Crime and Delinquency by 5pu6vf

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 6

									Crime and Delinquency
Chapter 6
Police and Constitutional Law

I. Legal limitations on Police Investigations
       A. Search and Seizure Concepts
                1. Fourth Amendment – prevents unlawful search and seizure

              2. Search = actions by law enforcement officials which intrude on
                    peoples reasonable expectations of privacy
                    a. come into a home
                    b. search pockets

              3. Seizure – interference w/ liberty and freedom of movement
                     a. halt movement = seizure has occurred
                     b. arrest – taking into custody
                     c. seizure of property as evidence

              4. Stop – brief (minutes) interference of movement
                     a. justified by reasonable suspicion
                     b. not required in border crossing or non-random vehicle stops
                             (road blocks)
‘
       B. Concept of Arrest
              1. significant deprivation of liberty

              2. custody, transport to station/jail

              3. processes (booked)

              4. (1) probable cause – sufficient evidence to support reasonable
                      conclusion that someone committed a crime/required for arrest

              5. Hearing w/i 48 hours

       C. Warrants and Probable Cause
             1. How much information is required?

              2. How reliable is it?

              3. “no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by
                     oath or sent or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
                     to be searched, and the person(s) to be seized.”

              4. (2) present to judicial officer

              5. affidavit – written oath by officers

              6. (3) must be specific - general warrant to search several locations
–                          may not be issued

              7. (4) must describe persons or items to be received
              8. Illinois vs. Gates (1983) – totality of circumstances – judges
                       Make generalized determination if evidence is sufficient and
                       reliable

II. Plain View Doctrine
        A. What if officer sees illegal substance/item through window?
               1. Coolidge vs. New Hampshire (1971) – Plain view doctrine
                        - permits officer to notice and use as evidence items that are
                               Visible to them in a location they are permitted to be

              2. visible from public area vs. private property

       B. Open fields Doctrine – Hester vs. U.S. (1924) –
             1. lawn, field, private property around home (cartilage)

              2. includes hovering by helicopter

       C. Plain Feel Doctrine –
              1. Minnesota vs. Dickerson (1993) – officer feels something
                     immediately recognizable as weapon, crack pipe or
                     contraband, may be seized

              2. However, may not aggressively feel duffel bag, unless part of
                    standard search

III. Warrantless Searches
       A. Special needs beyond Normal Purposes of Law Enforcement
               1. Every individual passing through a certain checkpoint

              2. metal detectors, airports (luggage)

              3. Full Body scans?

       B. Terry vs. Ohio (1968) - landmark case
              1. upheld stop & frisk when”pat

              2. person believed to be dangerous

              3. “pat down search”
                      a. where police officer observes “unusual conduct”
                      b. leads to reasonable conclude in light of experience
                      c. criminal activity is afoot
                      d. person may be armed and dangerous
                      e. in course of investigating behavior
                      f. I.D.’s self as policemen/makes reasonable inquires
                      g. nothing in initial stages of encounter dispels reasonable fear
                               for his or other’s behavior
                      h. entitled to protect self/others in area to conduct limited
                               search of outer clothing in attempt to discover weapons

              4. Illinois vs. Wardlow (2000) – running at sight of police

              5. Adams vs. Williams (1972) – act on reports from “reliable witness”
       6. Florida vs. J.L. (2000) – unverified anonymous tip not adequate

C. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
       1. Chimel vs. California (1969)
              a. justifies searching arrestee for weapons
              b. must look for evidence which may be destroyed/damaged
              c. search immediate area around arrestee
              d. protective sweep through other rooms
                      - may not open drawers
                      - no thorough search of house (requires warrant)

       2. Warrant must be obtained to open luggage, packages, file cabinets

D. Exigent Circumstances
       1. Urgent situation, must act swiftly w/ no time to go to court

       2. “hot pursuit”

       3. O.J. Simpson
               a. climbed wall/found bloody glove
               b. allowed due to concern for safety of individual(s) in house

      4. Cupp vs. Murphy (1973)
             a. voluntary questioning
             b. saw substance under fingernails (blood)
             c. Court - proper evidence collection
E. Consent
      1. probable cause not required

       2. absolves officer of any illegally obtained evidence

       3. “May I search your car?, Look in your trunk?, May I look around?”

       4. Officers do not have to inform people of the right to say “no” to
               when asked for consent to search!

       5. Has a permissible consent search occurred?
              a. consent must be voluntary/no coercion or threats/lying about
                     a “pending” search warrant
              b. Must be given by someone who possesses the authority
                     and thereby waive right
              c. cannot consent to have neighbor’s house searched

F. Automobile searches
       1. Carroll vs. U.S. (1925)
              a. search for illegal alcohol
              b. warrantless search OK
              c. mobility/may be driven away

       2. Traffic stops – occupants may be order to exit vehicle

       3. When can an officer stop a car?
             a. traffic violation
                     b. safety equipment/light
                     c. reasonable suspicion driver/passenger(s) involved in a crime

              4. How extensively can they search vehicle?
                    a. traffic stop does not justify
                    b. specific factors justifying probable cause to search entire
                             vehicle
                    c. e.g. lawful arrest justifies search for weapons
                    d. arrest justifies search of passengers property

              5. California vs. Acevedo (1991)
                      a. probable cause to search trunk
                      b. must obtain warrant to search container therein

              6. May enter to see Vehicle I.D. # of suspected stolen

              7. May do thorough search if impounded

IV. Questioning Suspects - Fifth Amendment
       A. ”No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
              himself”

       B. Discourages officers from using violent or otherwise coercive means to
              Push suspects to confess

       C. Miranda Rules
              1. Miranda vs. Arizona (1966)
                     a. right to remain silent
                     b. if decide to make statement, can and will be used against
                             them
                     c. have right to an attorney during interrogation or have
                             opportunity to consult an attorney
                     d. if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed by
                             the state

              2. Previously, suspects beaten or tortured until confessed

              3. Escobedo vs. Illinois (1964)
                     a. Escobedo questioned for 14 hours w/o counsel even though
                            he asked
                     b. made “voluntary” incriminating statements
                     c. court = defendant had right to counsel when investigation
                            went beyond general inquiry, inquiry focused on
                            particular suspect

              4. Massiah vs United States (1964) – questioning defendant outside
                     presence of defense counsel is violation of rights

              5. Custodial interrogations
                     a. asking questions on street = no need to inform of rights
                     b. take into custody/isolate in room – Miranda applies
                     c. may forgo if exigent circumstances/public safety exception
                     d. chase suspect/found w/ empty shoulder holster/questioned
                     about gun.

       D. Consequences of Miranda
             1. rights must provided before questions are asked

              2. when must rights be read? – not immediately
                    a. may be delayed
                    b. suspect may talk volunteer information
                    c. back seat of car/left alone in room
                    d. encourage suspect to talk despite Miranda warnings
                    e. may theorize accidental behavior/sympathetic
                    f. officers not required to be honest
                            - lie about witnesses
                            - promise deal if give information
                            - combine w/ threat if “uncooperative”
                            - may not threaten physical safety
                    g. suspect(s) feel compelled to talk or look guilty
                    h. key – ask if under arrest!!!!

              3. Post September 11
                     a. I.D. as “enemy combatant”
                     b. not required to provide Miranda
                     c. no access to court or attorney

V. The Exclusionary Rule
      A. Definition - Evidence may be excluded if obtained improperly – “fruit of the
             poison tree”

       B. Wolf vs. Colorado (1949)
             1. U.S.S.C. incorporated 4th amendment

              2. Still only applied to federal gov’t

              3. allowed states to remedy illegal searches

       C. Mapp vs. Ohio(1961) – Mandated to all states

       D. Why did the U.S.S.C. decide the rule necessary?
             1. Weeks declared E-Rule essential to make the 4th amend’t
                    meaningful

              2. Ex-Rule is required by the Constitution

              3. States found no other options to correct/limit Constitutional
                     Violations

              4. Improperly obtained evidence diminished respect for the law

              5. Absence of Ex-Rule would render constitutional rights to be
                     revocable upon whim of officer

              6. Deters police/prosecution from violation constitutional rights
E. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
       1. Good Faith Exception
              a. United States vs. Leon (1984)
              b. should technical problems occur with warrant
              c. police act upon the basis that warrant was valid
              d. warrant issued based upon info which falls below standard of
                      probable cause

       2. Inevitable Discovery Rule
              a. abduction/murder by psych escapee
              b. surrendered to police 160 miles away
              c. questioned on return trip determined improper/U.S.S.C.
              d. appealed/2nd trial – conviction
                     - body would have eventually found without confession
                     - police thought they were doing their job
                     - reverted to good faith exception

								
To top