Criminal Justice A Brief Introduction ELEVENTH EDITION CHAPTER 5 Policing: Legal Aspects
A Changing Legal Climate U.S. Constitution Designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power U.S. Supreme Court 1960s Accelerated the process of guaranteeing individual rights Miranda v. Arizona (1966) continued on next slide
A Changing Legal Climate After the Warren Court, the Supreme Court became more conservative. Recognized the need to ensure public safety
TABLE 5-1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice
Individual Rights Checks and Balances Legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government No one individual or agency can usurp the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. continued on next slide
Individual Rights Due Process Requirements Evidence and investigation (search and seizure) Arrest Interrogation continued on next slide
Individual Rights Landmark case A precedent-setting court decision that produces substantial changes in the understanding of the requirements of due process and the practical day-today operations of the system
Search and Seizure Fourth Amendment Warrant and illegally seized evidence Exclusionary Rule Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial Acts as a control over police behavior At the time, only binding on the federal agents continued on next slide
Search and Seizure Writ of Certiorari A writ issued from an appellate court for the purpose of obtaining the lower court's records of a particular case A mechanism for discretionary review Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Legal principle that excludes from trial any evidence later developed as a result of illegal search and seizure
The Warren Court (1953-1969) Before the 1960s, the U. S. Supreme Court did not intrude into the overall operations of the system. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Made the exclusionary rule applicable to criminal prosecutions at the state level This started the Warren Court on a course that would guarantee recognition of individual rights.
Searches Incident to Arrest Chimel v. California (1969) Immediate control Minnesota v. Olson (1990) Extended protection against warrantless searches to overnight guests in the name of another continued on next slide
Searches Incident to Arrest Minnesota v. Carter (1998) Reasonable expectation of privacy Georgia v. Randolph (2006) One resident gives permission, but the other says no.
The Burger Court (1969-1986) and the Rehnquist Court (1986-2005) A swing toward conservatism Late 1980s, the Supreme Court distanced itself from some earlier decisions of the Warren Court. Criminal defendants had most of the responsibility of demonstrating that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties.
Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Good-Faith Exception Evidence seized on the basis of good faith, but later shown to be a mistake, may still use the seized evidence in court U.S. v. Leon (1984) continued on next slide
Good-Faith Exceptions to the Probable cause Exclusionary Rule A set of facts that would induce a reason person to believe that a crime was committed
The Plain View Doctrine Plain view Evidence visible to the police may be seized without a warrant as long as the police have a legal right to be in the viewing area and cause to believe the evidence is somehow associated with criminal activity continued on next slide
The Plain View Doctrine Cases Harris v. U.S. (1968) U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Horton v. California (1990)
Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry Warrantless search justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need Cases Warden v. Hayden (1967) Mincey v. Arizona (1978) Maryland v. Buie (1990) continued on next slide
Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry Cases Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) Illinois v. McArthur (2001) Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
Anticipatory Warrants Anticipatory warrant Warrant issued on the basis that evidence, not currently at the place described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed U.S. v. Grubbs (2006)
Arrest The act of taking an adult or juvenile into physical custody for the purpose of charging the person with a criminal offense continued on next slide
Arrest Cases U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) Stansbury v. California (1994) Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) Muehler v. Mena (2005) Payton v. New York (1980)
Searches Incident to Arrest A warrantless search of an arrested individual to ensure the safety of the officer Cases U.S. v. Robinson (1973) Terry v. Ohio (1968) continued on next slide
Searches Incident to Arrest Reasonable Suspicion Would justify an officer in making further inquiry or in conducting further investigation Cases U.S. v. Sokolow (1989) U.S. v. Arvizu (2002) continued on next slide
Searches Incident to Arrest Cases Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) Brown v. Texas (1979) Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) Smith v. Ohio (1990) California v. Hodari D. (1991)
Emergency Searches of Persons FBI guidelines for conducting searches There was probable cause at the time of the search to believe that evidence was concealed. There was probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed. The officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant. continued on next slide
Emergency Searches of Persons FBI guidelines for conducting searches Action was no greater than necessary. Cases Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) U.S. v. Borchardt (1987)
Vehicle Searches Cases Carroll v. U.S. (1925) Preston v. U.S. (1964) South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) Colorado v. Bertine (1987) Florida v. Wells (1990) Ornelas v. U.S. (1996) Arizona v. Gant (2009) continued on next slide
Vehicle Searches Fleeting-targets exception An exception to the exclusionary rule that permits law enforcement officers to search a motor vehicle based on probable cause but without a warrant. The fleeting-targets exception is predicated on the fact that vehicles can quickly leave the jurisdiction of a law enforcement agency.
Suspicionless Searches Compelling interest A legal concept that provides a basis for suspicionless searches when public safety is an issue Suspicionless search A search conducted without a warrant and without suspicion
The Intelligence Function Informants Aguilar v. Texas (1964) The source of the informant's information is made clear. The officer had reasonable belief that the information is reliable.
Police Interrogation Interrogation The information-gathering activity of police that involves direct questioning of suspects Physical abuse Brown v. Mississippi (1936) continued on next slide
Police Interrogation Inherent coercion Tactics used by police interviewers that fall short of physical abuse but pressure the suspect to talk Chambers v. Florida (1940) Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944)
Psychological Manipulation Psychological Manipulation Manipulative actions by police interviewers, designed to pressure suspects to divulge information, that are based on subtle forms of intimidation and control
The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation Cases Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Edwards v. Arizona (1981) Michigan v. Jackson (1986) Minnick v. Mississippi (1990) Arizona v. Roberson (1988) Davis v. U.S. (1994) Montejo v. Louisiana (2009)
Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda Warnings The advisement of rights due criminal suspects by the police before questioning begins Waiver of Miranda rights by suspects Moran v. Burbine (1986) continued on next slide
Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision Inevitable-Discovery exception to Miranda Brewer v. Williams (1977) Evidence can be used in court if it would invariably turned up in the normal course of events. Public-Safety exception to Miranda New York v. Quarles (1984) continued on next slide
Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision Miranda and the meaning of interrogation Rock v. Zimmerman (1982) Miranda Triggers The dual principles of custody and interrogation
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1996 A law was passed by Congress establishing the due-process requirements that law enforcement officers must meet in order to legally intercept wire communications Wiretaps and bugs Pen registers recording numbers dialed from a telephone continued on next slide
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1996 A law was passed by Congress establishing the due-process requirements that law enforcement officers must meet in order to legally intercept wire communications Tracing devices that determine the number from which a call emanate