Police and the Law
Introduction to Procedural Law
The Basis of Procedural Law is found in
democratic civil rights. In particular,
• the right to privacy
• the presumption of innocence
However, these values are balanced against
State (police) interests in public safety and crime
control. No other crime issue has influenced
procedural law like the “War on Drugs”
Police and the Law
• What are the standards that theoretically guide
police intrusion on citizen rights to privacy?
– Reasonable Suspicion & Probable Cause
– Reasonable Suspicion:
•
•
•
•
Based upon “objective facts” & logical conclusions
Tied to the circumstances or “context” of the encounter
Lower legal standard
May be developed from information that is not reliable
(hearsay)
• The basis for Stops (as well as Frisks)
Police and the Law
• What are the standards that theoretically guide
police intrusion on citizen rights to privacy?
– Probable Cause
• Higher legal standard to meet
• Necessary to execute arrests
• Better than 50% chance
Police Accountability through the Judiciary
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
PROBABLE CAUSE lays the groundwork for a reasonable
search.
–What is probable cause?
Brinegar v. US (1949)
“the facts and circumstances within the officers knowledge and of
which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient
in themselves to warrant a … belief that an offense has been or
is being committed.”
Police Accountability through the Judiciary
Thus PROBABLE CAUSE is SUBJECTIVE. It is open to
interpretation.
Absent a Search/Arrest Warrant, officers can…
Articulate reasonable trustworthy information
–Role of informants is increased in investigations
–2 pronged test to evaluating the credibility of:
•1) information & 2) source of info (informant)
•Gates v. Illinois (1983) loosened this standard.
–Anonymous informants okay. Courts establish the Totality of
Circumstances approach. More subjective standard
•US v. Sokolow (1989)established legal basis for the use of a
profile in establishing probable cause based on
Totality of Circumstances standard.
–Airport: Passenger paid cash, acted nervous, did not check baggage
–Racial discrimination is not legal, but race in combination with other
unlawful acts (traffic violations) may be enough to meet this totality
standard – should this be legal?
Police Accountability through the Judiciary
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Weeks v. US (1913) federal
Mapp. V. Ohio (1961) extended to states
Facts of the case: Mapp refused police entry to her home. Police
entered anyway and found obscene materials in a search for a
wanted person.
Establishes that fruit of a poisonous tree is inadmissible at trial.
Real concern that Mapp would deter police from aggressive
investigation.
Data suggests Mapp has NOT had any real affect on police work.
Is a much larger cultural issue – contributes to public’s cynicism
about law and the CJS
Empirical findings (of a lack of impact on police) may result from
the limits on scope of the Exclusionary Rule:
Nix v. Williams (1984) establishes inevitable discovery exception
Police Accountability through the Judiciary
STOP & FRISK
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Police possess legal power to detain & question even
without probable cause. All that is necessary is an
Articulable Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Act. Frisk
(limited person search) is permissible in these
circumstances
Does not constitute an arrest
How long the stop takes is an evolving issue
KNOCK & ANNOUNCE: Context of War on
Drugs - Wilson v. Arkansas (1995)
Police Accountability through the Judiciary
ARREST
Depriving one of their liberty by legal authority
for the purposes of interrogation or criminal
prosecution.
At what point are you arrested?
Police Accountability through the Judiciary
Search & Seizure of Property
Search Warrant required
“Written order, issued by a magistrate,
instructing police t search for property connected
to a crime and bring it before a court.”
Must demonstrate probable cause of crime in a
specific place (limiting the possibility of a general
warrant) including description of what is to be
seized
Police Accountability through the Judiciary
Search & Seizure of Property
Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement
>Plain View Doctrine
2 features: 1) officer has legal right to be where
contraband is visible 2) contraband is recognizable
>Vehicles
Carroll v. US (1925) Prohibition Era Ruling
Establishes warrantless search standard to vehicles as
long as PC exists that the vehicle contains items
subject to seizure
Delaware v. Prouse (1979) Must be PC for a
vehicle stop (based on totality of circumstances)
Officers not required to tell motorists they are free
to go before a consent search (Ohio v. Robinette)
Police Accountability through the Judiciary
– Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
a. guaranteed fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination
b. police must advise suspect of his/her rights
c. Miranda warning (right to remain silent, right to have an
attorney, if cannot afford one, right to court-appointed
attorney)
d. Court found that police used coercive techniques (3rd
Degree)
i. environment in police station is inherently coercive
ii. likely to induce suspects to waive their rights
Little substantive impact on ability of police to make
arrests/secure confessions. But did reduce coercive
behaviors.
The impact of Supreme Court decisions
Political and legal controversy
a. police argued they were “handcuffed” in their crime control effort
b. studies on the exclusionary rule
- Empirical evidence suggests that the Exclusionary rule does
not limit crime-fighting capacity of the police
ii. rule largely confined to cases on how police obtained
evidence (EX: drug, gambling, weapons cases)
iii. few motions to suppress evidence are raised; even fewer
are granted
Good faith exemption: police have acted in accordance with the
constitution if they act “honestly”. In US v. Leon— basis for decision
when police have acted honestly.
Rehnquist court—sometimes called a counter-revolution to the Warren
(1960s era) court. Rehnquist (current Supreme Court Chief Justice)
court focuses on speed, finality, and efficiency. Tends to value crime
control needs over civil protections
The impact of Supreme Court decisions
Positive effects of Supreme Court decisions
a. defined basic principles of due process
b. created penalties for police misconduct--basic mechanism of
accountability
c. stimulated police reform--improvements in recruitment, training,
supervision
d. increased public awareness about details of police procedure
e. helped maintain high standards of police professionalism
Limitations
a. Court cannot supervise day-to-day operations,
b. Most police work does not involve an arrest or reach court,
c. Police may not be informed about current court decisions,
d. Encourages evasion or lying by police officers,
e. Exercise of rights may become an empty formality