Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Chapter PowerPoint - STREET LAW by qingyunliuliu

VIEWS: 1,171 PAGES: 92

									UNIT 2: Criminal Law and Juvenile Justice
                                Chapter 12
Criminal Justice Process: The Investigation
 The criminal justice process includes everything
  that happens to a person from the moment of
  arrest, through prosecution & conviction, to
  release from jail or prison
 This chapter deals with the investigation phase,
  which includes arrest, search & seizure,
  interrogations, and confessions – it also looks at
  how the U.S. Constitution limits what police can
  do
 There are separate state & federal criminal
  justice systems
Sequence of Events in the
Criminal Justice Process
 T12-1 [Handout]
 Page 135
Introduction
 Great discretion can be exercised by criminal
  justice system personnel at each step of the
  process from the police to the prosecutor to the
  sentencing judge to personnel in the correctional
  system
 Many of the most critical events of a case happen
  before the trial (i.e., at a pretrial hearing, when
  the defendant may attempt to suppress certain
  evidence), & relatively few cases actually result in
  a trial
 Many cases are either dropped or terminated by
  a plea bargain
 Once a crime is reported, an investigation
  follows
 If the investigation leads to an arrest, the
  case is said to have ―cleared‖
     Clearance rates are usually highest for the most
     serious crimes because police departments focus
     their resources on these cases
Law Enforcement Models
   There is on-going tension between two
    competing law enforcement models: the
    crime control model & the due process model
     The crime control model emphasizes the
      apprehension & punishment of criminals
     The due process model emphasizes the use of fair
      procedures in dealing with defendants
     ○ A variation of this model is the fairness or due-
       process of victims model that focuses on justice for
       the victim
   Proponents of each model seek to reduce
    crime, but through different means
Criminal Procedure Rights
Granted by State Constitutions
   In WA, arrests based on information from
    informants require
     a credible informant and
     reliable information
Arrest
   An arrest takes place when a person suspected of a
    crime is taken into custody
     An arrest is considered a seizure under the Fourth
      Amendment, which requires that seizures be reasonable
   The police may take someone into custody 1 of 2
    ways
     W/O an arrest warrant in certain felony cases & in
      misdemeanor cases (in public) if there is probable cause
     With an arrest warrant
      ○ An arrest warrant is a court order commanding that the person
        named in it be taken into custody - it shows that a judge agrees
        there is probable cause for the arrest
   Probable cause to arrest means having a
    reasonable belief that a specific person has
    committed a crime
     To show probable cause, there must be some facts
      that connect the person to the crime
     This reasonable belief may be based on much less
      evidence than is necessary to prove a person
      guilty at trial
   The courts have allowed drug enforcement
    officials to use what is known as a drug
    courier profile
     Used to provide a basis to stop & question a
      person or to help establish probable cause for
      arrest
     Often based on commonly held notions concerning
      the typical age, race, personal appearance,
      behavior & mannerisms of drug couriers
   Opposition
     Individualized suspicion – as opposed to the
     generalized characteristics of drug couriers –
     should be required to establish probable cause
   Proponents
     Drug interdiction presents unique law enforcement
     problems & that the use of the profiles is
     necessary in order to stop drug trafficking
 Police may establish probable cause from info.
  provided by citizens
 Info. from victims or witnesses can be used to
  obtain an arrest warrant
 Info. from informants can also be used if they
  can convince the judge that the information is
  reliable
     Whether the informant has provided accurate info. in
      the past
     How the informant obtained the info., &
     Whether the police can corroborate (or confirm) the
      informant‘s tip w/other info.
   If an officer has reasonable suspicion that the
    person is armed & dangerous, he may do a
    limited pat-down of the person‘s outer
    clothing—called a stop & frisk—to remove
    any weapons the person may be carrying
   A police officer does not need probable cause to stop &
    question an individual on the street
     You may decline & continue your activity – your silence or
      departure may not contribute to probable cause or reasonable
      suspicion
     If you run from the officer, that flight may give the officer
      reasonable suspicion to stop you again, at this point you cannot
      walk away (especially in areas of high crime)
   However, the officer must have reasonable suspicion to
    believe the individual is involved in criminal activity
     The reasonable suspicion standard does not require as much
      evidence as probable cause – it must be more than a mere hunch
   Therefore, it is easier for police to stop & question a person
    than it is to arrest a person
   The most common kind of arrest is when
    people don‘t realize they are being arrested
    at all
     If you are taken into custody under circumstances
     in which a reasonable person would not feel free
     to leave is considered to be under arrest - whether
     or not you are told that
   When an officer stops a person driving a car
    for violating traffic laws, the driver is
    technically under arrest because the driver
    isn‘t free to leave, but must stay until the
    officer releases him or her
   In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
    police can order all passengers out of a car
    when making a lawful traffic stop
     The detention in this case is brief, usually lasting
      only as long as it takes the officer to check ID &
      registration, & typically ends when a citation
      (ticket) is issued for the violation
      Probable Cause &
      the Law on Stops & Arrests
                 Probable Cause                                                                               *
                 Reasonable Suspicion &
                 Belief the Suspect Might Be Armed and Dangerous                               *
LEVEL OF PROOF




                 Reasonable Suspicion                                                   *
                 No Suspicions                                              *




                                                                                               Stop & Frisk
                                                                           Consensual
                                                                            Encounter




                                                                                                              Arrest
                                                                                        Stop
                                                     LEVEL OF INTRUSION:
Police Action              What Is It?                  When Can Police Do It?
Consensual Encounter       An officer talks with an     An officer can do this at
                           individual. The individual   any time. No information
                           is free to leave at any      is required prior to an
                           time.                        informal contact.
Example: An officer asks a pedestrian if she saw the person who broke a store
window or the officer talks to a second-grade class about safety.
Police Action              What Is It?                 When Can Police Do It?
A stop                     A brief period of           If an officer, based on his
(also known as an          questioning during which    or her experience, has a
investigative detention)   no charges are made.        reasonable suspicion that
                           The person is not free to   a person is involved in a
                           leave at any time.          crime that is taking place
                                                       or being planned, then
                                                       the officer can stop the
                                                       person to ask for
                                                       identification and an
                                                       explanation of the
                                                       suspicious activity.
                                                       Reasonable suspicion is
                                                       more than a hunch and is
                                                       based on specific details
                                                       or facts.
Police Action              What Is It?                 When Can Police Do It?
                                                       The person may be
                                                       detained for a reasonable
                                                       amount of time. One
                                                       U.S. Supreme Court
                                                       decision held that 20‘ was
                                                       reasonable. If the person
                                                       if forced to go to a police
                                                       station, courts have
                                                       usually held that an arrest
                                                       has taken place.
Example: An officer sees a person pacing in front of a store window, picking up
rocks, and looking up at the window.
Police Action    What Is It?                    When Can Police Do It?
Stop and Frisk   An officer ―pats down‖ the     In the case of Terry v.
                 outer garments of an           Ohio, the U.S. Supreme
                 individual to check for        Court sanctioned
                 weapons in order to            stopping and frisking a
                 protect the officer‘s safety   suspect to search for
                                                weapons when there was
                                                reasonable suspicion that
                                                a crime was about to be
                                                committed and that the
                                                suspect might be armed
                                                and dangerous.
Police Action   What Is It?   When Can Police Do It?
                              If an item is felt during the
                              frisk and the officer
                              believes the item to be
                              dangerous, the item will
                              be taken, or seized. If the
                              item taken provides the
                              police with probable
                              cause to arrest the
                              person, the officer may
                              then do a full search
                              (such as pockets and
                              socks)
Police Action             What Is It?                When Can Police Do It?
Arrest                    A person suspected of a    An officer needs probable
                          crime is taken into        cause to make an arrest.
                          custody. A person is not   Probable cause is the
                          free to go and must        reasonable belief that a
                          remain with the police.    person has committed a
                                                     crime. In some cases,
                                                     prior to the arrest, officers
                                                     must request an arrest
                                                     warrant from a judge,
                                                     who will determine
                                                     whether there is probable
                                                     cause to believe that the
                                                     person named has
                                                     committed the crime. In
                                                     other cases, officers may
                                                     not need a warrant.
Example: An officer sees a person throw a rock through a store window
   Judges &/or juries determine if a defendant is
    convicted or acquitted—not police officers
     The level of proof required for criminal conviction is
      much higher than probable cause
     Convictions require that the accused be found
      guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
   The Use of Deadly Force - the 1985 U.S.
    Supreme Court case involving use of deadly
    force changed the law in many states
     In this case, a Memphis police officer shot a young
      person as he fled behind a house that the officer
      suspected him of burglarizing
     The officer did not know whether the youth was
      armed (he was not), but Tennessee law allowed
      use of deadly force if a suspect continued to flee
      after notice of intent to arrest
 The Court ruled this law, as well as the
  practice of using deadly force against people
  whom officers did not have probable cause to
  believe were dangerous, to be an illegal
  seizure under the 4th Amendment
 Even before the decision, a survey found that
  87% of police departments allowed use of
  deadly force only against dangerous fleeing
  felons
   A police officer may use as much physical force
    as is reasonably necessary to make an arrest
     Most police departments limit the use of deadly force
      to incidents involving dangerous or threatening
      suspects
     In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide
      whether it was lawful for police to shoot an ―unarmed
      fleeing felony suspect‖
     The Court ruled that deadly force ―may not be used
      unless it is necessary to prevent escape, & the officer
      has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a
      significant threat of death or serious physical harm to
      the officer or others‖
 A police officer who uses too much force,
  makes an unlawful arrest or violates a
  citizen's rights can be sued under the federal
  Civil Rights Act
 The government could also file a criminal
  action against the police
 Many local governments have processes for
  handling citizen complaints against police
  misconduct
   A police officer is never liable for false arrest
    simply because the person arrested didn‘t
    commit the crime
     It must be shown that the officer acted maliciously
      or had no reasonable grounds for suspicion of
      guilt
     If an arrest is later ruled unlawful, the evidence
      obtained as a result of the arrest may not be used
      against the accused
Search and Seizure
 The 4th Amendment entitles each individual
  to be free from unreasonable searches &
  seizures & sets forth conditions under which
  search warrants may be issued
 In evaluating 4th Amendment cases, the
  courts seek to balance the government's
  need to gather evidence for law enforcement
  purposes against an individual's right to
  expect privacy
 Like other Bill of Rights protections, the right
  to privacy is not absolute
 Only ―unreasonable‖ searches & seizures are
  prohibited
 The 4th Amendment protects people from the
  government & those acting with the authority
  of the government
   Search & Seizure law is complex – there are
    many exceptions to the basic rules
     Once an individual is arrested, it may be up to the
      courts to decide whether any evidence found in a
      search was legally obtained
     If a court finds that the search was unreasonable,
      then evidence found in the search cannot be used
      at the trial against the defendant
   This rule – the exclusionary rule – does not
    mean that the defendant cannot be tried or
    convicted, but it does mean that evidence
    seized in an unlawful search cannot be used
    at trial
   Traditionally, courts have found searches
    and seizures of private homes reasonable
    only when authorized by a valid search
    warrant
     A search warrant is a court order issued by a
     judge who agrees that the police have probable
     cause to conduct a search of a particular person
     or place
   However, there are many circumstances in
    which searches may be conducted without a
    warrant
     Cases that deal with warrantless searches are
     Maryland v. Buie, the ―protective sweep case,‖
     and Minnesota v. Dickerson, the ―plain feel case‖
   Even so, these searches must be reasonable
    under the 4th Amendment
 In analyzing search cases, it is helpful to ask:
  Did the person complaining of the search
  have a reasonable expectation of privacy in
  these circumstances?
 This approach helps explain why one‘s
  privacy rights are usually greater in the home
  than on the street
   Recent U.S. Supreme Court decision have set
    out rules for police officers conducting
    searches when issuing traffic citations
     In one case, the Court ruled that a full search of a
     car belonging to a man stopped for speeding
     constituted an unreasonable search & invalidated
     the state law allowing such searches
 In another case of a man stopped for speeding,
  the Supreme Court upheld the officer‘s full search
  of the car—in which drugs were found—because
  the driver consented to the search
 The Court refused to require that a defendant be
  advised that he or she is free to go before
  recognizing the consent as voluntary
   The Court also upheld a stop for a traffic violation
    that was a pretext for determining whether
    suspected drug crimes were being committed
   The stop was reasonable where the police had
    probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had
    occurred
   Then, when the officers observed drugs in the hands
    of one of the passengers, the search was considered
    a plain-view search
   The Supreme Court ruled that a police officer making
    a traffic stop may lawfully order the driver and all
    passengers out of a vehicle during the stop
 Recent cases have also explored the nature of
  the ―knock and announce‖ rule, which requires
  officers to knock on the door & announce their
  identity & purpose before attempting a forcible
  entry
 The law usually requires that special reasons
  be given for permitting the search at night,
  between the hours of 10 pm & 6 am
     This lessens the chances that a search will be an
     unreasonable invasion of a citizen‘s privacy
 Searches are generally limited to daylight hours
  to avoid the trauma of the ―midnight knock‖
 In addition, it may be more dangerous for police
  to execute search warrants at night
 If there is no response, the police may enter
  using force, if necessary
 Police may be excused from following the law
  under emergency circumstances
     For example—if the officer is genuinely in danger or
      contraband is being destroyed
   If a court finds that evidence was collected
    as the result of an unlawful search, the
    evidence cannot be used against the
    defendant at trial
New Issues in Search & Seizure
 The examples in Problem 12.4 center on
  search & seizure of persons or physical items,
  but the 4th Amendment also applies to
  nonphysical information, such as phone
  conversations
 In 1967, a case went to the U.S. Supreme
  Court in which police intercepted
  conversations over a public telephone about
  illegal gambling activities
   The Court held that listening to & recording
    phone conversations with an electronic
    listening device attached to the outside of a
    public phone booth is a ―search and seizure‖
    subject to 4th Amendment protections, & a
    search warrant is required because a person
    has a reasonable expectation of privacy even
    when using a public phone
   Is it possible for police to conduct a search of
    your house that violates your 4th Amendment
    rights without ever entering your home or
    touching anything?
     As a result of modern technology and the Supreme
     Court‘s decision in Kyllo v. United States, the
     answer is yes
 In the Kyllo case, federal agents were suspicious
  that marijuana was being grown in Danny Kyllo‘s
  home & used a thermal imaging device to
  determine the amount of heat emanating from the
  house
 The amount of heat was consistent with the high-
  intensity lamps that are often used for growing
  marijuana indoors
 The scan showed that Kyllo‘s garage roof and a
  side wall were relatively hot compared to the rest
  of his home & substantially warmer than
  neighboring homes
 On the basis of this evidence, a judge issued a
  warrant to search Kyllo‘s home, where agents
  found marijuana growing
 After he was indicted on a federal drug charge,
  Kyllo challenged the use of the thermal imager
  without a warrant as an unlawful search under
  the 4th Amendment
 This case raised new issues for the Court
 Under the expectation-of-privacy test, it could be
  argued that Kyllo had no expectation of privacy in
  the heat emanating from his home because he
  had done nothing to conceal it or keep it private
 However, under the circumstances this test
  seemed unfair
 Because Kyllo did not know that technology could
  allow detection of heat waves outside his home,
  he saw no reason to conceal them—he assumed
  his actions were private
 In a 5-4 decision authored by Judge Scalia, the
  Court agreed with Kyllo that a warrant is required
  if the government uses advanced technology that
  is not common in everyday use to obtain
  information about activities within a home or other
  settings for which the defendant has an
  expectation of privacy
 However, a warrant would not be necessary if
  officers used binoculars to see inside someone‘s
  home, because binoculars are in common use
   The dissenting opinion argued that officers
    should be allowed to draw inferences from
    information that is available in the public
    domain, in this case heat waves
The “Plain View” Exception
   The ―plain-view‖ exception to the search
    warrant has been expanded to include plain
    hearing, plain smell, and plain feel
     Plain Hearing: allows officers to listen to
     conversations taking place in private areas where
     they have a right to be
      ○ For example—if officers can hear a conversation from
        a motel room next to one occupied by the suspects,
        they have a right to listen in
 Plain Smell: police may seize objects based on
 their odor when the odor establishes probable
 cause
  ○ For example—police can search for & seize
   marijuana based on the odor coming from a car
 Plain Feel: applies to situations in which a pat-
 down search immediately reveals the felt object is
 contraband or evidence of a crime
Public School Searches
 In general, school officials are allowed to search
  students & their possessions without violating
  students‗ 4th Amendment rights
 Should the exclusionary rule apply to searches by
  school officials of students in high school?
     In the 1985 case, the state of New Jersey argued that
      the exclusionary rule should not apply to schools at all
     New Jersey argued that school officials were not agents
      of the state like police, who must follow the exclusionary
      rule
 Instead, they argued, school officials were standing
  in for the students‘ parents (a doctrine called in loco
  parentis) & that the escalating problems of drugs &
  violence in the schools justified the exclusionary
  rule not being applied in school settings
 The Supreme Court rejected these arguments
  ○ It held that the rule should apply because students
    are citizens who should have the same basic rights
    as citizens on the street, although a lower standard of
    proof may be required
  ○ The court also ruled that public school officials were
    agents of the state
New Jersey v. TLO
   How much evidence should a school official have
    before searching a student‘s purse or locker?
    Should the standards of probable cause or
    reasonable suspicion be required?
     The Supreme Court ruled that the standard of probable
      cause required for searches outside school did not
      apply to school officials searching a student‘s person or
      purse
     There has not been a Supreme Court ruling on
      searching student lockers, but most courts have allowed
      such searches by school officials on reasonable
      suspicion, which is less than probable cause
 These searches are usually on the basis that the lockers
  are owned by the school & that students do not have a
  reasonable expectation of privacy in their public school
  lockers
 In this case, the Court ruled that the student, known as
  TLO, could be searched if the school official had,
  “reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will
  turn up evidence that the student has violated, or is
  violating either the law or rules of the school”
  ○ Violating a ―no smoking‖ rule can justify a search
  ○ Also, the exclusionary rule applies only to court
    proceedings
  ○ Even if evidence is illegally seized, it can be used against a
    student at a school disciplinary hearing
   The dissenting justices thought the normal
    probable cause standard should be required
    for school searches, & that the reasonable
    grounds standard constituted an inappropriate
    watering down of the 4th Amendment as it
    applied to schools
   Do you believe that the principal had the right to
    open the student‘s purse? Could the marijuana &
    drug paraphernalia be used against her in court?
     In the actual case, the Supreme Court found that the
      fact that the student had been observed smoking in
      violation of school rules provided reasonable suspicion
     This justified the principal‘s decision to open her purse
      & to look for cigarettes
     In addition, seeing the rolling papers in the purse gave
      rise to a reasonable suspicion that she possessed
      marijuana, which justified further search of the purse
    The dissenting justices argued that there was no need
     to open the purse because the teacher had observed
     the student smoking
    Even if the purse could be opened, once the cigarettes
     were found the principal had no right to look for other
     items
[The general rule on searches of student property such as
book bags & purses is that the principal or designee must
have reasonable suspicion to start the search & the scope of
the search must also be reasonable—it could be argued that
upon finding cigarettes, it was reasonable for the principal to
continue searching for matches or a lighter, which would help
to determine whether or not this student had actually been
smoking—in a lawful search, it is permissible to seize
anything that is illegal to possess]
   Should HS students have fewer rights or the
    same rights as adults in the community?
     Some people argue that students‘ rights should be
      restricted because of their age, lack of maturity, & the
      fact that schools are special places of learning that
      should not be compromised by the distractions that
      stem from problems such as drugs & violence
     Others argue that students cannot be taught the
      principles of the Constitution or other civic values if
      these principles do not apply to them as well
     They may also argue that if a school provides students
      fewer rights than adults, the message is that the rights
      of students are not important
Drug Testing—Earls
Prob. 12.7—The Case of Student Drug Testing
 In an opinion written by Justice Thomas, the
  majority held that individualized suspicion was
  not necessary in order to require drug testing of
  students participating in activities nor was a
  warrant required because public schools fall
  under the special needs exception
 The Court found that this was one of the limited
  circumstances, like a sobriety checkpoint to catch
  drunk drivers, in which the need to discover
  hidden conditions or prevent their development is
  sufficiently compelling to justify the privacy
  invasion
Suspicionless Searches
   Searches & seizures are usually
    unreasonable if there is no individual
    suspicion of wrongdoing
     Ex: police can‘t search all the people gathered at
      a street corner if they suspected that only 1 of the
      people possessed evidence of a crime
     They could search only the person upon whom
      their individual suspicion is focused so that the
      privacy rights of others are protected
   The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized some
    limited circumstances in which this requirement of
    individualized suspicion need not be met
     Ex: the Court has upheld suspicionless searches
     conducted in the context of a program designed to meet
     special needs beyond the goals of routine law
     enforcement
      ○ These special circumstances include fixed-point searches
        at or near borders to detect illegal aliens, & mandatory
        drug & alcohol tests for railroad employees who have
        been involved in accidents
     These searches are controversial because they seem
     to depart from the 4th Amendment‘s explicit requirement
     that searches be based on probable cause
Racial Profiling in
Police Investigations
 Complaints of racial profiling have increased
  in recent years
 Racial profiling – or racially biased policing –
  is the inappropriate use of race as a factor in
  identifying people who may break or have
  broken the law
 Critics say that it violates people‘s
  constitutional right to equal protection before
  the law & presumption of innocence
 They also say that it is an ineffective law
  enforcement tactic
     it reinforces racial stereotypes in society
     & it creates negative relations between police &
      citizens
   The general rule is that it is inappropriate for
    an officer to stop a person solely because of
    his/her race
     Race may be used as one factor among others in
     deciding whom to stop
      ○ Ex: an eyewitness describes the robber as an
       African American man – police may use race as a
       factor in deciding to stop an African American man
       that is seen running from the immediate vicinity
   Much of the racial profiling centers of traffic
    stops—known in the African American
    community as DWB—or ―driving while black‖
     In 1998, a federal judge reduced an African
     American defendant‘s criminal sentence on the
     grounds that his lengthy prior record may have
     been skewered by race-based traffic stops
   As a result of Wilkins v. Maryland State Police,
    many studies on racial profiling were conducted
    throughout the U.S., with alarming results . . .
     One analysis of police searches along I-95 (N from FL to
      Maine) revealed that although 74.4% of speeders were
      white, African Americans constituted 79.2% of the
      drivers searched
     Another investigation in NY in 1999 revealed that African
      Americans were stopped 6 times more often than
      whites—African Americans were only 25% of the NY
      population, yet made up 50% of the people stopped &
      67% of the people stopped by the NYC Street Crimes
      Unit
   After the terrorist attacks of September 11,
    2001, many Arab Americans, people of Middle
    Eastern descent, Muslims, & people who
    simply ―looked Arab‖ complained that they
    were being detained or questioned by police
    or by security guards at airports for no reason
    other than their appearance, clothing, or
    because they were carrying a religious symbol
    or book
 The law prohibits racial profiling, as it requires
  that most stops, arrests, & searches made by
  police officers be based on some sort of
  individualized suspicion
 However, it is sometimes difficult to prove why a
  police officer stopped or arrested a person
 As of 2002, 14 states had passed legislation
  mandating racial profiling policies, & more than
  400 law enforcement agencies have instituted
  data-collection methods to learn more about the
  actual extent of the problem
 Despite the fact that racial profiling is against
  the law & that most people say they are
  against the practice, some minority groups &
  civil liberties organizations feel that the
  problem continues to occur & needs to be
  controlled
 According to a 2002 report issued by the Office
  of Community Oriented Policing > 60% of
  Americans believe racial profiling exists
   Other people feel that it is reasonable, in light
    of the September 11, 2001 attacks, or in
    neighborhoods with a high rate of crimes by
    individuals of a certain racial or ethnic group,
    to search people solely because of their race
Interrogations and Confessions
   Miranda Warnings: You have the right to . . .
     Recent cases have altered the original effect of the
      Miranda case
     In one case, the Court held that police may ask
      questions related to public safety before advising
      suspects of their rights
     The Court also limited the impact of the Miranda
      ruling by requiring that the person be in a condition
      of custodial interrogation before the Miranda
      warnings are needed
Custodial Interrogation
and Confession Law
 The law in the area of interrogations &
  confessions is widely misunderstood—many
  people think that Miranda warnings must be given
  at the time of arrest or the case will be thrown out
 While Miranda warnings often are given at this
  point, they are not a requirement of a lawful
  arrest
 They are required once a defendant is in custody
  or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom in
  some significant way & is being interrogated
 After an arrest is made, it is standard police
  practice to ?, or interrogate, the accused
 These interrogations often result in
  confessions or admissions
 The accused‘s confessions or admissions are
  later used as evidence at trial
   Balanced against the police‘s need to ? suspects
    are the constitutional rights of people accused of
    a crime
     The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides
     citizens with a privilege against self-incrimination
      ○ This means that a suspect has a right to remain silent &
        can‘t be forced to testify against himself/herself
      ○ This protection rests on a basic legal principle: the
        government bears the burden of proof
      ○ Suspects are not obliged to help the gov. prove they
        committed a crime or to testify at their own trial
   Under the 6th Amendment, a person accused
    of a crime has the right to the assistance of an
    attorney
   The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a
    confession is not admissible as evidence if it is
    not voluntary & trustworthy
     This means that using physical force, torture,
     threats, or other techniques that could force an
     innocent person to confess is prohibited
   In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, the
    Supreme Court said that even a voluntary
    confession is inadmissible as evidence if it is
    obtained after the defendant‘s request to talk
    with an attorney has been denied
     The Court reasoned that the presence of
     Escobedo‘s attorney could have helped him avoid
     self-incrimination
   Although some defendants might ask for an
    attorney, others might not be aware of or
    understand their right to remain silent or their
    right to have a lawyer present during
    questioning
   In 1966, the Supreme Court was presented
    with such a situation in the case of Miranda v.
    Arizona
     In it‘s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that
      Ernesto Miranda‘s confession could not be used at
      trial because officers had obtained it without
      informing Miranda of his right to a lawyer & his right
      to remain silent
     As a result of this case, police are now required to
      inform people taken into custody of the so-called
      Miranda rights before questioning begins
   This taking into custody might actually precede an
    officer‘s statement - ―You‘re under arrest!‖
   The key issue is:
     When did custodial interrogation begin?
   In any case, giving or not giving the Miranda
    warnings is not related to the validity of the arrest
     If the warnings are not given, the arrest itself is still
      considered valid if it is supported by probable cause, but the
      state will not be able to use any illegally obtained confession
      against the defendant at the trial
     Depending on other evidence that the state has, this could—
      but not necessarily—result in charges being dropped
   In Miranda‘s 2nd trial, even though the court
    couldn‘t use his confession as evidence
    against him, Miranda was convicted based on
    other evidence
   In Standbury v. California, the U.S. Supreme
    Court further explained what is meant by custodial
    interrogation
     The fact that the officer questioning an individual
      believes that the person is a suspect does not mean that
      the suspect is in custody unless that fact is
      communicated to the suspect
     In other words, if during questioning, an officer begins to
      suspect the person of a crime but does not tell the
      person, then a reasonable person would feel he or she
      was free to leave, & therefore not in custody
 In a 1980 case, a robbery suspect was given the
  Miranda warnings several times & replied that he
  wanted to consult a lawyer
 On the way to the police station, one officer said
  to the another that he was afraid a missing
  shotgun (believed to have been used in the
  robbery) would be found by a student from a
  nearby school
 The other officer made similar comments
 Overhearing, the defendant then said he would
  show them where the gun was located
   The U.S. Supreme Court held that the police
    comments were ―offhand remarks‖ & not an
    interrogation that the officers would have
    expected to evoke an incriminating response
 The Supreme Court has also held that the
  Miranda case does not apply to a police officer
  stopping a motorist suspected of driving while
  intoxicated
 The Court said that no Miranda warnings need to
  be given until the person is ―in custody‖ (in a
  condition of ―custodial interrogation‖ before the
  warnings are needed)
     Custodial interrogation means that the person is in
      custody (not free to leave) & is being interrogated
      (questioned) by the police
   The case of New York v. Quarles created a
    public safety exception to Miranda
     A police officer who was arresting a rape suspect
      in a grocery store asked the suspect where his
      gun was before advising him of his rights
     The suspect then pointed to a nearby grocery
      counter, where the gun was found
     The court held that police may ask ?‘s related to
      public safety before advising suspects of their
      rights
 Miranda warnings also need not be given in
  the exact form described in the Miranda case
 This interpretation of the Miranda decision
  occurred in the 1989 case Duckworth v. Eagan
     The defendant was informed that if he could not
      afford a lawyer, one would be appointed ―if and
      when you go to court‖
     The Supreme Court held that this form of the
      Miranda warnings was adequate because it
      conveyed the necessary information to the
      defendant
 Remember that defense counsel will ask the
  judge before trial to exclude the results of an
  illegal search
 Defense counsel will also ask the judge at a
  pretrial hearing to exclude any statement
  given by the defendant in violation of the
  Miranda rule

								
To top