CHAPTER

1. CHAPTER 5 • Policing: Legal Aspects

2. The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power. Changing Legal Climate

3. 1960s The U.S. Supreme Court clarified individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution. Changing Legal Climate

4. Due Process Required by 4th, 5th, 6th, & 14th Constitutional Amendments Individual Rights

5. People are to be secure in their homes. People are to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. Search and Seizure

6. The Exclusionary Rule

7. Weeks was suspected of selling lottery tickets through the mail. His home was searched. His personal property was confiscated. Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Exclusionary Rule

8. Weeks’ attorney asked that personal property be returned. Federal judge agreed that someof Weeks’ property should be returned. Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Exclusionary Rule

9. Weeks was convicted on the remaining evidence. He appealed. Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Exclusionary Rule

10. Supreme Court Decision: If some of Weeks’ property had been seized illegally, then the remainder of the property had also been seized illegally. This case established the exclusionary rule. Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Exclusionary Rule

11. Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial. This rule acts as a control over police behavior. Exclusionary Rule

12. Silverthorne was accused of not paying taxes. Federal agents wanted the company books. Silverthorne refused to turn over books. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918) Fruits of Poisoned Tree

13. Feds seized the books without a warrant. Silverthorne asked for books to be returned. The prosecutor returned the books. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918) Fruits of Poisoned Tree

14. Before the prosecutor returned the papers, he made copies. Silverthorne was convicted. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918) Fruits of Poisoned Tree

15. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction. It ruled that because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918) Fruits of Poisoned Tree

16. Rabinowitz was arrested on a federal warrant for selling altered postage stamps to defraud collectors. The officers did not have a search warrant. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)

17. Officers searched the office including the desk, a file cabinet, and a safe, finding 573 altered stamps. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)

18. Rabinowitz was convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the search was constitutional. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)

19. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but it protects people, not places. A limited area search following arrest may be acceptable. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)

20. Supreme Court Chief Justices • Earl Warren 1953-1969 • Warren Berger 1969-1986 • William Rehnquist 1986-present

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

22. applied the exclusionary rule to the states through Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Warren Court

23. 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. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

24. Mapp grabbed the “warrant” and placed it inside her blouse. Police retrieved the “warrant” and searched her house. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

25. Police found pornographic material in the house. The bombing suspect was not found. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

26. Mapp was convicted of possession of pornographic material. No search warrant was produced at her trial. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

27. U.S. Supreme Court decided: 14th Amendment due process applies 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)

28. Chimel was convicted of burglarizing a coin shop based on evidence gathered at his arrest. Police had an arrest warrant, but did not have a search warrant. Police searched his whole house, including the garage, attic, and small workshop. Chimel v. California (1969)

29. Police realized the search might be contested. Police felt they could justify the search as part of the arrestprocesssince searches prior to arrest are often necessary for officer protection. Chimel v. California (1969)

30. U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and decided that the search became invalid when it went beyond Chimel’s area of “immediatecontrol.” Chimel v. California (1969)

31. 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 Chimel v. California (1969)

32. Adherence to the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process right… Burger Court

33. Search and Seizure: Probable Cause

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

35. Leon was placed under surveillance for drug trafficking. Police obtained a search warrant based on their observation of Leon. U.S. v. Leon (1984)

36. Police searched Leon’s homes and discovered drugs. Leon was convicted of drug trafficking. U.S. v. Leon (1984)

37. Federal court overturned the case based on lack of probable cause.. State appealed to U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. v. Leon (1984)

38. U.S. Supreme Court Decision: When law enforcement officers have acted in good faith, the evidence they collect should be admissible even if later it is found that the warrant they used was invalid. “good faith exception” to exclusionary rule U.S. v. Leon (1984)

39. 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. Illinois v. Krull (1987)

40. Gail Fisher complained to police that she had been assaulted. Officers accompanied her to the apartment where she said the assault took place. Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

41. Fisher used her key to open the door to the apartment and admit the police. Officers arrested Rodriquez, who was found sleeping on the couch with drugs nearby. Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

42. Rodriquez was convicted. On appeal, Rodriquez argued that Fisher had not lived in the apartment for over a month and therefore had no legal control over the apartment. Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

43. U.S. Supreme Court Decision: rejected appeal based on fact that police reasonably believed at the time of entry that Fisher had legal access to the apartment Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

44. Plain View Doctrine

45. Harris’ vehicle is impounded by police. Police inventory contents of vehicle. Evidence of a robbery is found. Harris v. U.S. (1968)

46. Harris is arrested and convicted. Harris appeals his conviction. Harris v. U.S. (1968)

47. U.S. Supreme Court Decision: appeal rejected. Justification: 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)

48. Police can use evidence if they observe it during emergencies such as: crimes in progress fires accidents Plain View Situations

49. The Plain View Doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances. Plain View Situations

50. Hicks is arrested when police enter his apartment to check a report of a gun being fired. Arizona v. Hicks (1987)