CHAPTER

1. CHAPTER 5 Policing: Legal Aspects

2. No one is above the law…not even the police. Policing: Legal Environment

3. The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect against abuses of police power. Restraints on police behavior: Help to ensure individual freedoms Must be balanced against the need for police to effectively do their jobs Policing: Legal Environment

4. The U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect citizens from abuses in police power. Due Process isrequired by Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. Changing Legal Climate

6. The U.S. Supreme Court, under the direction of Chief Justice Earl Warren: Accelerated the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution Bound police to strict procedural requirements Changing Legal Climate: The Warren Court (1953-1969)

7. The Post-Warren Supreme Court (Burger Court [1969–1986] and Rehnquist Court [1986–2005]) reflected a more conservative Court philosophy. “Reversed” some of the Warren-era decisions Created exceptions to some of the rules and restraints Changing Legal Climate: Post- Warren Court

8. Courts provide an area for dispute resolution between individuals and between citizens and government agencies. Courts also deal with issues involving rights violations, whichhave become the basis for dismissal of charges, acquittal of defendants, or release of convicted offenders upon appeal. Changing Legal Climate: U.S. Supreme Court

9. Most due process requirements relevant to the police involve: Evidence and interrogation (search and seizure) Arrest Interrogation Police and Due Process

10. Landmark cases clarify the “rules of the game”—the procedural guidelines by which the police and the rest of the justice system must abide. The Court addresses only real cases and does so on a writ of certiorari. Landmark Cases

11. Search and Seizure

12. “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.” Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment

13. The Fourth Amendment protects one’s privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures. Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment

14. Weeks v. U.S. (1914) established the exclusionary rule. Illegally seized evidence by the police cannot be used in a trial. This rule acts as a control over police behavior. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment due process applies to local police, not just federal officers. The Exclusionary Rule

15. Because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure. Fruits of Poisonous Tree Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)

16. Clarified the scope of a search incident to an arrest. Arresting officers may search: The arrested person The physical area within “immediate control” (easy reach) of the arrested person Officers can search for following reasons: To protect themselves To prevent destruction of evidence To keep defendant from escaping Search Incident to Arrest Chimel v. U.S. (1969)

17. Court decisions relating to the exclusionary rule highlight the fact that the Fourth Amendment pertains to the rights of people, not places. Upon reviewing cases, courts must decide Did that particular person have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Interpretation of the Exclusionary Rule

18. 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 the Exclusionary Rule U.S. v. Leon (1984)

19. The 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. Good faith can be established if the police reasonably believe they are performing their jobs in accordance with the law. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

20. The U.S. Supreme Court created the computer errors exception to the exclusionary rule. Police officers cannot be held responsible for a clerical error. The exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not clerical mistakes made by court employees. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Arizona v. Evans (1995)

21. 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. The Plain View Doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances. Plain View Doctrine Harris v. U.S. (1968)

22. Restricted the plain view doctrine Officers cannot move objects to gain a view of evidence otherwise hidden from view. Officers cannot move or dislodge objects to create “plain view.” Plain View Doctrine U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

23. The U.S. Supreme Court held that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures, it is not a necessary condition. It is okay to seize evidence found when such evidence is other than that listed in a search warrant. Plain View Doctrine Horton v. California (1990)

24. Emergency Searches of Property • Three threats provide justification • for emergency warrantless searches • (searching during exigent • circumstances). • Clear dangers to life • Clear dangers of escape • Clear dangers of removal or destruction of evidence

25. “Fourth Amendment does not require police to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.” Emergency Searches Warden v. Hayden (1967)

26. The Court upheld the constitutionality of anticipatory warrants—search warrants issued on the basis of probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime, while not currently at the place described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed. Anticipatory Warrants U.S. v. Grubbs (2006)

27. Search and Seizure: Arrest

28. An arrest occurs when a law enforcement officer restricts a person’s freedom to leave. It is: The act of taking an adult or juvenile into custody by authority of law for the purpose of charging the person with a criminal offense, a delinquent act, or a status offense, terminating with the recording of a specific offense. Arrests

29. The basic minimum element for an arrest under any circumstance is probable cause. Arrests

30. U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) The U.S. Supreme Court said: “A person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” “Free-to-Leave” Test

31. Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) Whether a person is actually free to leave can only be determined by examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. “Free-to-Leave” Test

32. Muehler v. Mena (2005) Officers who are conducting a lawful search under the authority of a warrant may detain persons found occupying the premises being searched while the search is taking place. “Free-to-Leave” Test

33. Terry v. Ohio (1968) Reasonable suspicionis needed to “stop and frisk.” The facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed. 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.” The “Terry” Stop

34. Reasonable suspicionis a general and reasonable belief that a crime is in progress or has occurred whereas probable cause is a reasonable belief that a particular person has committed a specific crime. Reasonable Suspicion Versus Probable Cause

35. U.S. v. Sokolow (1989) Stops must be evaluated based on a “totality of circumstances” criterion—in which all aspects of the defendant’s behavior, together, provide the basis for a legitimate stop based on reasonable suspicion. Reasonable Suspicion Stops

36. U.S. v. Arvizu (2002) “Officers are allowed to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available.” Reasonable Suspicion Stops

37. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) “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.” Reasonable Suspicion Stops

38. Brown v. Texas (1979) Officers may not stop and question an unwilling citizen whom they have no reason to suspect of a crime. Reasonable Suspicion Stops

39. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) The court upheld Nevada’s “stop and identify” law that requires a person to identify himself to police if they encounter him under circumstances that reasonably indicated that he “has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” Reasonable Suspicion Searches

40. Smith v. Ohio (1990) An individual has the right to protect his belongings from unwarranted search. Reasonable Suspicion Searches

41. Emergency searches of persons falls under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Emergency Searches of Persons

42. All of the following conditions must apply. At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe that evidence was concealed on the person searched. At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed. The officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant authorizing the search. The action was no greater than necessary to eliminate the threat of destruction of evidence. FBI Guidelines for Conducting Emergency Warrantless Searches of Persons

43. Investigatory stops of vehicles required reasonable suspicion. Warrantless searches of vehicles must be based on probable cause (fleeting-targets exception). Mobility of vehicles would allow them to quickly flee. Warrants are necessary if time and circumstances permit them. Fleeting Targets: Vehicle Searches

44. If probable cause exists or if permission is granted, warrantless vehicle searches can extend to any area of the vehicle, including: The trunk The glove compartment Sealed containers within the vehicle Vehicle Searches

45. A permissible search of a motor vehicle does not automatically extend to a search of a person within the vehicle. Occupants can be ordered to step out of the vehicle. Vehicle Searches

46. Illinois v. Caballes (2005) The use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine and lawful traffic stop is permissible and may not even be classified as a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Vehicle Searches

47. Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) The Fourth Amendment prohibits even a brief seizure of a motorist under a program whose primary purpose is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interests in crime control. Checks for drivers’ licenses and registrations are okay because they do not intend to “detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Roadblocks and Checkpoints

48. Illinois v. Lidster (2004) Information-seeking highway roadblocks are permissible. “The law ordinarily permits police to seek the public’s voluntary cooperation in a criminal Investigation.” Roadblocks and Checkpoints

49. The warrantless searching of automobiles extends to include some watercraft, houseboats, and motor homes. Watercraft and Motor Homes

50. Suspicionless searches may be necessary in order to ensure public safety. Such searches must be based on compelling interests. Suspicionless sweeps of busses, trains, planes, and city streets are permissible, as long as: Police ask permission Police do not coerce people to consent Police do not convey the message that compliance is necessary Suspicionless Searches