Criminal Justice Today an Introductory Text for the 21St Century

Criminal Justice Today An Introductory Text for the 21st Century

CHAPTER 7

Policing: Legal Aspects

• The beating of Rodney King by LAPD officers is a well-known example of the abuse of police power. • No one is above the law, not even the police. • Democratically inspired legal restraints on the police help ensure individual freedoms and protect the development of a police state.

• The Bill of Rights is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power. • In 1960s, the Warren Court focused on guaranteeing individual rights during criminal prosecution. • More recently, new conservative Court philosophy has reversed some Warren- year advances.

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. for the 21st Century, 14e All Rights Reserved Frank Schmalleger TABLE 7–1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice

• Constitution provides for a system of checks and balances in govt. . One branch always held accountable to other branches . Ensures no individual or agency can become too powerful • People who feel their rights were violated can appeal to courts for redress.

• Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments require due process. • Most requirements relevant to police relate to three areas . Evidence/investigation (search and seizure) . Arrest . Interrogation • Landmark cases

• "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."

• Weeks v. U.S. . Forms basis of exclusionary rule . Evidence illegally seized by police cannot be used in a trial. . Only applied to federal officers • Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine . Evidence that derives from an illegal seizure cannot be used at trial. . Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S.

• Mapp v. Ohio . Applied exclusionary rule to the states • Searches incident to arrest . Chimel v. California • Search limited to area in suspect's immediate control . Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.

• More conservative than Warren Court • Good faith exception to exclusionary rule . US v. Leon, Massachusetts v. Sheppard . If officers seize evidence in good faith, it may be used in court even if the search is later ruled illegal.

continued on next slide Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. for the 21st Century, 14e All Rights Reserved Frank Schmalleger The Burger Court and the Rehnquist Court

• Plain view doctrine . Officers may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. • Emergency searches/exigent circumstances searches . Court recognized need for emergency warrantless entry and search in dire situations.

• Anticipatory warrants . Warrants anticipating presence of evidence that is not yet at a location but will be when the warrant is executed

• Occurs when law enforcement officer restricts a person's freedom to leave . Suspect may not consider himself/herself to be in custody. • Most common type is arrest following questioning of suspect. • May also occur when officer comes upon crime in progress

• Most jurisdictions permit warrantless arrest for felony not in progress if probable cause can be established.

• Police have right to conduct search of person being arrested and to search area under arrestee's immediate control. • Terry v. Ohio . Set standard for brief stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion (Terry- type stop)

• Fall under exigent circumstances exception to warrant requirement • Conditions required for emergency warrantless searches . Probable cause to believe evidence concealed on person being searched . Probable cause to believe threat of destruction of evidence

• Conditions required for emergency warrantless searches . Officer did not have time to obtain a warrant. . Search limited to minimum necessary to eliminate threat of destruction of evidence

• Investigatory stop permitted with reasonable suspicion • Warrantless search of stopped car valid if supported by probable cause . Fleeing-targets exception • Roadblocks and checkpoints legal if essential to community welfare

• Watercraft and motor homes included in automobile exception to warrant requirement

• Need to ensure public safety may provide compelling interest to justify limiting the right to privacy • Allows suspicionless searches when person not suspected of a crime • Include searches at U.S. borders

• Use of high technology to discover and investigate crimes is forcing the courts to evaluate the applicability of constitutional protections to high-tech searches and seizures • Court generally holds that high-tech searches may not violate reasonable expectations of privacy.

• Ethical questions regarding use of paid informants • Use of information from informants to support warrant request depends on demonstrable reliability of information . Two-pronged test . Totality-of-circumstances approach

• Interrogation involves police behaviors that are reasonably likely to produce incriminating responses from suspects. . Not limited to verbal questioning • Courts have prohibited physical abuse, inherent coercion, and psychological manipulation.

• Escobedo v. Illinois . Right to legal counsel during interrogation • Edwards v. Arizona . If a suspect requests counsel after interrogation has started, questioning must stop until attorney is present.

• Considered the most far-reaching opinion to affect criminal justice in the last half-century • Requires suspects be informed of their rights and given an opportunity to exercise them throughout interrogation

• After warnings are given, a person may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement.

• The suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he or she has the right to remain silent. • Any statements made by the person can be used in a court of law. • The suspect has the right to the presence of attorney.

• If the person cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed prior to any questioning.

• Waiver must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent. • Knowing waiver . Suspect must be advised of rights and be in a condition to understand advisement. • Intelligent waiver . Understand the consequences of not invoking rights.

• Inevitable-discovery exception . Evidence gathered inappropriately may be used in court if it would have invariably turned up anyway. • Public-safety exception . Considerations of public safety override the Miranda requirement in order to prevent further harm.

• Miranda triggers . Officers required to provide warnings only in situations involving both arrest and custodial interrogation

Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. for the 21st Century, 14e All Rights Reserved Frank Schmalleger Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence

• Nontestimonial evidence . Generally physical evidence . Issue complicated when personal kinds of evidence considered • Right to privacy . Court has placed limits on permitted bodily intrusions. • Body-cavity searches very problematic for police

• Warrant required to unveil what a person is trying to keep private, even in a public place (phone booth, etc.) • Minimization requirement for electronic surveillance

• Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 . Established due process requirements police must meet to legally intercept wire communications

• Telecommunications Act of 1996 . Federal offense for anyone engaged in interstate or international communications to engage in communications that are obscene, lewd, indecent, etc. with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person . Communications Decency Act

• USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 . Made it easier for police to intercept many forms of electronic communications . PATRIOT II extended or made permanent a number of provisions, including roving wiretap provision.

• Special characteristics . Latent . Transcends national/state borders . Fragile . Time-sensitive • Police must take special precautions when documenting, collecting, preserving electronic evidence.