CJ
Chapter 7
Police and the
Constitution:
The Rules of
Law
Enforcement
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcomes
LO1:Outline the four major sources that may
provide probable causes.
LO2:Distinguish between a stop and a frisk, and
indicate the importance of the case Terry v.
Ohio.
LO3:List the four elements that must be present
for an arrest to take place.
LO4:Explain when searches can be made
without a warrant.
LO5:Indicate situations in which a Miranda
warning is unnecessary.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
LO 1
Outline the four major
sources that may provide
probable cause.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 1
The Fourth Amendment contains two
critical legal concepts:
• Unreasonable searches and seizures
• The requirement of probable cause to
issue a warrant
© 2011 Cengage Learning
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 1
Reasonableness
• No specific meaning for
“reasonableness” exists.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 1
Sources of Probable Cause:
• Personal observation
• Information
• Evidence
• Association
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 1
The Probable Cause Framework
• Probable cause provides a framework that limits
the situations in which police offices can make
arrests.
• Once an arrest is made, the arresting officer
must prove to a judge that probable cause
existed.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 1
The Exclusionary Rule:
• Prohibits the use of illegally obtained
evidence
The Fruit of the Poisoned Tree:
• Evidence obtained through illegally
obtained evidence is also
inadmissible
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 2
• Terry v. Ohio (1968)
– Sets precedent for reasonable suspicion in
stop-and-frisk situations.
• The “totality of the circumstances”
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 2
A stop is the brief detention of a
person by the police for questioning.
A stop requires reasonable suspicion.
A frisk is a pat-down or minimal
search by police to discover weapons.
It is conducted for the protection of
the officer.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 2
The elements of arrest:
• The intent to arrest
• The authority to arrest
• Seizure or detention
• The understanding of a person that
they have been arrested
© 2011 Cengage Learning
CAREERPREP
Animal Control Officer
Job Description:
Work to protect stray, injured, abused, and unwanted animals. This
includes rescuing the animals, aiding in the prosecution of
individuals who abused them, and providing impounded animals
with humane care.
Educate the public about overpopulation and responsible pet
ownership.
What Kind of Training Is Required ?
On-the-job training is a common condition for entry-level positions
in this field.
Desirable backgrounds include an associates degree or study in law
enforcement, criminology, animal behavior, and/or veterinary
technology.
Annual Salary Range?
$13,236–$44,149
For additional information, visit: www.nacanet.org.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
LO 3
List the four elements that
must be present for an arrest
to take place.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Mastering
Concepts
The Difference
between a Stop and
an Arrest
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 3
Arrests with a warrant:
• Officers are required to knock,
announce their identity and their
purpose.
– Wilson v. Arkansas (1967)
– Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 3
Arrests with a warrant:
• Under certain exigent circumstances
officers do not need to announce
themselves:
– The suspect is armed and poses a threat of
violence.
– Evidence is being destroyed.
– A felony is in progress.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 3
Arrests with a warrant:
• The Waiting Period - Hudson v.
Michigan (2006)
– Police are required to wait a reasonable
amount of time after knocking and
announcing.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 3
Arrests without a warrant:


The arrest is committed in the presence
of the officer.
The officer has knowledge a crime was
committed and probable cause to believe
the crime was committed by a particular
person.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 3
The role of privacy in searches:
• Search
– A governmental intrusion on a
citizen’s reasonable expectation of
privacy.
• Katz v. United States (1967)
– Established “reasonable
expectation of privacy.”
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 3
The role of privacy in searches:
• Two-pronged test for person’s
expectations of privacy:
– The individual must prove that he or
she expected privacy.
– Society must recognize that
expectation as reasonable.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 3
A Legitimate Privacy Interest
• California v. Greenwood (1988)
– Suspect does not have expectation of
privacy when it comes to garbage bags.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 3
Search warrants must demonstrate:
– Information showing probable cause
that a crime has been or will be
committed.
– Specific information on the premises to
be searched, the suspects to be found
and the illegal activities taking place at
those premises, and the items to be
seized.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 3
Four categories of items that can be
seized by use of a search warrant:
– Items resulting from the crime, such as
stolen goods
– Items that are inherently illegal for
anyone to possess
– Items that can be called “evidence” of
the crime
– Items used in committing the crime
© 2011 Cengage Learning
LO 4
Explain when searches can
be made without a warrant.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 4
• Searches incidental to arrest
– United States v. Robinson (1973)
• The need for a police office to find and confiscate any
weapons a suspect may be carrying.
• The need to protect any evidence on the suspect’s
person from being destroyed.
– Chimel v. California (1969)
• Sets limits on warrantless searches made during an
arrest.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 4
Searches with consent
• Factors for considering whether consent
is voluntary:
– The age, intelligence, and physical
condition of the consenting suspects.
– Any coercive behavior by the police,
such as the language used to request
consent.
– The length of the questioning and its
location.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 4
• Searches of automobiles
– Carroll v. United States (1925)
• Law distinguishes among automobiles, homes, and
persons in questions involving police searches.
– According to Supreme Court, police do not
need warrant to search automobiles or other
movable vehicles.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 4
• Searches of automobiles
– Whren v. United States (1996)
• “True” motivation of officers in making traffic
stops is irrelevant if they had probable cause.
– Maryland v. Wilson (1997)
• Officers can order drivers and passengers out of
a car during a traffic stop.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 4
• Containers within a vehicle
– Supreme court has given police lots of
leeway for warrantless searches of
containers within a vehicle.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 4
• Plain view doctrine
– Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)
• The item is positioned in the officer’s view
• The officer is legally in a position to notice
the item
• The discovery of the item is inadvertent
• The officer immediately recognizes the illegal
nature of the item
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 4
Electronic surveillance can only
be used:
• If consent is given by one of the
parties
• Or there is a warrant
authorizing the activity
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 4
For a warrant for electronic
surveillance to be valid, it must:
– Detail with particularity the
conversations that are to be overheard
– Name the suspects and the places
that will be under surveillance
– Show with probable cause that a
specific crime has been or will be
committed
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 4
Video and Digital Surveillance
• Closed-circuit television cameras
(CCTV)
• Criticisms - Easily abused to invade
privacy
© 2011 Cengage Learning
LO 5
Indicate situations in which a
Miranda warning is
unnecessary.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 5
You have the right to remain silent. If you give
up that right, anything you say can and will be
used against you in a court of law. You have
the right to speak with an attorney and to have
the attorney present during questioning. If you
so desire and cannot afford one, an attorney
will be appointed for you without charge
before questioning.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 5
The legal basis for Miranda:
– The Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination.
– Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• Inherent coercion – even if a police office
does not lay a hand on the suspect, the
general atmosphere of an interrogation is
coercive.
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 5
Miranda warning is required:
• When a suspect is under custody
• Custodial interrogation:
– When a suspect is under arrest or
deprived of freedom in a significant
manner
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 5
Miranda is not required:
• When police do not ask suspect
questions that are testimonial in
nature
• When the police have not focused
on a suspect and are questioning
witnesses at the scene
• When a person volunteers
information before being asked
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 5
Miranda is not required:
• When the suspect has given a
private statement to a friend or
acquaintance
• During a stop and frisk when no
arrest has been made
• During a traffic stop
© 2011 Cengage Learning
Learning Outcome 5
Waivers of Miranda must be knowing and
voluntary.
To be clear, officers should ask:
• Do you understand your rights as I have
read them to you?
• Knowing these rights, are you willing to
another law enforcement officer or to me?
© 2011 Cengage Learning