The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power.

Transcription

1 CHAPTER Policing: Legal Aspects Changing Legal Climate The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power. Changing Legal Climate 1960 s The U.S. Supreme Court clarified individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution. Individual Rights Due Process Required by 4th, 5th, 6th, & 14th Constitutional Amendments Search and Seizure People are to be secure in their homes. People are to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Exclusionary Rule Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Weeks was suspected of selling His home was searched. His personal property was Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Weeks attorney asked that lottery tickets through the mail. confiscated. personal property be returned. Federal judge agreed that some of Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Weeks was convicted on the He appealed. Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Weeks property should be returned. remaining evidence.

2 Supreme Court Decision: If some of Weeks property had been seized illegally, then the the property had also been seized illegally. remainder of This case established the Exclusionary Rule Evidence illegally seized by the exclusionary rule. police cannot be used in a trial. This rule acts as a control over Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918) police behavior. Silverthorne was accused of not paying taxes. Federal agents wanted the Silverthorne refused to turn over Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918) company books. Feds seized the books without a warrant. books. Silverthorne asked for books to be returned. The prosecutor returned the books. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918) Before the prosecutor returned the papers, he made copies. Silverthorne was convicted. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918) The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction. It ruled that because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950) Rabinowitz was arrested on a stamps to defraud collectors. federal warrant for selling altered postage The officers did not have a search warrant. U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950) Officers searched the office including the desk, a file cabinet, and a safe, finding 573 altered stamps U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)

3 Rabinowitz was convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950) that the search was constitutional. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but it protects people, not places. A limited area search following arrest may be acceptable. Supreme Court Chief Justices Warren Court The Warren court charted a course that would guarantee nationwide recognition of individual rights by all levels of the criminal justice system. Warren Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states through Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Mapp was suspected of hiding a bombing suspect. Mapp refused police admittance. Police forced their way in, showing Mapp a paper they said was a search warrant for her house. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Mapp grabbed the warrant and placed it inside her blouse. Police retrieved the warrant and Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Police found pornographic material searched her house. in the house. The bombing suspect was not found. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Mapp was convicted of possession No search warrant was produced at of pornographic material. her trial. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) U.S. Supreme Court decided:

4 14th Amendment due process applies to local police, not just federal officers. Evidence against Mapp was illegally obtained. Overturned conviction based on inadmissibility of the evidence. Chimel v. California (1969) Chimel is convicted of burglarizing a coin at his arrest. shop based on evidence gathered Police had an arrest warrant, but did not have a search warrant. Police searched his whole house, including workshop. the garage, attic, and small Chimel v. California (1969) Police realized the search might be contested. Police felt they could justify the search as part of the arrest process since searches prior to arrest are often necessary for officer protection. Chimel v. California (1969) U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and decided that the search became invalid when it went beyond Chimel s area of immediate control. Chimel v. California (1969) Officers may search: the arrested person the area under the arrested person s immediate control Officers can search for following reasons: to protect themselves to prevent destruction of evidence to keep defendant from escaping Search and Seizure: Probable Cause Burger Court Adherence to the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process right Burger Court

5 ...need to bear the responsibility of showing that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties. U.S. v. Leon (1984) Leon was placed under surveillance for drug trafficking. Police obtained a search warrant based on their observation of Leon. U.S. v. Leon (1984) Police searched Leon s homes and discovered drugs. Leon was convicted of drug U.S. v. Leon (1984) trafficking. Federal court overturned the case based on lack of probable cause. State appealed to U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. v. Leon (1984) When law enforcement officers have acted in good faith, the evidence they collect should be admissible even if later it is found that the warrant they used was invalid. good faith exception to exclusionary rule Illinois v. Krull (1987) U.S. Supreme Court held that the good-faith exception applied to warrantless searches supported by state law even where the state statute was later found to violate Fourth Amendment rights. Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) Gail Fisher complained to police that she had been assaulted. Officers accompanied her to the apartment where she said the place. Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) assault took Fisher used her key to open the door to the apartment and admit the police. Officers arrested Rodriquez, who was found sleeping on the couch with drugs nearby. Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) Rodriquez was convicted. On appeal, Rodriquez argued that Fisher had not lived in the apartment for over a month and therefore had no legal control over the apartment.

6 Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) rejected appeal based on fact that police reasonably believed at the time of entry that Fisher had legal access to the apartment. Plain View Doctrine Harris v. U.S. (1968) Harris vehicle is impounded by police. Police inventory contents of vehicle. Evidence of a robbery is found. Harris v. U.S. (1968) Harris is arrested and convicted. Harris appeals his conviction. Harris v. U.S. (1968) appeal rejected, Objects falling in plain view of an officer, who has the right to be in the position to have the view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence. Plain View Situations Police can use evidence if they observe it during emergencies such as: crimes in progress fires accidents Plain View Situations The Plain View Doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances. Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

7 Hicks is arrested when police enter his apartment to check a report of a gun being fired. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Officers see two stereo systems that they believe may be stolen. They write down the serial number of the first stereo because it is plainly visible. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Second stereo has to be moved to see serial number. Both stereos have been reported stolen. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Hicks convicted of armed robbery based on the seized stereos. Hicks appeals his conviction. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) conviction overturned, Officer s behavior became illegal when he moved the stereo to record the serial number. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) People have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which means that officers lacking a search warrant even when invited into the residence, must act more like guests than inquisitors. Horton v. California (1990) A warrant was issued to search the defendant s home for stolen jewelry. Horton v. California (1990) No jewelry was found, but guns were seized. Horton was convicted of robbery based, in part, on the seized guns.

8 Horton appealed, saying that if officers suspected that he had guns, they should have had them listed on the warrant. Horton v. California (1990) rejected appeal, Even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures, it is not a necessary condition. Emergency Searches of Property Warden v. Hayden (1967) There was a report that a robber had fled into a home. Officers searched the residence without a warrant. Defendant was found and convicted. Warden v. Hayden (1967) rejected claim of illegal search, 4th Amendment does not require police to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others. Search and Seizure: Arrest U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) Free-to-Leave Test U.S. Supreme Court said: A person has been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) Free-to-Leave Test a reasonable person would Fleeing Felon Doctrine Terry v. Ohio (1968) Stop and Frisk have believed that he was not free to leave.

9 Terry was believed to be casing a store for robbery. A police veteran of 39 years conducted a pat-down search of Terry. Terry v. Ohio (1968) Stop and Frisk A gun was found on Terry. The officer testified that the man did not look right. Terry v. Ohio (1968) Stop and Frisk Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. Terry appealed claiming that the officer had no probable cause to search. Terry v. Ohio (1968) appeal rejected, Reasonable suspicion existed for stop and frisk. The facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed. Terry v. Ohio (1968) We cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) Dickerson was seen leaving a building known for cocaine trafficking. Minneapolis police stopped Dickerson after suspiciously. A pat-down search revealed no weapons, but jacket. they observed him acting did reveal a small lump in his Police suspected the lump was cocaine.

10 Officers retrieved a lump of crack cocaine. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) The officer never thought the lump was a weapon, but did not immediately recognize it as cocaine. The lump was determined to be cocaine only after the officer squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the pocket s contents. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) The Court ruled that the search went too far. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) conviction overturned, If an officer lawfully pats down a suspect s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes it immediately apparent Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) conviction overturned, there has been no invasion of the suspect s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer s search for weapons. Brown v. Texas (1979) Two police officers stopped Brown and asked for identification. Brown refused to provide identification and identify himself. was arrested for failing to properly Brown was convicted. Brown appealed claiming an illegal stop. Brown v. Texas (1979) Officers testified that Brown was not acting suspiciously, nor did they think he had a weapon. Brown v. Texas (1979)

11 conviction overturned, Under the circumstances, since there was no reason to stop Brown, he could not be punished for refusing to identify himself. Smith v. Ohio (1990) Smith was approached by two plain to come here a minute. Smith kept walking until the police identified themselves. clothes officers who asked Smith Smith put a paper bag he was carrying on the hood of his car to keep it from police. Smith v. Ohio (1990) Officers inspected the bag and found marijuana Smith arrested for drug possession. He was convicted. He appealed. Smith v. Ohio (1990) conviction overturned, An individual has the right to protect his belongings from unwarranted search. In this case, there was little reason to stop the suspect and control over the bag was not thought necessary for the officers protection. Carroll v. U.S. (1925) The first U.S. Supreme Court case to involve an automobile. U.S. Supreme Court ruled a warrantless search of an automobile is valid if based on a reasonable belief that contraband is present. Intelligence Function Intelligence Function In the case of informants, there is a two-pronged test that can be used to establish probable cause for search or arrest. Intelligence Function The source of the informant s information is made clear.

12 The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable. Self- Incrimination and the Right to Counsel Interrogation: Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Danny Escobedo is arrested, without a warrant, for the murder of his brother-inlaw. He makes no statements during an initial A few weeks later, someone identifies him as interrogation and is released. the murderer. He is again brought in for questioning. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) He is told they have him cold. He asks to see his lawyer and is told he cannot since the interrogation is underway. His lawyer arrives and asks to see his client questioning is complete. Escobedo is told that his lawyer does not Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) but is told he has to wait until want to see him. Escobedo confesses to the crime. He is convicted and appeals. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) conviction overturned, A defendant is entitled to counsel at police interrogations, and counsel should be provided when the defendant so requests. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, and accused of kidnapping and rape.

13 He was identified by the victim. He was interrogated for two hours, convicted. He appealed his conviction to the U.S. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) signed a confession and was Supreme Court. conviction overturned, The entire aura and atmosphere of police interrogation, without notification of rights and an offer of assistance of counsel, tends to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner. The Miranda Warnings The Miranda Warnings Nontestimonial Evidence Electronic Evidence Electronic Evidence Electronic Evidence The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 made it easier for police investigators to intercept many forms of electronic communication.