Changing Legal Climate

2. Changing Legal Climate • The U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect citizens from abuses in police power.

3. Changing Legal Climate: The Warren Court (1953-1969) • The U.S. Supreme Court in 1960s, 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.

4. Changing Legal Climate: Post- Warren Court • In the decades since the Warren Court, a more conservative Court philosophy: • “Reversed” some of the Warren-era decisions. • Created exceptions to some of the rules and restraints.

5. TABLE 7–1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice

6. Individual Rights • Courts provide an arena 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.

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

8. Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment • “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.”

9. The Exclusionary Rule • Weeks v. U.S. (1914) established the exclusionary rule. • Illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial. • This rule acts as a control over police behavior. • The decision was only binding to federal officers.

10. Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine • Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920) • Because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure.

11. Exclusionary Rule Applied to the States • Mapp v Ohio (1961) • The 14th Amendment due process applies to local police, not just federal officers • Wolf v. Colorado (1949) • Officers believed exclusionary did not apply to state and local law enforcement

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

13. Search Incident to Arrest • Chimel v. U.S. (1969) • Clarified the scope of a search incident to an arrest. • 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

14. Fourth Amendment Protects People • Minnesota v. Olson (1990) • Overnight guests residing in the home of another • Minnesota v. Carter (1998) • Expectation of privacy • Georgia v. Randolph (2006) • One consents but the other refuses

15. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule • U.S. v. Leon (1984) • 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.

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

17. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule • Arizona v. Evans (1995) • 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.

18. Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule • Herring v. U. S. (2009) • U. S. Supreme Court reinforced it’s ruling in Evans • When police mistakes are the result of isolated negligence, the exclusionary rule does not apply

19. Plain View Doctrine • Harris v. U.S. (1968) • 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.

20. Plain View Doctrine • U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) • Arizona v. Hicks (1987) • 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.”

21. Plain View Doctrine • Horton v. California (1990) • 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.

22. Emergency Searches • Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) • Police officers “may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing than an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such an injury.”

23. 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

24. Emergency Searches • Warden v. Hayden (1967) • “4th 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.”

25. Emergency Searches • Maryland v. Buie (1990) • Police can search locations in a house where a potentially dangerous person could hide while an arrest warrant is being served. • Primarily meant to protect officers from danger. • Can apply when officers lack a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion.

26. Emergency Searches • Hudson v. Michigan (2006) • Evidence was still admitted at trial even though police did not follow knock-and-announce rule • Interests violated by not announcing have nothing to do with the seizure of evidence

27. Anticipatory Warrants • U.S. v. Grubbs (2006) • 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.

28. “Free-to-Leave” Test • U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) • 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.”

29. “Free-to-Leave” Test • 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.

30. Felony Arrest • Payton v. New York (1980) • Unless granted consent or an emergency, an arrest warrant is necessary if entering a suspect’s home • Reiterated in Kirk v. Louisiana (2002)

31. Searches Incident to Arrest • U. S. v. Robinson (1973) • Conduct a search without a warrant for purposes of personal protection • Evidence found in the search may be used in court Reinforced the ruling in Terry v. Ohio (1968)

32. The “Terry” Stop • Terry v. Ohio (1968) • Reasonable suspicion is 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.”

33. Reasonable Suspicion Versus Probable Cause • Reasonable suspicion is 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.

34. Reasonable Suspicion Stops • U.S. v. Sokolow (1989) • Stops must be evaluated based on a “totality of circumstances” • U.S. v. Arvizu (2002) • “Officers are allowed to draw on their own experiences and specialized training • Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) • Brown v. Texas (1979)

35. Reasonable Suspicion Searches • 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.” • Smith v. Ohio (1990) • Anindividual has the right to protect his belongings from unwarranted police inspection.

36. Emergency Searches of Persons • Emergency searches of persons falls under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. • Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) • U. S. v. Borchardt (1987)

37. Vehicle Searches • Carroll v. U. S. (1925) • Warrantless search is valid if based on reasonable belief that contraband is present • Preston v. U. S. (1964) • Defined the limitations of warrantless vehicle searches

38. Vehicle Searches • Arizona v. Gant (2009) • Vehicle searches “incident to a recent occupant’s arrest” cannot be authorized without a warrant if there is “no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search”

39. Vehicle Searches • Maryland v. Wilson (1997) • Passengers ordered out of vehicle for officer safety and are subject to police control • People v. Brendlin (2007) • Officers will exercise “unquestioned police command” over passengers for the duration of the stop • Illinois v. Caballes (2005) • The use of a drug-sniffing dog may not even be classified as a “search”

40. Roadblocks and Checkpoints • 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”.

41. Roadblocks and Checkpoints • 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.”

42. Watercraft and Motor Homes • U. S. v. Villamonte-Marquez (1983) • California v. Carney (1985) • U. S. v. Hill (1988) • The warrantless searching of automobiles extends to include some watercraft, houseboats, and motor homes.

43. Suspicionless Searches • Suspicionless searches may be necessary in order to ensure public safety. • Such searches must be based on compelling interests. • National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989) • Mandatory drug testing for workers

44. Suspicionless Border Searches • Suspicionless searches of vehicles at our nation’s borders are permitted, even when searches are extensive. • U.S. v. Flores-Montano (2004) • “The Government’s authority to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle’s fuel tank.”

45. High-Technology Searches • Investigating crime is making greater use of high-technology devises and practices, such as thermal imaging devises. • If the government searches a home using a device that is not something used by the general public, and that shows something that wouldn’t be learned without entering the house, then a warrant is required.

46. Intelligence Function • Police gather information through many sources, including: • Informants • Interrogation

47. Two-Pronged Test for the Use of Informants • In the case of informants, a two-pronged test usually satisfies the probable cause requirement per • Aguilar v. Texas (1964). • #1: The source of the informant’s information is made clear. • # 2: The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable.

48. Anonymous Informants • Illinois v. Gates (1983) • The Court adopted a totality-of-circumstances approach for assessing informant information • Alabama v. White (1990) • Without other information, anonymous tips may be used if they accurately predict future behavior

49. Police Interrogation • An interrogation refers to the information-gathering activity of police officers that involves the direct questioning of suspects. • During an interrogation, there must be no: • Physical abuse • Inherent coercion • Psychological manipulation

50. The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation • Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) • A defendant is entitled to counsel at police interrogations, and counsel should be provided when the defendant so requests.