Chapter 5Police Officers and the Law

US ConstitutionDue process:

-rights of accused

-procedures

-lacks specifics

5th AmendmentNo person shall be held to answer for a capital,

or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Procedural LawBody of laws

Governing each stage

Criminal Justice process

Violation-person goes free

Legislative/judicial oversight

Rules of EvidencePolice gather evidence

Prosecutor presents evidence

Defense argues against

Judge rules

Rules of EvidenceRequirements of admitting evidence

Define qualifications of an expert

Nature of testimony

Rules of EvidenceSearch and seizure

Interrogation

Arresting

Relevance of evidence

Exclusionary RuleEvidence obtained illegally is inadmissible

Weeks v. US (1918);-no warrant-evidence thrown out-federal level only

Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine

Exclusionary rule extended:

-from evidence directly obtained illegally

-to evidence indirectly obtained illegally

Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine

Takes police to hidden gun/money

Suspect confesses to whole event

Detectives confront suspect w/bag & mask

CSA sees car opens trunk-mask/bag

Search warrant for residence Bank robbery-fingerprints

lifted/ID’d

Fruit of the Poisoned Tree DoctrineProbable cause hearing:-defense -search warrant listed residence-judge rules car search illegal-any/all evidence obtained inadmissible-objects in car/confession/suspect leading to hidden

items-left? fingerprints at bank---suspect has banked

many times /past three years

Mapp v. Ohio 1961No punishment for illegal evidence

Police: -forced confessions-ignore constitutional rights of accused

Supreme Court applied Exclusionary Rule to state courts

Search & Seizure4th 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

A set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed and that the person accused had committed the crime.

Search & Seizure4th Amendment:

-right to privacy not clearly defined

-Supreme Court interpretations

-”reasonable expectation “of privacy

Search & SeizureExceptions to warrant requirement:

A.Incident to lawful arrest-person -immediate control-Chimel v. CA (1969)-vehicle (seats/console)-AZ v. Gant 2009

Search & SeizureExceptions to warrant requirement:

B. Plain view-police have lawful presence-cannot move items/objects-6 foot officer/5 foot wall sees marijuana plants-exigent circumstances

Search & SeizureExceptions to warrant requirement:

C. Consent-authority to give limited-once given can be withdrawn

Searching VehiclesCarroll v. US 1925:

-search of vehicle w/o warrant admissible if:

-PC to believe crime occurred

-delay in search would result in loss of evidence

Searching VehiclesDrug dogs:

-sniff exterior of vehicle

-w/o particular reason

-legal stop

-no “unreasonable” prolonged stop

Searching VehiclesImpounded vehicles:

-inventory

-clear written protocols/standards

-force locks

-protect police libability

Searching PersonsCourt recognizes officer safety!!!

-pat down searches for weapons

-Terry v. Ohio (1968): Terry stop-stop-talk-frisk-”reasonable suspicion”-PO articulate reason for stop

Public Safety ExceptionsImmediate action by police to protect public-armed suspect-no weapon upon arrest

-search immediate area of suspect’s path-ask where gun is

Search of airline/bus passengers/subway (2005):-w/o PC

-w/o warrant-”implied consent”

Border searches:-no reasonable suspicion/PC/warrant

-no permission needed since cannot refuse-legislated/case law

School searches:-administrators/not police

-backpacks/purses/lockers-on and near school property-2009: no strip searches

Good Faith ExceptionPolice thought warrant was valid:

-invalid due to clerical error

-wrong address /dates on warrant

-evidence obtained admissible

Privacy IssuesWiretapping:-phones

-search and seizure-consent-PC/warrant

Electronic communications:-strict guidelines

-terrorism is an exception

Other exceptionsUSA Patriot Act:-searches w/o warrant

Incarceration:-no expectation of privacy

-applies to probation/parole

Deadly Force Fleeing felons

-shoot

-Tenn. V. Garner (1985)-only shoot fleeing felons if:-”clear and present danger”

Interrogations/ConfessionsDO NOT WRITE DOWN

Miranda:You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer

questions. Do you understand?Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Interrogations/ConfessionsMiranda:-in custody

-interrogation

Waiver of rights:-Knowingly

-Voluntarily-Willingly

Exception to MirandaExcited utterance:

-spontaneous

-uncoerced

-confess to 3rd party

Right to AttorneyGideon v. Wainright (1963)-indigent has right to lawyer at trial

Escobedo v. Ill (1964)-right to lawyer during interrogations

Miranda v AZ (1966)-suspects have to be told of rights

Police DeceptionDeception during interrogations:-lawful

-exception-telling suspect they have a deal

Police line ups:-w/o consent-attorney present-all look alike-actual suspects-persons not capable of being guilty

TerrorismDO NOT WRITE DOWN

Enemy Combatants:-water boarding?-torture?-same rights as criminals?