Download
1 / 20
220 likes | 285 Views
Reasonable Suspicion. That knowledge, under the present circumstances and articulate facts in light of a police officer’s training and experience, which indicates criminal activity is present. Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Established the validity of “stop and frisk”
E N D
Reasonable Suspicion That knowledge, under the present circumstances and articulate facts in light of a police officer’s training and experience, which indicates criminal activity is present
Terry v. Ohio392 U.S. 1 (1968) Established the validity of “stop and frisk” Police authority relies upon articulable reasonable suspicion… Based upon the officer’s experience (includes training)
Terry v. Ohio392 U.S. 1 (1968) Allows reasonable inquiry to dispel suspicion of criminal activity or fear for the safety of the officer or others Stop/Frisk are separate acts, each having its own requirements for legality
Probable Cause Facts and/or circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed (or, evidence of a crime exists), and that a particular person committed it (or, the evidence is in a particular place)
When Required? Arrests with a warrant Arrests without a warrant Searches/seizures with a warrant Searches/seizures without a warrant
How Established? Officer’s own knowledge Information from reliable third person Information plus corroboration
United States v. Cortez449 U.S. 411 (1981) Not “hard certainty, but… probabilities.” Law enforcement officers can formulate common-sense conclusions Evidence “weighed… as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.”
Officer’s Own Knowledge Prior criminal record Suspect’s flight or evasion Suspicious conduct Admissions
Officer’s Own Knowledge Unusual hour Resemblance to a described perpetrator Inconsistent statements / Unsatisfactory answers Presence of incriminating evidence
InformationPLUS Corroboration Police can use independent investigation to corroborate insufficient information Hearsay O.K.
Advantages of a Warrant Presumption of Probable Cause since facts/circumstances were reviewed PRIOR TO police action Provides strong defense of in civil cases involving alleged constitutional violations
The Exclusionary Rule Any evidence obtained by the government in violation of the 4th Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure is not admissible in a criminal prosecution
The Exclusionary Rule “… judicially created remedy to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights.” U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) “… the Self-incrimination clause contains its own exclusionary rule,…” U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)
Purposeof the Exclusionary Rule is to DETER POLICE MISCONDUCT
Exclusionary Rule - Exceptions Good Faith Inevitable Discovery Purged Taint Independent Source
Good Faith Exceptions Error committed by judge, not police (failure to correct outdated warrant form) Error committed by court employee (failure to delete old warrant) Police erred but honestly believed the information given when obtaining the warrant was accurate (wrong apartment, inaccurate premises description)
Good Faith Exceptions Police had mistaken reasonable belief that person had authority to give consent Police action based on law later declared unconstitutional
Miranda v. Arizona384 U.S. 436 (1966) The suspect must be: In custody, and Asked questions… By the police
Miranda Warnings NOT Required: No questions by the police General on-the-scene questioning Volunteered statements Routine identification questions Questioning witnesses/non-suspects
Miranda Warnings NOT Required: Stop and frisk Lineups, showups Statements to private persons Grand Jury testimony Threat to public safety Undercover operations
