CJ227: Criminal Procedure
Seminar 2
Expectations For The Week
 Read Chapters 3 and 4 in the text
 Complete the unit Writing Assignment
 Follow the Web Field Trip(s) and/or web
resource links
 Post to the Discussion Boards
Analysis and Application Essay





Write a 2-3 page paper (excluding title page and reference page)
addressing the legality of the actions of Officer Smith
Identify the levels of police encounters in the fact pattern
Describe the legal requirements needed to justify each of those
encounters
Explain whether Officer Smith’s actions were justified
Include sources to support your conclusions
** The paper must be written in APA format. All text pages should be
double spaced and in 12 point font.
Submit the assignment in the Unit 2 Drop Box by the end of the course
week.
Seminar Topic
Police Encounters with Individuals
and the Required Level of Police
Suspicion needed to Justify these
Encounters
Probable Cause
An honest and
reasonable belief that
a crime has been
committed or is about
to occur
 More than reasonable
suspicion


“Probable cause exists when the
facts and circumstances within the
officers’ knowledge and of which
they had reasonably trustworthy
information are sufficient in
themselves to warrant a man of
reasonable caution in the belief that
an offense has been or is being
committed”

Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S.
160 (1949)
Reasonable Suspicion


Quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and
cautious man under similar circumstances to believe criminal
activity is at hand.
Based on specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with
rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant intrusion.
Henry C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed., abridged (St. Paul,
MN:West, 1991) p. 875
Probable Cause is established by:
 The officer’s knowledge of certain facts
and circumstances
 Information given by a reliable source
(informant)
 Information plus corroboration
Officers’ Knowledge of Facts and
Circumstances is based on:
Prior criminal record
 Suspects flight from scene of crime
 Highly suspicious conduct
 Incriminating evidence
 Resemblance to description of perpetrator
 Other relevant factors

Information Given by Informant
Cases of Relevance:



Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964): Established a two prong test
for determining probable cause based on informant’s information1. Informant must be reliable and
2. The information must be reliable and not the result of mere
suspicion
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969): Restated the Aguilar
test
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983): Established new standard.
Gates held that the totality of the circumstances should replace the two
prong test of Aguilar.
Information Plus Corroboration

When the officer can not
establish probable cause
by the information
provided by the informant
on his/her own, s/he can
conduct an investigation
to gain corroborating
information.

“Information received from an
informant that is corroborated
by an officer may be sufficient
to provide probable cause for an
arrest, even though such
information was hearsay and
would not otherwise have been
admissible in a criminal trial”.
Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)
Terry Stops
 A “Terry stop” refers to a stop and frisk
 Form of search and seizure and therefore
falls under the 4th amendment
 Less intrusive
 Probable cause not needed, but there must
be reasonable suspicion
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
The last paragraph of the majority opinion states:
“…where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the
person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the
course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection
of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer
clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to
assault him. Such a search is reasonable under the 4th amendment, and any weapons
seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they are
taken.”
The Stop
 Must be based on reasonable suspicion
 May turn into arrest if probable cause is
established
 A stop during which a person does not feel
free to leave could turn into a seizure for
which probable cause would be required.
The Frisk





Limited to a pat down of a person’s outer clothing
Only objects that feel like weapons may be seized
If the object is not a weapon but felt like one, the frisk is
still justified
Officers can not manipulate objects to see if it may be
contraband if they do not think it is a weapon
Frisk should not be a “fishing expedition”
Arrest with a warrant
What is an arrest warrant?
A writ or precept issued by a magistrate , justice or
other competent authority, addressed to a sheriff or constable
or other officer, requiring him to arrest the body of a person
therein named, and bring him before the magistrate or court
to answer, or to be examined, concerning some offense
which he is charged with having committed.
Henry C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed. (St. Paul, MN: West, 1968)
p. 1756.
Requirements of a valid warrant:
 Probable cause
 Signed by a neutral magistrate
 Describes the offense charged
 Contains the name of the accused (if
unknown, must be a description from which
s/he could be easily identified)
Other means of taking a person into
custody or into court:



Citation: order from the court for the person to appear at a
specific time. May be used for less serious offenses (ex.
traffic violations)
Bench Warrant: made by a judge on the bench and
ordering the arrest of a defendant who has not appeared as
required.
Capias: Issued to bring a person to court if indicted by a
grand jury or if the person skips bail.
Arrest without a warrant

Crime occurs in the presence of police

Exigent circumstances (ex. hot pursuit)

When there is danger to the arresting officer
Knock and Announce

Rule requiring the
police to announce
themselves before
breaking into a
dwelling was put in
place to avoid
violence and give the
suspect the
opportunity to comply



Case law has indicated that every
entry does not have to include an
announcement:
“…This is not to say, of course that
every entry must be preceded by an
announcement. The 4th Am.’s
flexible requirement of
reasonableness should not be read
to mandate a rigid rule of
announcement that ignores
countervailing law enforcement
interests…”
Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927
(1995)
Exceptions to knock and announce
 Announcement would present a danger to
the officers
 Danger that contraband or evidence might
be destroyed
 Officers believe someone within the
premises is in danger
 Reasonable belief that suspect is escaping
Questions?

Erego@kaplan.edu

508-728-6043

Office hours: Sundays
6:00-8:00 p.m. EST