviction overturned Justification:
“ 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.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 67
Nontestimonial Evidence • right to privacy issues
• body cavity searches
• Electronic eavesdropping
• electronic evidence