Chapter 7
Police and the
Constitution:
The Rules of Law
Enforcement
Learning Objective 1
 Compare the four major sources
that may provide probable cause
FOURTH AMENDMENT
 Prohibits against unreasonable searches and
seizures
 The requirement of probable cause to issue a
warrant
REASONABLENESS
 Varies from case to case
 Logical, practical, sensible, intelligent
 U.S. v Fisher (textbook)
PROBABLE CAUSE
 More than mere suspicion – “reasonably lead to
the belief that an offense has been or is being
committed “
 Sources of Probable Cause:
1. Personal observation
2. Information
3. Evidence
4. Association
PROBABLE CAUSE
FRAMEWORK
 Most arrests are made without a warrant
 Allows police officers to do their jobs
effectively
 Limits situations in which police officers make
arrests, but gives officers room to act within
the framework
 Once an arrest is made, the arresting officer
must prove to the judge that probable cause
existed
Learning Objective 2
 Explain the exclusionary rule and
the exceptions to it
Learning Objective 2
 The Exclusionary Rule:
 Prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in
court
 Forces police officers to gather evidence properly
 The Fruit of the Poisoned Tree:
 Evidence obtained through illegally obtained
evidence is also inadmissible
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
EXCEPTIONS
 Exceptions to the exclusionary rule:

Inevitable discovery - evidence gathered
illegally is admissible if police would have
discovered it anyway
Brewer v. Williams (1977)
Nix v. Williams ( 1984 )

Good Faith – admissible if collected in good
faith by police
United States v. Leon ( 1984 )
Herring v. United States ( 2009)
Learning Objective 3
 Distinguish between a stop and a
frisk, and indicate the importance
of the case Terry v. Ohio
STOP and FRISK
 Burden is on police officer to prove there is
reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk
 Stops:
 Brief detention of a person by the police for
questioning.
 A stop requires reasonable suspicion.
 Frisks:
 A pat-down or minimal search by police to
discover weapons.
 It is conducted for the protection of the officer.
TERRY v. OHIO
 Major Supreme Court decision justifying quick
action when a PO. has RCTB that persons were
armed and dangerous and were about to
commit a violent crime.
 Police officers practical experience allow them
to make inferences in certain situations and
are given a great deal of leeway.
 Totality of the circumstances test = specific
and articulable facts + rational inferences
INFORMANTS and
REASONABLE SUSPICION
 “Bare bones tips” do not constitute raesonable
suspicion
 Tips from known informants are satisfactory
 Anonymous tips have to be independently
verified
STOP and FRISK
Stop:
 When a law enforcement officer has
reasonable suspicion that a criminal
activity is about to take place
 Limits the extent to which a police officer
can detain someone
 Officer can require suspect to ID himself
Frisk:
 A protective measure
 PO. Has to be frisking for weapons
Learning Objective 4
 List the four elements that must be
present for an arrest to take place
ARRESTS
 Purpose is to take a person into custody to
detain them for a criminal charge
 Not like a stop ( brief detention based on
reasonable suspicion)
 Arrest involves deprivation of liberty and is
deserving of a full range of constitutional
protections and requires probable cause
ARRESTS
 The elements of arrest:
 The intent to arrest
 The authority to arrest
 Seizure or detention
 The understanding of a person that they
have been arrested
ARREST with a WARRANT
ARREST WARRANT:
 Establish Probable Cause to arrest an
individual not in custody – obtain an arrest
warrant
 Includes name and crime
 Signed and authorized by judges ( determine
probable cause)
 Doesn’t give cops authority to enter a
dwelling
ARREST with a WARRANT
Doesn’t give PO’s authority to enter a dwelling:
 Need to announce themselves
 State their identity and purpose before entering
 Exigent circumstances - need not announce
What are exigent circumstances:
 Armed suspect – strong threat of violence and
injury to PO or others
 Person in process of destroying evidence or
escaping
 Commission of a felony at the time of entry ( + hot
pursuit )
 Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
ARRESTS WITHOUT A
WARRANT
 Arrest warrants are not always required
 Most arrests are made without a warrant
 Warrantless arrests can be made if:
1. Offense was committed in the officers presence
or
2. Po. has knowledge that the crime was
committed
3. Po. Has probable cause that the person
committed it
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
 PO can make warrantless arrests for crimes
they did not see if they have probable cause
that a felony has been committed.
 Misdemeanors have to be committed in the
officers presence in order to make an arrest
 PO cannot enter a private home without a
search warrant in order to make a warrantless
arrest absent exigent circumstances
Payton v. NY 9 (cant force entry into home)
Steagold v. United States ( need a search warrant)
Learning Objective 5
 List the four categories of items
that can be seized by the use of a
search warrant
LAWFUL SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES
Expectation of privacy is a key issue in searches
Search = governmental intrusion on a citizen’s reasonable
expectation of privacy
Katz v. U.S. ( phone booth )
 Individual must prove that they expected privacy
 Society must recognize that the expectation was
reasonable
California v. Greenwood ( 1988)
 Lowered expectation of privacy in certain situations
 Garbage bag on the curb = no expectation of privacy
 Courts apply Greenwood to “ abandoned DNA”
SEARCH and SEIZURES
WARRANTS
Search Warrants:
 To protect law enforcement from charges that
they have infringed on peoples privacy
 Court order allowing search of specific area
 Officer must provide to a judge:
 Information that there is PC that a crime has or
will be committed
 Information on the premises to be searched,
suspects to be found, illegal activity at the
location and items to be seized
SEARCH WARRANTS
 Warrant specific – where to search and what will
be seized.
 PO must provide judge with specifics
 Seizure = taking property ( suspected illegal) by
government
 Search must be reasonable
 Plain view OK; restricted by items being searched
for
SEARCH WARRANTS
 Four categories of items that can be
seized by use of a search warrant:
1. Items that resulted from a crime
2. Items that are inherently illegal for anyone
to possess
3. Items that can be called “evidence” of a
crime
4. Items used in committing the crime
Learning Objective 6
 Explain when searches can be made
without a warrant
EXCEPTIONS TO SEARCH
WARRANTS
 Hot Pursuit
 Border Areas
 Searches Incident to Arrest ( Most Common)
 U. S. v Robinson
 Done every time
 Need to find/search for weapon ( safety)
 Protect destruction of evidence
 Police may search lunge able area ( area in
suspects immediate control for weapons and
contraband ( Chimel v California
Learning Objective 6
 Searches incidental to arrest
 United States v. Robinson (1973)
 The officer’s need to confiscate any weapons
the suspect may be carrying
 The need to protect any evidence on the
suspect’s person from being destroyed
 Chimel v. California (1969)
 The Carroll decision
 Searches with consent
CONSENT SEARCHES
 Second most common type of warrantless search
 Individual gives permission to search home, person, and
belongings
 Has to be voluntary ( no threats )
 Age, intelligence and physical condition
 Coercive behavior by the police
 Length of questioning and location
 Knock and talk
 Argument people are intimidated/ don’t know they can refuse
 Florida v. Bostick – officers don’t have to inform suspect of
their right to refuse
 Ohio v Robinette - do not need to tell citizens they are free to
go after the initial stop
AUTOMOBILE
SEARCHES
 After arrest – officers can search the whole car
 Warrant not needed when officer has probable
cause that vehicle has contraband/ evidence
 Heavy burden on police
 Timeliness – drive away and destroy evidence
 Vehicle has less of an expectation of privacy
AUTOMOBILE
SEARCHES
 Whren v. US – true motivation of traffic stop is
irrelevant as long as PC that law has been broken
 Can search every part of vehicle including container
as long as they have PC.
 2009 New York v. Benton – warrantless searches OK
if :
 Person is close enough to car to grab weapon or
destroy evidence
 Officer believes that auto contains evidence
pertinent to the crime that the suspect is arrested for
PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION
 Plain view doctrine
 Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)
 The item is positioned in the officer’s view
 The officer is legally in a position to notice the
item
 The discovery of the item is inadvertent
 The officer immediately recognizes the illegal
nature of the item
ELECTRONIC
SURVEILANCE
For investigatory purposes electronic devices
may include:
 Electronic surveillance
 Electronic devices ( wiretaps/hidden
microphones)
 Devices used to trace movement and trace and
record telephone calls
ELECTRONIC
SURVEILANCE
BASIC RULE: CONSENT + PROBABLE CAUSE
(KATZ v . US )
 Consent must be given by one of the parties
 There is a warrant authorizing the device
 Warrant must:
1. Detail “particularity” of conversations
2. Name suspects and places
3. Show probable cause that a specific crime has
or will be committed
DIGITAL AND VIDEO
SURVEILLANCE
 Local Police are welcoming CCTV because they
are force multipliers
 The latest equipment produces clear, detailed
images
 Privacy concerns are still dominant
Learning Objective 8
 Recite the Miranda warning
Learning Objective 8
 You have the right to remain silent. If
you give up that right, anything you say
can and will be used against you in a
court of law. You have the right to speak
with an attorney and to have the attorney
present during questioning. If you so
desire and cannot afford one, an attorney
will be appointed for you without charge
before questioning.
INTERROGATION AND
MIRANDA
 Purpose – get information and/or a confession
 Fifth amendments protects against self
incrimination
HISTORY:
1936 case – defendant beaten whipped; /confessed
to murder/ Supreme court ruled against coercion
1964 - defendant must be told of right to remain
silent and cannot deny request for an attorney
MIRANDA CASE
 Introduced the concept of inherent coercion
even without physical coercion, the atmosphere
of a police interrogation is in itself coercive
 Concerned about the treatment of suspects
during interrogation
 Every suspect needs to be protected from
coercion and giving warnings
 Result is Miranda warnings
 If not given, the statements = the fruits of the
poisoned tree
Learning Objective 9
 Indicate situations in which a
Miranda warning is unnecessary
MIRANDA WARNING
REQUIRED
 Suspect is in custody
 Custody = arrest situation in which a normal
person would not feel free to leave
 Custodial Interrogation = custody + questions
 Miranda warnings only required if custodial
interrogation takes place
MIRANDA NOT REQUIRED
 Miranda is not required:
 When police do not ask suspect questions





that are testimonial in nature
When the police have not focused on a
suspect and are questioning witnesses at the
scene
When a person volunteers information
before being asked
When the suspect has given a private
statement
During a stop and frisk when no arrest has
been made
During a traffic stop
SUSPECT WAIVES
MIRANDA
 Waiver must be voluntary
 Can be either oral or in writing
 Suspect must waive rights “ knowingly and
intelligently”
 Officer should ask “ Do you understand your
rights ?” “ Are you willing to speak to me?”
 Suspect invokes their right to silence – its over
and stop immediately
LAW ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSE
 Law enforcement didn’t like it
 Officers have developed different strategies:
 Conditioning strategy
 De- emphasizing strategy
 Persuasion strategy
FUTURE OF MIRANDA
 Dickerson v. U.S. ( 2000) – case made a strong
statement in support of Miranda
 A series of Supreme Court case have begun to
erode Miranda
 2004 case – Miranda warnings are merely
prophylactic ( prevent violations of the Fifth
amendment)
 More interrogations are being recorded – law
enforcement feels that it takes away any hints
of coercion and renders Miranda unnecessary
Learning Objective 10
 List the three basic types of police
identification
POLICE IDENTIFICATION
 Basic Types of Police Identification
1. Showups
2. Photo Arrays
3. Lineups
 Sixth Amendment rights to council do not
apply
 Police must show they had to act quickly
 Booking procedures = non testimonial = no
lawyer