Case Law – At the Speed of Light
UNIT 4
POLICE – LEGAL CONCEPTS
Get ready for a ‘fast ride’!
• Rules:
1. If you have a question about the specific
case, then please ask while on that slide.
2. Please hold ‘this happened to me once’ –
share them via instant message with other
members or wait til end to ask me.
3. Write down your questions or reminders –
b/c I may cover it or I will answer it.
Case Law – Miranda
• This will help you in the Discussion Board for
UNIT 4.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• Police interrogated Ernesto Miranda for 2
hours.
• Miranda was 23 years old, poor and had 9th
grade education.
• He confessed to rape and kidnapping.
• Justice Warren admonished police actions
during interrogation.
• In the absence of other effective measures, the
following procedures to safeguard the Fifth
Amendment privilege must be observed: the
person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be
clearly informed that he has the right to remain
silent, and that anything he says will be used
against him in court; he must be clearly informed
that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and
to have the lawyer with him during interrogation,
and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be
appointed to represent him. Pp.384 U. S. 467-473.
5
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• The police are required to advise in-custody
suspects of:
– The right to remain silent
– The right to be told that anything said can and will
be used against him or her in court
– The right to consult with an attorney prior to
answering any questions and the right to have an
attorney present during the interrogation
– If the suspect cannot afford to pay for an attorney,
the court will appoint one
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• Two conditions:
• 1. Suspect is in custody
• 2. Suspect is being interrogated
Other considerations
• Miranda does not apply to detention or consentencounters.
• Miranda does not apply to traffic stops, DUI
breath/blood tests (PA v Muniz).
• Miranda does not apply when someone’s life is at
stake (NY v Quarles).
Berghuis v Thompkins (2010)
• To invoke your right to remain silent during
interrogation, you must FIRST break silence.
• The Supreme Court advised that by
announcing your right, you invoke the
protection and can cease interrogation.
JDB v. North Carolina
• 5-4 decision
• Custody as a requirement
• Because of the psychological factors related to
juveniles – age is a consideration for
determining ‘custody’
Try to remember the 333 Rule?
3 types of police authority
3 types of citizen-police encounters
3 ways the police can search
3 Types of Police Authority
1.
2.
3.
Detention
Arrest
Force
3 types of citizen-police
encounters
1.
2.
3.
Consensual Encounter
Articulable Reasonable Suspicion - ARS –
required for Detention
Probable Cause –
required for both Detention and Arrest
13
3 ways to search
1. Consent
2. Search Warrant
3. Exigent Circumstances:
(several –related)
Hot Pursuit, car, fields, weapons (pat-down),
emergency, preservation of evidence
14
But first...
1. Detention
2. Arrest
3. Force
#3 Force: Quickly discuss Force
Tenn. v. Garner (1985)
Graham v. Connor (1989)
-------------------------------------------------------• Then, we’ll start with Detention and Arrest
Deadly Force
 Landmark Case: Tenn. v. Garner (1985)
 “All uses of deadly force must be objectively
reasonable based upon the totality of circumstances
surrounding its use.”
 Objective Reasonableness is satisfied where:
 Suspect poses imminent threat of serious bodily
harm or death to officer or some other person who
is present. OR;
 Officer has probable cause to believe suspect inflicts
serious bodily harm/death and by his or her escape
poses a danger of same to others.
Graham v. Connor – Non Deadly
 It considers 3 factors:
 Severity of offense suspected
 Did suspect pose an immediate threat to the
officer or others
 Is the suspect actively resisting or attempting to
escape (Note: this is judged by totality of
circumstances known to the officer at the time)
 Must step into the shoes of the officer
 20/20 Hindsight is not considered ....
Florida v. Bostick (1991)
• What about consensual encounters – the 1st
tier?
• Without ARS, 2 officers boarded a bus and
approached Bostick. They asked for his ID and
his bus ticket – and then asked for consent to
search his luggage. Cocaine was found and
Bostick was arrested.
• Did the police conduct in this case constitute a
seizure of Bostick under the 4th Amendment –
such that he felt compelled to talk to officers?
Florida v. Bostick (1991)
• The assumption there is a ‘per se’ rule in
police seizures is incorrect in FL.
• “Our cases make it clear that a seizure does
not occur simply because a police officer
approaches an individual and asks a few
questions. So long as a reasonable person
would feel free to ‘disregard the police and go
about his business,’ the encounter is
consensual and no reasonable suspicion is
required.”
Detention
• Articulable Reasonable Suspicion - ARS –
Detention
• Remember it’s the 2nd Level of Encounter
• Those facts and circumstances that would lead
a reasonable police officer, utilizing their
knowledge, training, experience, and senses,
to believe criminal activity is afoot.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
• Plainclothes officer with 39 years of
experience – 30 years in the same area
• Two men ‘cased’ the store
• Met with third a block away, Officer
approached and pat them all down
• Officer retrieved weapons from Terry
• Terry was charged with carrying concealed
weapon.
• Is a ‘stop and frisk’ valid under the 4th
Amendment?
Terry v. Ohio
• Yes
• "The record evidences the tempered act of a
policeman who in the course of an
investigation had to make a quick decision as
to how to protect himself and others from
possible danger, and took limited steps to do
so.“
• "specific and articulable facts" and not merely
upon an officer's hunch.
Hiibel v. 6th district court Nevada (2004)
• Deputy received a call from a driver who had
seen a man assault a woman by a GMC truck
on the side of the road.
• Deputy approached and noticed skidmarks
and matching description. Hiibel was
intoxicated.
• Officer asked for ID, but Hiibel refused and
taunted deputy to take him to jail.
• Hiibel was charged with NV statute on must ID
• Can a person be arrested for refusing to
identify themselves when ARS is present?
Hiibel continued
• Yes!
• “contention that his conviction violates 5th
amendment protections fails because
disclosure of name and identity present no
self-incrimination.”
U.S. v. Watson (1976)
• Postal Inspector/Fed Agent relying on a tip
asked Watson for consent to search his car.
• Watson agreed and had stolen credit cards.
• Fed Agent arrested Watson based on probable
cause Watson had broken the law
• Question: Can officers arrest and individual in
a public place with probable cause without an
arrest warrant even if there is time to obtain
an arrest warrant?
U.S. v Watson (1976)
• Yes!
• “Such a requirement (to wait to obtain a
warrant) would...handicap legitimate law
enforcement interests...the Court has never
invalidated a warrant supported by probable
cause.”
• Note: Court also stated LE must follow state
guidelines for arrest warrants.
Payton v. New York (1980)
• Payton was under investigation for murder;
police had p.c.
• Police went to Payton’s home.
• Payton wasn’t home, police entered, searched
home and gained evidence.
• Question: Does the 4th Amendment require
officers to obtain a warrant if making a routine
felony arrest when there is time to obtain a
warrant?
Payton v. New York (1980)
• Yes!
• “The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at
the entrance to the house. Absent exigent
circumstances, that threshold may not
reasonably be crossed without a warrant.”
• Note: This is for routine arrests of crimes that
have already been committed!!! Exigent
circumstances allow officers to enter and
arrest without a warrant.
Case Law – 2
Traffic Stops
Carroll v. U.S. (1925)
• Officers, relying on evidence that Carroll was
transporting illegal liquor, chased and stopped
Carroll.
• Officers searched under the seats of Carroll’s
car and found 68 bottles of liquor.
• Question: May officers search an automobile
without a search warrant but with probable
cause it contains illegal contraband?
Carroll v. U.S. (1925)
• Yes!
• The mobility of the vehicle is an exception to the
warrant requirement, commonly referred to in
other case law as the ‘automobile exception’.
• “The guarantee of freedom...by the 4th
Amendment has been construed, practically since
the beginning of government, as recognizing a
necessary difference between a search of a store
or house in which a warrant can be obtained, and
search of a boat, wagon or automobile...because
the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the
...jurisdiction of the warrant.
U.S. v. Arvizu (2001)
• Border Patrol in AZ; sensors avoid checkpoint
• Officer followed vehicle, which: time of
vehicle on the road, roads circumvented cpoint, driver would not look at officer, children
waved mechanically, vehicle slowed down,
vehicle made turns away from checkpoints.
• Officer stopped Arvizu, consent, drugs
• Question: In making reasonable suspicion stops,
what must courts consider as evidence?
U.S. v. Arvizu (2001)
• Totality of Circumstances – even if there is an
innocent explanation of EACH activity.
• ARS under Terry v. Ohio is a total sum of
activity that may equal criminal behavior.
Whren v. U.S. (1996)
• Drug officers in undercover car were patrolling
a high drug activity area. They noticed a
vehicle make a u-turn to avoid them, turn
without signaling and speed to get away.
• Whren had crack rocks in his lap when officers
stopped the vehicle, and he was arrested.
• Question: Can police stop an individual for
traffic offenses even if they have other
objectives?
Whren v. U.S. (1996)
• Yes!
• Pretext stops based on race are illegal, but
pretext stops with a law enforcement
objective do not violate 4th Amendment.
• “We think these cases foreclose any argument
that reasonableness depends on the
motivations of the officer.”
Maryland v. Wilson (1997)
• Trooper stopped vehicle where Wilson was a
passenger. Driver exited vehicle to meet
Trooper. Trooper noticed nervousness,
especially Wilson who was sweating and
trembling.
• Trooper ordered Wilson out of the car, crack
cocaine fell to the ground.
• Question: After stopping a car, may an officer
order the passengers to exit the vehicle?
Maryland  Pennsylvania v. Mimms
• Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) - Can officers
order a driver out of the car?
• Govt and public interest of officer safety
outweighs the minimal intrusion of standing
outside a car or sitting inside.
• In Maryland v. Wilson, the court extended the
rule to passengers. The answer is: Yes!
Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000)
• Indianapolis Police conducted a checkpoint
primarily for drug enforcement. People were
stopped, asked for documents, checked for
impairment, and a drug dog was run around
each vehicle. The entire stop took less than 5
minutes.
• Question: Do roadblocks that have the
primary purpose of drug enforcement violate
the 4th Amendment?
Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000)
• Yes!
• Drug checkpoints are unconstitutional.
• However, checkpoints with a legitimate public
safety interest, not a crime control interest,
are constitutional (Michigan v. Sitz). (Like:
DUI checkpoints, License checkpoints, and
Immigration checkpoints)
Case Law – 3
Searches & Consent
CJA 1100 – Intro to CJA
Lee Wade, M.P.A.
333 Rule
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• Officers went to Mapp’s house, claimed they
had a warrant (fake piece of paper), and
demanded entrance. Mapp refused and
police broke down the door anyways.
• Mapp was found with obscene materials
• Simple Question: Is evidence obtained in
violation of 4th Amendment admissible in
court?
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• No!
• The exclusionary rule, which was applicable in
federal cases via Weeks decision is now
applicable in state courts.
Stoner v. California (1964)
• Police went to arrest Stoner in hotel, but he
wasn’t there. Hotel clerk opened room for
police where they seized more evidence.
• Question: May a hotel clerk give valid consent
to a warrantless search of the room of one of
the occupants?
Stoner v. California (1964)
• NO!
• “It was Stoner’s right to waive, not the clerks
or hotels.”
Bumper v. North Carolina (1968)
• Bumper was suspected of Rape.
• When they announced to Grandma they had a
warrant (but didn’t), she said go ahead.
• Question: Can a search be lawful with
consent when the alleged consent is given
only when LE conducting the search claims
they have a warrant?
Bumper v. NC (1968)
• No!
• Prosecution has the burden of proving the
consent was freely and voluntary.
Case Law – 4
Search Warrants
333 Rule
Steagald v. U.S. (1981)
• DEA agents had an arrest warrant for Lyons.
• DEA believed Lyons was staying with Steagald.
• The arrest warrant had Lyons address not
Steagald, but agents went in anyways and
didn’t find Lyons, but found cocaine.
• Question: May LEOs search for a suspect in a
3rd party home with an arrest warrant and not
a search warrant?
Steagald...
• No!
• Unless exigent circumstances, LEO must have
search warrant. However, exigent
circumstances for arrest warrants:
Consent of the owner
Hot Pursuit
Threat of Escape
Case Law – 5
Exigent Circumstances
333 Rule
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
• Dickerson evaded police by walking down an
alley. Police conducted a ‘Terry Stop’
• During the pat-down, the officer examined on
the outside what felt to be cocaine. The
officer went into the pockets and found a
crack rock.
• Question: Was the seizure of the crack
cocaine valid under the stop and frisk rule of
Terry v. Ohio?
Minnesota v. Dickerson
• No! The search was invalid.
• A frisk that goes beyond determining if a
suspect is armed is not permitted.
• However, if an officer lawfully pats down a
suspects outer clothing and feels an object
that is immediately apparent to him/her to be
contraband, the search is valid.
Chimel v. California (1969)
• Police had an arrest warrant for Chimel and
arrested him in his house.
• Chimel objected to a search, but police
searched the immediate area and found
evidence.
• Question: In the course of making a lawful
arrest, may officers search the immediate area
where the person was arrested without a
search warrant?
Chimel v. California (1969)
• Yes
• After an arrest, the police may search the area
within a person’s ‘immediate control’.
• Immediate control = wingspan/reaching area
of person at time of the arrest.
U.S. v. Robinson (1973)
• Yes!
• “We hold that a full search after an arrest is
not only an exception to the warrant
requirement for the 4th Amendment, but it is
also ‘reasonable’.”
Traffic Stops –
Arizona v. Gant (2009)
courierpress.com
New Rule
• Police may search a vehicle incident to a
recent arrest only:
1. Arrestee is not cuffed and within reaching
distance of the vehicle.
2. There is a ‘reasonable belief’ the vehicle
contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Without these 2 conditions, police must have a
search warrant.
Colorado v. Bertine (1987)
•
•
•
•
Bertine was arrested for DUI
Officer inventoried vehicle prior to tow truck
Found backpack containing drugs/money
Question: Is evidence seized by opening a
closed container without a warrant during an
inventory search incident to a lawful arrest
admissible?
Colorado v. Bertine (1987)
YES!
Inventory searches are permissible:
1. Protects owner’s property
2. Claims against the police
3. Protect police from danger
California v. Acevado (1991)
• “....We therefore interpret Carroll v. U.S. as
providing one rule to govern all automobile
searches.”
• Rule: The police may search an automobile
and the containers within it where they have
probable cause to believe contraband or
evidence is contained.
Illinois v. Caballes (2005)
• Caballes stopped for speeding.
• 1st officer wrote warning. 2nd officer used K-9
for exterior sniff.
• K-9 alerted on trunk. Officers searched and
found marijuana.
• Question: Do officers need ARS before using a
drug detection dog during a traffic stop?
Illinois v. Caballes (2005)
• No.
• Drug dog sniffs during traffic stops are valid –
no ARS required.
Questions?????
• I’ll answer any other police legal – search,
stop, warrant, use of force, etc….. Questions
you got!
• I left out a lot….for time reasons.
• Ask me a question, I beg YOU. 