Intermediate Crime Scene Search Course #2106.32 - 40 Hours

1. INTERMEDIATE CRIME SCENE SEARCH TCOLE Course # 2106 32 to 40-hours AND INTRO & UNIT ONE BCCO PCT #4 PowerPoint

2. ADMINISTRATIVE • Please complete the BCCO PCT #4 Registration form and turn it in now. • Make sure you sign TCOLE Report of Training (PID#, Full Name and DOB). • All cell phones off please – pay attention to course materials and show common respect & courtesy.

3. Your Instructor – Course Facilitator and Mentor Trainer Deputy Chief George D. Little A.S. & B.S. Criminal Justice & Sociology B.S.CJ Wayland Baptist University, San Antonio M.S. Criminology & Counter-Terrorism University of the State of New York(P) 2012 T.C.O.L.E. Professional Achievement Award Certified Crime Prevention Specialist (C.C.P.S.) TCOLE Basic Instructor Certificate 1984 TCOLE Advanced Instructor 2012 TCOLE Master Peace Officer 1991 MP Special Operations Operator Counter-Terrorism 1988 Military Police Investigations (MPI) & Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Special Agent Graduate Drug Enforcement Administration Academy 1977 44- years Law Enforcement Experience 40-Years Teaching & Instructor Experience

4. FORWARD The Intermediate Crime Scene Search Course is designed to provide additional information on this subject area. This course is one of the seven courses required for Intermediate certification. It is not meant to override department policy and current laws.

5. Course Overview 1.0 Legal Aspects of a Crime Scene Search 2.0 Preparing for a Crime Scene Investigation 3.0 Investigating a Crime Scene 4.0 Sketching & Photographing 5.0 Fingerprinting 6.0 Identification, Collection, and Preservation of Evidence

6. Course OverviewContinued 7.0 DNA Evidence 8.0 Specific Crime Scene Searches 9.0 Simulated Crime Scene 10.0 Computer and Other Electronic Evidence Crime Scene Practical Exercises and Final TEST you must score 70% or higher to pass course.

7. UNIT 1.0 • Legal Aspects of a Crime Scene Search

8. Learning Objectives Learning Objective 1.1 The student will be able to summarize the legal aspects of a crime scene search. Learning Objective 1.1.1 The student will be able to explain certain objectives and legal obligations that must be followed during a crime scene search. Learning Objective 1.1.2 The student will be able to identify related constitutional and criminal laws related to a crime scene search. Learning Objective 1.1.3 The student will be able to define a search warrant.

9. Learning Objective 1.1.4 The student will be able to describe certain requirements of a search warrant. Learning Objective 1.1.5 The student will be able to discuss search warrants according to Texas statutes. Learning Objective1.1.6 The student will be able to explain some advantages of using a search warrant Learning Objective 1.1.7 The student will be able to explain some exceptions of a warrantless search. Learning Objective 1.1.8 The student will be able to explain some justifications for denying unauthorized persons access to a crime scene.

10. 1.0Legal Aspects of a Crime Scene Search A. Objectives of a crime scene search. • A crime scene search is a planned and coordinated legal search of a crime scene to locate physicalevidence or witnesses to the crime under investigation. • The objectives in conducting a search of a crime scene are to aid in the following:

12. Objectives of a crime scene search (2.) a. Can help establish that a crime has been committed. (i.e., identify the type of crime and establish the elements of the crime.) b. Can be used to place the suspect at the scene (i.e., shoe impressions may match those of a known suspect in the community.) • Can be used to eliminate persons, such as through DNA testing.

13. Objectives of a crime scene search (2.) • Can cause suspects confronted with physical evidence to confess the crime. • Witness’s testimony can be supported with physical evidence. • Can help establish where the crime was committed? How the crime was committed (M.O Why the crime was committed (motive)? When the crime was committed?

14. B. Follow the Law. • Local, State, and Federal laws must be abided to ensure admissibility of evidence in a court of law. • This can be done by keeping up to date with current laws and agency policy, as well as communicating with legal authorities. • Determine the need of a search warrant.

15. Continued: • If the crime scene does not fall under your agency’s jurisdiction, identifythejurisdictionand contact appropriate agency.

16. C. Secure the Remains • Ensure the body is secure by supervising the labeling, packaging, and removal of the remains. • Ensure the appropriate ID tag is placed on the body to preclude misidentification upon receipt at the examining agency.

17. Ensure all potential evidence is safe-guarded and property and clothing remain on the body. • Prior to leaving the scene, ensure the body is protected from further trauma or contamination, and unauthorized removal of therapeutic and resuscitative equipment. • Ensure all property of the person is identified.

19. Ensure all DNA samples are recovered. • Ensure the body is properly placed in the bag. • Maintain jurisdiction over the body, and record any transactions. • Ensure appropriate officials sign the deathcertificate and other respective documents.

21. D. Notify next of kin • Next of kin of a deceased victim (s) should be notified as soon as possible. • Notification initiates closure for the family, disposition of remains, and facilitate the collection of additional information relative to the case.

22. One of the worst jobs for a law enforcement officer is telling a Loved- one their family member is dead.

23.  Inform the family of the following: • If an autopsy is required. • Available supportservices (e.g. victim assistance, police, social services, etc.) • Appropriate agencies to contact with questions or additional information. • Ensure the family is not left alone with the body.

24. Continued: • Inform the family of the following: • Provide a timetable of how/when the victim’s information will be released (toxicology results, etc.) • Inform family of available reports, including costs, if any.

25. U.S. Constitutional and Criminal Laws

26. A. Due process, U.S. Constitution, & Bill of Rights. 14th Amendment – three classes of rights: a.) privileges and immunities of citizens of the U.S., b.) dueprocess of law, and c.) equal protection under the law.

28. A. Due process, U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights….cont’d: • 4th Amendment – unreasonable searches and seizure clause; warrant clause. • 5th Amendment – self-incrimination clause. • 6th Amendment – right to confrontation clause; right to counsel clause.

29. Continued: B. Legal issues for searches. 1. Probable cause. 2. Exclusionary rule. 3. Fruit of the Poison Tree Doctrine (dueprocess) a. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,251 US 385 (1918)

30. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States • Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The issue in this case is whether or not derivatives of illegal evidence are permissible in court. The ruling was that to permit derivatives would encourage police to circumvent the 4th Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence was held tainted and inadmissible. This precedent later became known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine,"and is an extension of the exclusionary rule.

31. 4. Search incident to lawfularrest. a. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) b. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) c. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) a. Nix v. William, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)

32. Chimel v. California • In Chimel, the Court held that police officers arresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a searchwarrant, although they may search the area within immediate reach of the person. The rule relating to searches incident to a lawful arrest within the home is now known as the Chimel rule.

33. Maryland v. Buie • In 1990. In the case, the Court held that the 4th Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonablebelief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.

34. United States v. Sokolow • Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents stopped respondent upon his arrival at Honolulu International Airport. The agents found 1,063 grams of cocaine in his carry-on luggage. When respondent was stopped, the agents knew, inter alia, that (1) he paid $2,100 for two round-trip plane tickets from a roll of $20 bills; (2) he traveled under a name that did not match the name under which his telephone number was listed; (3) his original destination was Miami, a source city for illicit drugs; (4) he stayed in Miami for only 48 hours, even though a round-trip

35. Cont’d: from Honolulu to Miami takes 20 hours; (5) he appeared nervous during his trip; and (6) he checked none of his luggage. Respondent was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed respondent's conviction, applying a two-part test for determining reasonable suspicion. First, ruled the court, at least one fact describing "ongoing criminal activity" - such as the use of an alias or evasive movement through an airport - was always necessary to support a reasonable-suspicion finding. Second, "probabilistic" facts describing "personal characteristics" of drug couriers - such as the cash payment for tickets, a short trip to a major source city for drugs,

36. Cont’d: nervousness, type of attire, and unchecked luggage - were only relevant if there was evidence of "ongoing criminal activity" and the Government [490 U.S. 1, 2]   offered "empirical documentation" that the combination of facts at issue did not describe the behavior of "significant numbers of innocent persons." The Court of Appeals held the agents' stop impermissible, because there was no evidence of ongoing criminal behavior in this case. Held: On the facts of this case, the DEA agents had a reasonable suspicion that respondent was transporting illegal drugs when they stopped him

37. Continued: 5. Good faith exception. a. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) b. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984) c. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990)

38. United States v. Leon • On August 1981, police in received a tip identifying Patsy Stewart and Armando Sanchez as drug dealers. Police began surveillance of their homes and followed leads based on the cars that frequented the residences. The police identified Ricardo Del Castillo and Alberto Leon as also being involved in the operation. Based on this surveillance and information from a second informant, a detective wrote an affidavit and a judge issued a search warrant. The police

39. Cont’d: conducted the search, but the search warrant was later found to be invalid because the police lacked the probable cause for a warrant to be issued in the first place. The evidence obtained in the search was upheld anyway, because the police performed the search in reliance on the warrant, meaning they “acted in good faith”. This became known as the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

40. Massachusetts v. Sheppard • A police detective drafted an affidavit to support an application for an arrest warrant and a search warrant authorizing the search of respondent's residence. The affidavit stated that the police wished to search for certain described items, including clothing of the victim and a blunt instrument that might have been used on the victim. The affidavit was reviewed and approved by the District Attorney. Because it was Sunday, the local court was closed, and the police had a

41. Cont’d: difficult time finding a warrant application form. The detective finally found a warrant form previously used in another district to search for controlled substances. After making some changes in the form, the detective presented it and the affidavit to a judge at his residence, informing him that the warrant form might need to be further changed. Concluding that the affidavit established probable cause to search respondent's residence and telling the detective that the necessary changes in the warrant form would be made, the judge

42. Cont’d: difficult time finding a warrant application form. The detective finally found a warrant form previously used in another district to search for controlled substances. After making some changes in the form, the detective presented it and the affidavit to a judge at his residence, informing him that the warrant form might need to be further changed. Concluding that the affidavit established probable cause to search respondent's residence and telling the detective that the necessary changes in the warrant form would be made, the judge

43. Cont’d: some changes, but did not change the substantive portion, which continued to authorize a search for controlled substances, nor did he alter the form so as to incorporate the affidavit. The judge then signed the warrant and returned it and the affidavit to the detective, informing him that the warrant was sufficient authority in form and content to carry out the requested search. The ensuing search of respondent's residence by the detective and other police officers was limited to the items listed in the affidavit, and several incriminating pieces of evidence were discovered.

44. Cont’d: Thereafter, respondent was charged with first-degree murder. At a pretrial suppression hearing, the trial judge ruled that notwithstanding the warrant was defective under the Fourth Amendment in that it did not particularly describe the items to be seized, the incriminating evidence could be admitted because the police had acted in good faith in executing what they reasonably thought was a valid warrant. At the subsequent trial, respondent was convicted.

45. Illinois v. Rodriguez • Case dealing with the issue of whether a warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the 4th Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that such searches are valid if, at the time of the search, the authorities "reasonably believe" the third party possesses common authority over the premises. In reaching its decision,

46. the Supreme Court noted that "reasonableness," not consent, is the touchstone of 4th Amendment jurisprudence; the Constitution only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Therefore, the constitutional validity of a police determination of consent to enter is not judged by whether the police were correct in their assessment, but by whether, based on the facts available at the moment, it was reasonable to conclude that the consenting party had authority over the premises.

47. Continued: 6. Inevitable discovery doctrine. a. Nix v. William, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 7. Computer errors exception. a. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995)

48. Nix v. William • US Supreme Court decision that created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionaryrule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, inadmissible in criminal trials as “fruits of the poisonous tree”. In Nix, the Court ruled that evidence that would inevitably have been discovered by law enforcement through legal means remainedadmissible.

49. Arizona v. Evans • Was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionaryrule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.

50. 1.1.3 Definitions A. Definition of a searchwarrant (or search-and-seizure warrant)– a judge’s written order authorizing a law enforcement officer to conduct a search of a specified place and to seize evidence (SOURCE: Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed., 1999, West Group, Inc.)