Transcript O.P.O.T.A. BASIC TRAINING UNIT 11/TOPIC 9

Two police officers applied for a warrant to
search the defendant‘s home for narcotics. Their
affidavit recited that: “Affiants have received
reliable information from a credible person and
do believe that heroin, marijuana, barbiturates
and other narcotics and narcotic paraphernalia
are being kept at the above described premises
for the purpose of sale and use contrary to the
provisions of law.” The search warrant was
issued and narcotics were found.
The affidavit did not provide facts on which
probable cause could be based. The evidence was
tossed out!
The judge must be informed of some of the
underlying circumstances on which the
informant based conclusions and some of the
underlying circumstances from which an officer
concluded that the informant, whose identity
need not be disclosed, was credible or that his
information was reliable.
In the early morning hours in a high crime
neighborhood, a reliable informant told a police
officer that the defendant was seated in a
nearby car and possessed narcotics and a
weapon. The officer approached the car and
asked the defendant to get out. The defendant
rolled down the window instead. When he did
so, the officer reached into the car and removed
the gun from the defendant‘s waistband,
although he couldn’t see it.
In layman’s terms, how will you
define Probable Cause for a jury.
A reasonable person would believe:
–that a crime has been
committed
–that the person to be arrested
has committed that crime
Absolute
Certainty
Proof Beyond a
Reasonable
Doubt
(Articulable)
Reasonable
Suspicion
Possibility /
Hunch
Probable
Cause
Test for Probable Cause
The focus in determining
probable cause is not on the
certainty that a crime was
committed, but on the likelihood
of it.
Don’t have to be RIGHT; but, you
do have to be REASONABLE
How many times the C.I.
has provided reliable info
 Did they see the
contraband, and when?
 Tell a story that includes
P.C. involving the C.I.
 If the C.I. is not reliable –
you must show they are
supervised and through
what methods

The police received a tip from an anonymous
caller, who reported that a young black male
standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a
plaid shirt was carrying a gun. Officers went to
the bus stop and saw three black males, one of
whom, the defendant, was wearing a plaid shirt.
The officers had no reason to suspect any of the
three of illegal conduct other than the
anonymous report. One officer frisked the
defendant and seized a gun from his pocket.
The officers arrested the defendant.
An officer cannot base reasonable
suspicion on an anonymous tip alone.
The officer must be able to particularly
articulate something about the suspect
to individualize the suspicion.
What could the officers
have done differently?





INFORMATION GENERATED FROM
CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
INFORMANT INFORMATION
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
OTHER OFFICERS OR AGENCES
“SPIN OFFS” FROM OTHER
CASES
DEFENDANT WHO MAY
COOPERATE IN HIS/HER
OWN CASE






SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECT/LOCATION
DEVELOPMENT OF A CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT
INDEPENDENT SOURCES OF
INFORMATION
COURT RECORDS
OTHER OFFICERS
OTHER INFORMANTS








BODY TRANSMITTERS
U/C VEHICLES
TAPE RECORDERS
STILL CAMERAS
VIDEO CAMERAS
NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT
BINOCULARS
NARCOTIC FIELD TESTS KITS




SECURED-CHANNEL 2 WAY RADIOS
EVIDENCE TAGS AND BAGS
ENTRY TOOLS FOR SEARCH WARRANT
EXECUTIONS
BUY FUNDS
IS A PERSON WHO, THROUGH
ANONYMITY,PROVIDES INFORMATION OR
ASSISTANCE ABOUT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

A PURCHASE OF DRUGS BY A
CONFIDENTAL INFORMANT

A PURCHASE OF DRUGS MADE BY A
POLICE OFFICER ACTING IN AN
UNDERCOVER ROLE

MOST PREFERRED TYPE BY
THE COURTS
THE ARREST OF A SUSPECT IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING A DRUG PURCHASE BY AN
UNDERCOVER OFFICER OR BY A
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT
DRUG PURCHASE OF NARCOTICS MADE BY
UNDERCOVER OFFICER OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT AND ARREST WARRANT IS
ISSUED AT A LATER DATE







FEAR OF PUNISHMENT
REVENGE
MONEY
“WANNABIES”
REPENTANCE
GOOD CITIZEN
LEARN POLICE
METHODOLOGY


INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION
DOCUMENTING INFORMATION
ESTABLISH AN INFORMANT FILE
CONTACT W/C.I. SHOULD BE IN THE
PRESENCE OF ANOTHER OFFICER
 OPPOSITE SEX ISSUES
 NEVER MAKE PROMISES OF MONEY
OR SENTENCE REDUCTION
 WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF PAST
MISDEEDS






JUVENILES
ON PROBATION/PAROLE
MULTIPLE CONVICTED FELONS
KNOWN TO BE UNRELIABLE



SOCIALIZING
BUSINESS DEALINGS
ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS







BUYS
AMOUNTS OF DRUGS PURCHASED
AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT ON PURCHASES
EVIDENCE TRACKING
COPIES OF PHOTOS/VIDEOS
LAB ANALYSIS
KEEP ALL ORIGINALS IN CASE PACKAGE



CAN BE ABSORBED THROUGH THE SKIN
ACTUAL COMPONENTS CAN BE
HARMFUL
“CUT” OR ADULTERANTS CAN BE JUST AS
HARMFUL
Terry v. Ohio, 1968
In Terry, the US Supreme Court upheld the
authority of the police to stop or detain (or
seize) a person where the officer observes
unusual conduct which leads the officer
reasonably to conclude, in light of his/her
experience (including training), that criminal
activity may be afoot.
“Terry Stop” vs. “Terry Frisk”
Terry v. Ohio, 1968
A Terry Stop - an investigative detention of a
suspect. Not a search!
Officers can conduct a Terry Stop with
reasonable (articulable/explainable) suspicion
that criminal activity is afoot.
Officers can stop a suspect and investigate
that person for a reasonable period of time.
Even though its not a formal arrest, it is a
seizure under the 4th Amendment.
Terry requires an officer to articulate a reasonable
belief that a suspect is armed and poses a threat
before the officer is permitted to conduct a limited
“Pat Down” of the suspect’s outer clothing.
Just because I can “Terry
Stop” someone doesn’t
automatically give me the
right to frisk them for a
weapon.
“…Police must obey the law while
enforcing the law” because “in the
end, life and liberty can be as much
endangered from illegal methods
used to convict those thought to
be criminals as from the actual
criminals themselves.” Spano v. New
York, 360 U.S.315 (1959)
They discovered call records and stored numbers
that confirmed prior calls between Smith’s phone
and the informant’s phone number. Smith was
charged with possession of cocaine, trafficking in
cocaine, tampering with evidence and two counts of
possession of criminal tools.
Should the evidence obtained from the cell phone
be suppressed?
…when the search is not necessary to protect
the safety of law enforcement officers and there
are no exigent circumstances… police must
obtain a search warrant for the phones data…
Suspect Demeanor or Reaction to Officer
Flight is one factor to be considered.
Sibron v. New York (1968) ~ “Deliberately
furtive actions and flight at the approach of
strangers or law officers are strong indicia
of mens rea (a guilty mind), and when
coupled with specific knowledge on the
part of the officer relating the suspect to
the evidence of the crime, they are proper
factors to be considered in the decision to
make an arrest.”