Transcript Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction

AJ 50 – Introduction to
Administration of Justice
Chapter 5 –
Policing: Legal Aspects
Due-Process Amendments
of US Constitution

Fourth
–

Fifth
–

Charges, attorney, speedy jury trial, witnesses
Eighth
–

Self-incrimination, double-jeopardy
Sixth
–

Unreasonable search and seizure
No excessive bail/fines, no cruel/unusual
punishment
Fourteenth
–
Equal protections under the law
Checks and Balances

Governmental Checks & Balances
–
–
–

Legislative
Judicial
Executive
Landmark Case
–
Precedent-setting court decision that produces
substantial changes in…


Due-process requirements
Day-to-day operations of CJS
Search and Seizure

4th Amendment
–

People must be secure in their homes and in their
persons against unreasonable searches and
seizures
Illegally-seized evidence
–
–
Evidence seized without regard for principles of
due process per 4th Amendment
Often result of improper/warrantless searches or
improper interrogations
The Exclusionary Rule

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
–
–
–

Federal officers seized evidence and personal items
without warrant
Personal items returned at request of attorney
Court said if some evidence illegal, all evidence
illegal
Exclusionary Rule
–
–
Illegally or improperly-obtained evidence,
statements, or information will be excluded from
proceedings
Intended to control police behavior/misconduct
Rules of the Game

The Weeks case demonstrates the power of the
Supreme Court in enforcing the “rules of the game”
–


Before Weeks, officers had little reason to think they were
acting in violation of due process
Focusing on the “rules of the game” may allow some
guilty criminals to go free
Writ of Certiorari
–
An order from an appellate court to obtain a record of the
lower court’s proceedings for review
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Doctrine

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920)
–
–
–

Warrantless search/seizure of company’s books
Books returned, but photographs used at trial
Court said photos could not be used, as they
were derived from illegally-obtained evidence
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
–
Evidence developed as result of illegal search or
seizure also excluded at trial
The Warren Court (1953–1969)

The 1960s were a time of youthful idealism,
civil rights movement, etc.
–


Closer look at individual rights, freedoms
Exclusionary Rule had been mostly applied
in cases involving federal officers/issues
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
–
–
Made the Exclusionary Rule applicable to criminal
prosecutions at the state level
Reinforced 14th Amendment to States
Searches Incident to Arrest

Chimel v. California (1969)
–
Arresting officers may search…


–
Valid reasons for conducting a search



–
Defendant
Physical area within easy reach of the defendant
Officer safety
Preserve evidence
Prevent escape
A search becomes illegal when…


It goes beyond the defendant and the area within the
defendant’s immediate control
It is conducted for other than a valid reason
The Burger Court (1969−1986) &
Rehnquist Court (1986–Present)


More conservative interpretations by the Supreme Court
Greater concern for interests of those who live within the
Law
–

Citizen and Victims’ rights
US vs. Leon (1984)
–
Good-Faith Exception to exclusionary rule

If search/seizure conducted on basis of good faith, but later
discover mistake was made, evidence still allowed in court
proceedings
Good-Faith Exceptions

Probable Cause = A set of facts leading a
reasonably intelligent and prudent person to
believe that a particular person has
committed a specific crime
–

Allows full searches of dwellings, vehicles, and
possessions
Plain-View Doctrine = Officers, without a
warrant, may seize objects in plain view if
officer legally in viewing area and has cause
to believe evidence associated with criminal
activity
Exceptions to the
Exclusionary Rule (continued)

Emergency Searches
–
–
Exigent Circumstances
Warrantless searches by the police, justified on
the basis of some immediate and overriding need



Public safety
Likely escape of a dangerous suspect
Removal or destruction of evidence
Arrest

Arrest defined
–

When do arrests occur?
–
–
–

Taking a person into physical custody in a manner
prescribed by law
Crimes in progress
After investigation/questioning
Warrant issued
Search Incident to Arrest
–
A warrantless search of an arrested individual conducted
to ensure officer safety
Terry vs. Ohio (1968)

Detention
–

Officer has Reasonable Suspicion that some type
of criminal activity had occurred, was occurring,
or was about to occur
–

Temporary infringement of person’s freedom of
movement
That level of suspicion that would justify officer to make
further inquiry or investigation
Limited “pat-down” search allowed
–
Officer may “pat down” (frisk) outer clothing of suspect
for weapons only
Emergency Searches of Persons

Conditions required for emergency, warrantless
search of person
–
–
–
–

Probable cause to believe evidence concealed on the
person
Probable cause to believe an emergency threat of
destruction of evidence
Officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant
Action no greater than necessary to eliminate the threat of
destruction of evidence
All must apply!
Vehicle Searches

“Fleeting Targets exception” to the Exclusionary
Rule
–
–
–

Officers may search vehicle with probable cause but
without obtaining warrant
Predicated on the fact that vehicles can quickly leave the
scene and/or jurisdiction
Does not automatically apply to occupants of vehicle
Also applies to boats, motor homes, etc.
Roadblocks and
Motor Vehicle Checkpoints

Police officers have no legitimate
authority to detain or arrest people who
are going about their business in a
peaceful manner
–
However, community interests may
necessitate a temporary suspension of
personal liberty, even when probable cause
is lacking
Suspicionless Searches


Rare cases of compelling interests that negate
individual’s right to privacy
Generally conducted when based on overriding
concern for Public Safety
–
–
–

Employee drug testing
Random searches at airports
Border searches
High-Technology searches
–
Still require warrant
Informants

Aguilar vs. Texas (1964)
–
Informant information could establish probable
cause if…



The source of the informant’s information is made clear,
and
The officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is
reliable
Anonymous tip may not be sufficient for stopand-frisk without more information
Police Interrogation

Interrogation
–
–

Information-gathering process through direct
questioning of suspect
Police action likely to elicit incriminating response
Subject to constitutional limitations
–
–
–
Physical abuse
Inherent coercion
Psychological manipulation
The Right to a Lawyer
During Interrogation

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
–

Established the right to have legal counsel
present during police interrogation
Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
–
Once a suspect who is in custody and is being
questioned has requested the assistance of
counsel, all questioning must cease until an
attorney is present
Suspect Rights:
The Miranda Decision

Miranda warnings
–

Advisement of rights due to criminal suspects before
custodial interrogation begins
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
–
–
–
–
You have the right to remain silent
Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law
You have a right to speak to an attorney and have one
present while you are being questioned
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to
represent you at no cost
Waiver of Miranda Rights
by Suspects

Knowing and Intelligent waiver of rights required
–
–
–
Do you understand each of these rights I have explained?
Having these rights in mind, do you wish to answer
questions?
Waiver must be expressed or clearly implied


Silence or no response is not a waiver
Exceptions to Miranda
–
Inevitable-Discovery

–
Evidence allowed, even if improperly obtained, if it would have
been found eventually
Public-Safety

Overrides suspect’s individual rights
Gathering Special Kinds of
Nontestimonial Evidence


Nontestimonial evidence is generally
physical evidence and subject to normal
search-and-seizure procedures
Special class of “personal” evidence
–
–
–
DNA samples, ingested drugs/materials, etc.
Right to Privacy issues
Body-Cavity searches
Electronic Eavesdropping

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968)
–
Mostly prohibits wiretaps but does allow officers to listen to electronic
communications if…




Officer is one of the parties involved in conversation
One of the parties is not the officer but willingly decides to share the communication
Officers obtain a warrant based on probable cause
U.S. v. Scott (1978)
–
Minimization

Officers must make every reasonable effort to monitor only those conversations,
through the use of phone taps, body bugs, and the like, which are specifically related
to the criminal activity under investigation
Electronic Eavesdropping

Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986)
–
Established due-process requirements that officers must
meet to legally intercept wire communications




Wiretaps/bugs
Pen registers (numbers dialed from a phone)
Tracing devices (where a call originated)
Telecommunications Act of 1996
–
Federal offense for anyone to knowingly use a
telecommunications device in an obscene, lewd, lascivious,
filthy, or indecent way to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass
another person
The USA Patriot Act of 2001

Drafted in response to 9/11/01
–
–
–
Substantially increases the investigatory authority of
federal, state, or local police agencies
Permits longer jail terms for certain suspects arrested
without a warrant
Broadens “sneak and peek” search authority

–
Search occurring in suspect’s absence
Enhances the power of prosecutors