Chapter 7
The Rule of Law in
Law Enforcement
Irwin/McGraw-Hill
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
Table 7.2
Requirements for “Stop and Frisk”
and Requirements for Arrest
C7-S1
“Stop and Frisk”
“Arrest”
1. Degree of certainty
“Reasonable suspicion”
“Probable cause”
2. Scope
Very limited—only pat
down for weapons
Full body search
3. Purpose
Stop—to prevent
criminal activity
To take person into
custody
4. Warrant
Not needed
May or may not need
Source: Rolando del Carmen, Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (Pacific Grove, CA:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Brooks
Cole, 1991)., p. 109.
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
C7-S2
Table 7.3a
Cases Affirming and Eroding Miranda
Cases Affirming Miranda: Evidence Ruled Not Admissible
Factual Situation
1. U.S. v. Henry (1979)
2. Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
3. Smith v. Illinois (1985)
4. Michigan v. Jackson (1986)
5. Arizona v. Roberson (1988)
6. Minnick v. Mississippi (1990)
Questioning of defendant without a
lawyer after indictment.
No valid waiver of right to counsel.
After invocation of right to counsel
during questioning.
Right to counsel invoked at
arraignment.
Invoking Miranda for one offense,
admissible for second offense?
When counsel is requested, the
suspect has the right to have an
attorney present during the
interrogation.
Source: Rolando del Carmen, Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (Pacific Grove, CA:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Brooks Cole, 1991)., p. 307.
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
C7-S3
Table 7.3b
Cases Affirming and Eroding Miranda
Cases Eroding Miranda: Evidence Ruled Admissible
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Harris v. New York (1971)
Michigan v. Tucker (1974)
Michigan v. Mosley (1975)
New York v. Quarles (1984)
Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)
6. Oregon v. Elstad (1985)
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Moran v. Burbine (1986)
Colorado v. Connelly (1986)
Connecticut v. Barrett (1987)
Colorado v. Spring (1987)
Arizona v. Mauro (1987)
Pennsylvania v. Bruder (1988)
Duckworth v. Eagan (1989)
Michigan v. Harvey (1990)
Illinois v. Perkins (1990)
Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)
McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991)
Factual Situation
Impeachment of credibility.
Collateral derivative evidence.
Questioning on an unrelated offense.
Threat to public safety.
Roadside questioning of a motorist pursuant to routine
traffic stop.
Confession obtained after warnings given following earlier
voluntary but unwarned admission.
Failure of police to inform suspect of attorney retained for him.
Confession following advice of God.
Oral confession.
Shift to another crime.
Officer recorded conversation with defendant’s wife.
Curbside stop for traffic violation.
Variation in warning.
Impeachment of testimony.
Officer posing as inmate.
Routine questions and videotaping DWI.
Invoking a suspect’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel does
not amount to an invocation of the right to counsel derived by
Miranda.
Source: Rolando del Carmen, Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (Pacific Grove, CA:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Brooks Cole, 1991)., p. 307.
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
C7-S4
Figure 7.6
How Evidence Becomes Inadmissable
and the Exceptions that Make it Admissible
Illegal
police act
Evidence
illegally obtained
1. Illegally seized evidence
—not admissible.
Inevitable discovery.
Independent
Evidence obtained
untainted
from illegally Except
source.
obtained evidence
Purged taint.
Good faith.
2. “Fruit of the poisonous
tree” —not admissible.
Source: Adapted from Rolando del Carmen, Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (Pacific Grove,
CA:Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Brooks Cole, 1991), p. 61.
3. Admissible
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000