Chapter 7
Policing: Legal Aspects
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
1
ABUSE OF POLICE POWER
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
ARREST
THE INTELLIGENCE FUNCTION
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
2
Changing Legal Climate
The U.S. Constitution is
designed to protect
citizens against abuses
of police power.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
3
Changing Legal Climate
1960’s
The U.S. Supreme Court
sped up the process of
guaranteeing individual
rights in the face of
criminal prosecution.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
4
Individual Rights
Due Process
requirement of
th
th
th
5 , 6 , and 14
Amendments of
the Constitution
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
5
Search and Seizure
• People must be
secure in their
homes.
• People must
also be protected
against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
6
Searches & Seizure
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Weeks vs. U.S.
FRUIT OF THE
POISONED TREE
DOCTRINE
Silverthorne Lumber
vs. U.S.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
FOR THE STATES
Mapp vs. Ohion
INCIDENT TO LAWFUL
ARREST
U.S. vs. Rabinowitz
Chimel vs. California
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
7
Exclusionary Rule:
Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Supreme Court Decision:
• If some of Weeks’ property had
been illegally seized, then the
remainder of the property is also
considered to be illegally seized.
• This case established the
exclusionary rule.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
8
Exclusionary Rule
• Evidence illegally
seized by the police
cannot be used in a
trial.
• This rule acts as a
control over police
behavior.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
9
Fruits of Poisoned Tree
Silverthorne Lumber
Co. v. U.S. (1918)
• Silverthorne was
accused of not
paying taxes.
• Federal agents
wanted the
company books.
• Silverthorne refused
to turn over books.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
10
Silverthorne Lumber Co.
v. U.S. (1918)
• The U.S. Supreme Court
decided to overturn the
conviction.
• They ruled that evidence
illegally seized cannot be
used in a trial, therefore,
neither can evidence
which derives from an
illegal seizure.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
11
U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)
• The Fourth Amendment
provides against
unreasonable searches, but
the search of the one room
office following a legal arrest
was alright.
• The Fourth Amendment protects
people, not places.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
12
Supreme Court Chief
Justices
• Earl Warren
1953 - 1969
• Warren Burger
1969 - 1986
• William Rehnquist 1986 - present
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
13
Warren Court
The Warren court charted
a course that would
guarantee nationwide
recognition of individual
rights by all levels of the
criminal justice system.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
14
Warren Court
• applied the
exclusionary rule
to States
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
15
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• U.S. Supreme Court decided:
14th Amendment due process
applied to local police, not just
federal officers.
• Evidence against Mapp was illegally
obtained.
• Overturned conviction based on
inadmissibility of the evidence.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
16
Chimel v. California (1969)
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
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
17
Burger Court
Adherence to the
principle that
criminal defendants,
in claiming
violations
of their due process right…
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
18
Burger Court
...need to bear the
responsibility of
showing that the
police went
beyond the law in
the performance
of their duties.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
19
Exclusionary Rule
Exceptions
Good Faith
Plain View Doctrine
U.S. vs. Leon
Illinois vs. Krull
U.S. vs. Harris
Emergency Searches Warden vs. Hayden
of Property
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
20
U.S. v. Leon (1984)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
When law enforcement officers have
acted in objective good faith, the
evidence they have collected should
be admissible even if later it is found
the warrant was invalid.
“good faith exception to
exclusionary rule”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
21
Rehnquist Court
continuing the trend of the
Burger Court in having
defendants bear the burden of
proving violations
of due process
rights
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
22
Illinois v. Krull (1987)
U.S. Supreme Court held that the
good-faith exception applied to
warrantless searches supported
by state law even where the state
statute was later found to violate
Fourth Amendment rights.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
23
Plain View Doctrine
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
24
Harris v. U.S. (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
appeal rejected
Justification:
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.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
25
Plain View Situations
Police can use evidence if
they observe it during
emergencies such as:
• crimes in progress
• fires
• accidents
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
26
Emergency Searches of
Property
Three threats provide justification for
emergency warrantless searches.
• Clear dangers to life.
• Clear dangers of escape.
• Clear dangers of removal
or destruction of
evidence.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
27
Warden v. Hayden (1967)
• There was a report
that a robber fled
into a building.
• The police search
residence without
a warrant.
• The defendant was
convicted.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
28
Warden v. Hayden (1967)
Supreme Court Decision:
rejected appeal of illegal
search
Justification:
“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.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
29
Search and Seizure
Arrest
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
30
Arrest & Searches
FREE TO LEAVE TEST
U.S. vs. Mendenhall
STOP AND FRISK
Terry vs. Ohio
EMERGENCY SEARCHES OF
PERSONS
Sanders vs. Arkansas
VEHICLE SEARCHES
U.S. vs. Caroll
SUSPICIONLESS SEARCHES
National Treasury Employees
Union vs. Von Raob
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
31
U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)
“Free-to-Leave” Test
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, …
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
32
U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)
... a reasonable
person would
have believed that
he was not free to
leave.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
33
Fleeing Felon Doctrine
• Historically, the fleeing felon
doctrine dictated the use of
force.
• Deadly force could be used to
apprehend any fleeing
felony suspect.
• This was law in most
states until 1960’s.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
34
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
appeal rejected
Stop and frisk requires reasonable
suspicion, the facts must lead officers
to suspect that crimes may be
occurring, and that suspects may be
armed.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
35
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
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.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
36
Smith v. Ohio (1990)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
U.S. Supreme Court:
overturned conviction
Justification:
An individual has the right to
protect his belongings from
an unwarranted search,
because, in this case, there was
little reason to stop the suspect
and because control over the
bag was not thought necessary
for the officer’s protection.
37
Carroll v. U.S. (1925)
• The first U.S. Supreme Court
case to involve an
automobile.
• U.S. Supreme Court ruled a
warrantless search of an
automobile is valid if based
on a reasonable belief that
contraband is present.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
38
Intelligence Function
Police need to gather
information through
many sources.
• informants
• police interrogation
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
39
Intelligence Function
In the case of informants,
there is a two-pronged
test that can be used to
establish probable cause.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
40
Intelligence Function
• The source of the
informant’s information
is made clear.
• The police officer
has a reasonable
belief that the
informant is reliable.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
41
Intelligence Function
interrogation - Any
behaviors “that the police
should know are
reasonably likely to elicit an
incriminating response
from the suspect.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
42
The Intelligence Function
INFORMANTS
TWO-PRONGED RULE
Aguilar vs. Texas
POLICE INTERROGATION
PHYSICAL ABUSE
Brown vs. Mississippi
INHERENT COERCION
Ashcroft vs. Tennessee
PSYCHOLOGICAL
MANIPULATION
Leyra vs. Denno
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
43
The Intelligence Function
Right to a Lawyer
Escobedo vs. Illinois
Suspect’s Rights
Miranda vs. Arizona
Miranda Rights
Waiver
Moran vs. Burbine
Miranda Rights
Exception
Quarles vs. New York
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
44
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
• Danny Escobedo is arrested, without
a warrant, for the murder of his
brother-in-law.
• Danny makes no statements during
the initial interrogation and is
released.
• A few weeks later, someone identifies
Danny as the murderer.
• Danny is, again, brought in for
interrogation
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
45
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
• Danny is told they “have him cold.”
• Danny asks to see his lawyer and is
told he cannot since the
interrogation is underway.
• Danny’s lawyer arrives and asks to
see his client but is told he has to
wait until questioning is complete.
• Meanwhile, Danny is told that his
lawyer does not want to see him.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
46
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
• Danny confesses
to the crime.
• Danny is
convicted and
appeals his
conviction.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
47
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
Decision:
conviction
overturned
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
48
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Justification:
Escobedo is entitled
to counsel at police
interrogations to
protect his rights, and
counsel should be
provided when the
defendant desires.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
49
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
• Ernesto Miranda was arrested in
Phoenix,
Arizona and was accused of
kidnapping and rape.
• Miranda was identified by the victim.
• Miranda was interrogated for two hours,
signed a confession ,and was
convicted.
• He appealed his conviction to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
50
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
conviction overturned
Justification:
“ The entire aura and atmosphere of
police interrogation, without
notification of rights and an offer of
assistance of counsel, tends to
subjugate the individual to the will of
his examiner.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
51
Nontestimonial Evidence
• right to privacy issues
• body cavity
searches
• electronic
eavesdropping
• electronic evidence
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
52