PS 305 Test 2
Kentucky vs. King
- Exigent circumstances - Police can create an exigent circumstance (even on accident)- in this event, a warrant is not required for seized evidence to be admissible in court The cops were trying to bust someone for drug dealing, but they got sidetracked when they smelled marijuana. Behind a locked door. They thought they heard the people inside trying to hide the evidence, so they busted down the door. King (The guy accused with marijuana) claimed that the cops violated his fourth Ammendment rights. The court ruled in favor of the police and said that the police can obtain evidence without a warrant if they think it is about to be destroyed. This is dumb because it seems there is always an exception for the exclusionary rule Dissenting Opinion from Justice Ginsburg: ""the Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. "
US vs Raymond
-A state trooper busted Raymond for speeding. He obtained consent to search Raymonds vehicle, but proceeded to pat down Raymond without consent. The officer found crack on Raymond's person. When Raymond argued in court that the officer violated the 4th amendment by patting him down without consent, the court ruled in favor of the officer and said that the officer had reasonable and arguable suspicion that Raymond was involved in criminal activity Connects to Terry v Ohio
What's the difference between civil rights and civil liberties?
-Civil rights are freedom from discrimination (WHOSE rights) -Civil Liberties are basic rights that each American has (right to privacy, fair trial, etc) (WHAT rights)
What are the functions of police? Be able to explain and provide examples.
-Crime fighting/Law enforcement -Arrests -Drugs busts -Swat teams busting in houses -Order maintenance -Riot and crowd control -Directing Traffic -Service -Bike patrol -interacting with citizens -foot patrol and helping people cross the street
In the history of police, what were the major reforms that came about as a result of the progressive era?
-Get rid of political patronage in American police departments -Centralize power and authority with police departments -Narrowing police function -Eliminate Politics from policing -Some departments hired women officers -Professionalization--> More police education -Single officer patrol cars
What do relatively few defense attorneys serve on the criminal side?
-It's harder to win. -Prosecutors are the most powerful court official -Perceived as low status by the lawyer profession -even a plea deal is still considered a loss -Even if the lawyer gets the guy guy off it is still perceived as bad because the guy was accused of a bad crime
What is the relationship/balance between prosecutor's office as a political position/ partisanship and power and the administration of justice?
-Prosecutor is the most powerful official in a criminal court -Much of their power comes from the fact that their activities are not monitored by the states attorney general -How the prosecutor chooses to exercise his discretion largely determines which defendants are prosecuted, the types of plea bargains that are stuck, and the severity of the sentence imposed of the guilty. -They are elected officials -A prosecutors office is useful as a launching pad for a political career, or to gain public visibility for a private law practice.
What are the sources of prosecutorial discretion?
-Prosecutors can decide whether to try or bargain a case -The power to file criminal charges
What are the limits on prosecutorial discretion?
-Prosecutors cannot lie to a judge -They also can't withhold evidence which might exonerate a defendant -Higher up in the justice system a case goes, the less discretion a prosecutor has -A lack of evidence/resources, witness credibility can limit prosecutors to higher priority cases.
What are the three distinct exclusionary rules? Examples of cases from each?-
-Rejection of Confections obtained by coercion -Rejection of evidence from unreasonable searches and seizures -Pretrial motions to reject ilegally obtained evidence Harris V New York When harris lied in a confession where he wasn't read his miranda rights, the prosecution tried to say that since he lied he was untrustworthy and therefore guilty. The prosecution questioned the fact that he lied, not the actual content of Harris' confession. The court ruled that the prosecution COULD use the fact that he lied in their case because the miranda warnings protected people right to remain silent and to counsel, not from lying.
What is the master wheel? The Venire? The Voire Dire? The Petit Jury?
-The master wheel is a random sample of people which represents the community where the lawsuit arose. The master wheel is to prevent bias -The venire is when people of the master wheel are selected to determine if they are eligible for jury duty. If someone has been convicted of a felony, cannot understand english, is not a us citizen, or fail to meet the local residency requirement. Various occupational groups such as doctors, lawyers, or ministers can be excused from jury duty. -The final step is Voire Dire, which where potential jurors are examined to determine if they could judge fairly or impartially. If someone has a deep seated bias, they might be excused from jury duty
What are the Miranda Warnings?
-You have the right to remain silent -Anything you say may be used against you -You have the right to have a lawyer present -You have the right to court-appointed counsel if you are indigent
What are the different types of civil lawyers?
-private attorneys -corporate in house attorneys -legal aid lawyer: provide legal representation to the poor in civil matters --> Moral obligation -Cause Lawyers--> Public interest law
Cases to know the facts and the relevance: Weeks v. United States (1913); Miranda v. Arizona (1966); Dickerson v. US (2000); Mapp v. Ohio (1961); Nix v. Williams (1984); Arizona v. Hicks (1987); Horton v. CA (1990); Whren v. US (1996); NY v. Belton (1981); Arizona v. Gant (2009); Terry v. Ohio (1968); Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993); US v. Raymond (1998); Creighton v. Anderson (1997); Riley v. CA; US v. Wurie. Can you provide two examples of how the exclusionary rule has developed from Mapp v. Ohio through one or two of the cases that have followed after Mapp?
1) Weeks vs USA This was the first application of the exclusionary rule. Cops searched Weeks' home and found incriminating evidence without a search warrant. Unsuprisingly, the court ruled that the cops had directly violated Weeks' fourth amendment rights. 2) Miranda Vs Arizona: When Miranda confessed without being read his rights, the supreme court ruled that cops had to read people their rights. Miranda walked free, but he was tried one year later and found guilty. 3) Dickerson vs USA: When Dickerson was arrested for giving a voluntary confession without being read his Miranda Warnings, the supreme court had to decide if they would overturn Miranda. The Supreme court decided that even though Dickerson's confession during interogation was voluntary and uncoerced, the police had still violated his miranda rights. 4) Mapp V Ohio: Policemen went into Mapp's house without a warrant and found "obscene materials." Were these materials protected by the first amendment? The case never got that far because the supreme court ruled that evidence obtained through violations of the fourth amendment is inadmisible in state court 5) Nix V williams: When a guilty williams helped the cops find a body that he murdered and the cops did not read him his rights until after he was arrested, the court still found williams guilty (without being read his rights) because the cops would have found the body anyway. 6) Arizona V Hicks: When the cops searched Hicks' apartment without a warrant after hearing about gun related injury, they found stolen stereo equipment. The supreme court ruled that since the officer only suspected that the equipment was stolen and they didn't have a warrant, then they could not use the stereo equipment as evidence. 7) Horton v CA: This one actually has a search warrant. Cops suspected Horton of being involved in a robbery, so they obtained a warrant to search his home, but just for stolen goods. The cops found guns (but no stolen goods) and the question was raised, can the cops use the guns as evidence since they are in plain sight? The court decided that since the guns were in plain view and could be connected with the crime, the officers could legally seize the weapons as part of the search 8) Whren vs USA. The cops stopped Whren for a traffic violation and arrested him for cocaine (which he had). The supreme court ruled that the police did NOT violate the 4th amendment because, regardless of personal motivations, they had the right to stop and search the car because of the traffic violation 9) NY vs Belton: Takeaway: Car searches are more lenient than house searches. A cop stopped people for speeding and smelled drugs so he searched the car without a warrant and found drugs. The supreme court ruled that officers can always search a car after lawfully arresting it's occupants 10) Arizona v Gant A cop pulled Gant over for driving with a suspended license. After securing Gant and the scene, the officer proceeded to search Gants car where he found cocaine and guns. The supreme court ruled that, even though there were drugs and guns, the cop did violate the 4th amendment because he had already secured the scene and there was no immediate threat. 11) Terry V Ohio In Terry V Ohio, the court had to decide if a cop had violated Terry's fourth amendment rights by frisking him without a warrant. The cops had reasonable suspicion because terry was pacing back and forth in front of the same store over 20 times. The cops thought Terry was about to rob a store. Since the officers pat down was limited scope, the officer had reasonable suspicion, and Terry did present a threat, the court ruled that the officer did not violate Terry's 4th amendment rights. 12) US Vs Raymond A state trooper busted Raymond for speeding. He obtained consent to search Raymonds vehicle, but proceeded to pat down Raymond without consent. The officer found crack on Raymond's person. When Raymond argued in court that the officer violated the 4th amendment by patting him down without consent, the court ruled in favor of the officer and said that the officer had reasonable and arguable suspicion that Raymond was involved in criminal activity 13) Minnesota vs Dickerson When Dickerson walked away from cops in a area with a history of drug trafficking, the cops frisked him. The cop felt a lump on Dickerson's jacket and, upon further investigation, found a lump of cocaine. The supreme court ruled that plain feel DID = plain sight, but that the cop had overstepped the boundaries of Terry v Ohio because he exceeded what was neccesary to find weapons. 14) Creighton v Anderson: This case talks about the 4th amendment. Cop Russel anderson searched Creigtons home without a warrant and seriously pissed creighton off. Creighton filed a suit against Anderson. Even though I disagree with this decision, Anderson won because the court ruled that the cop thought that what he was doing was legal (honest mistake) 15) Arizona vs Raymond: A state trooper busted Raymond for speeding. He obtained consent to search Raymonds vehicle, but proceeded to pat down Raymond without consent. The officer found crack on Raymond's person. When Raymond argued in court that the officer violated the 4th amendment by patting him down without consent, the court ruled in favor of the officer and said that the officer had reasonable and arguable suspicion that Raymond was involved in criminal activity 16) Riley v California: When performing a mandatory search of Riley's vehicle, a cop found guns. The cop proceeded to search Rileys cell phone without a warrant and found evidence of gang activities. The supreme court ruled that the cop HAD violated the fourth amendment because the cell phone search, while maybe reasonable, was not needed to protect the officers safety as the cell phone did not pose a threat to the officer 17) US vs Wurie Can cops search arrested peoples phones without a warrant? No The cops arrested wurie and used his phone to find his house where they found a ton of drugs and guns. The supreme court decided that even though the cops founds drugs and guns, they could NOT search cell phones without a search warrant.
What is the justification of the exclusionary rule from the Supreme Court's perspective?
1) The courts should not condone illegal behavior by police 2) Throwing out evidence would deter law enforcement officers from illegal behavior 3) Other alternatives have not worked very well -Example: Civil suits against officers have not worked because even when the plaintiff wins money, it comes out of taxpayer money
What are the different roles of a district attorney?
1. To participate in grand juries 2. To draw up all indictments and to prosecute all indictable offenses. 3. To prosecute and defend any civil action in the circuit court in the prosecution or defense of which the state is interested. 4. To inquire whether registers have kept accurate required record books. 5. If a criminal case is removed from a circuit, to follow it where it goes. If the district attorney cannot follow and participate in the case, he should appoint someone to do so. 6. To attend circuit court trials 7. To perform other duties and exercise other powers as are or may be required by law.
What is the Terry Pat Down? What case does it come from?
A terry pat down is a protective, limited scope frisking when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that somebody poses a threat or may break the law. It is for weapons In Terry V Ohio, the court had to decide if a cop had violated Terry's fourth amendment rights by frisking him without a warrant. The cops had reasonable suspicion because terry was pacing back and forth in front of the same store over 20 times. The cops thought Terry was about to rob a store. Since the officers pat down was limited scope, the officer had reasonable suspicion, and Terry did present a threat, the court ruled that the officer did not violate Terry's 4th amendment rights.
What are the sources of police discretion?
ASK PROFESSOR EDWARDS Sources of discretion include: -Supreme court rulings MORE SOURCES
Terry vs. Ohio
Allowed the police to stop and search a suspect if he has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. The court ruled that it was ok for an officer to search somebody (Terry) without consent or a warrant since the searches were limited in scope, had reasonable suspicion, and were to protect the officers safety. In this case Terry had a gun.
What are the different types of indigent services? Be able to define them. How are they different? What are the pros and cons of each type?
Assigned counsel: -Basically lawyers doing charity cases Pro's -Might be more motivated -At least somebody is getting a lawyer Cons -Might be less motivated because they want to focus on bigger cases -Paid less -Less resources, working on their own -Often younger or inexperienced lawyers take assigned counsel cases to gain experience -more incentive to plea bargain Then there is Public defender Basically a lawyer who's job is to do indigent cases Pros: -Dedicated lawyers and organization who can have a stronger impact and work long term -Paid better than assigned counsel lawyers -more resources Cons: -Still make less than private counsel lawyers
What was the case of Batson v. Kentucky (1986) about? What is the significance of this case? What is a Batson Hearing?
Baston was tried for robbery. The prosecution used their four peremptory challenges to remove all of the African American jurors. Baston challenged and said that this violated his 6th amendment (impartial jury) and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. He won. This case if significant because it adds accountability to prosecution and prevents potential jurors from being discriminated against based on gender, race, etc. A baston hearing is simply a challenge of the validity of a peremptory challenge
MN vs. Dickerson (1993)
Cops were patrolling an area with a known history of cocaine trafficking. When Dickerson walked away from police upon eye contact, the cops stopped and frisked him. They felt a lump in Dickerson's jacket and believed it was cocaine. He confirmed that it was cocaine, without a warrant. The courts ruled that since the cop felt the cocaine, it counted as much as plain view and he did not need a warrant. The court also ruled that Dickerson did not break the first amendment. Plain Feel=Plain Sight This case went from the state supreme court, to the district court, to the supreme court, which is three levels. Thats crazy!
What are current issues in the digital age? How is it an example of gaps in the law? What are some current cases that speak to this?
Current issues in the digital age -How much of a digital device can a law enforcement officer look into? -What is the line for privacy on our digital devices
What is discretion? And how does it manifest itself in policing? What is curbside justice and how is it relevant to discretion?-
Discretion is the idea that police power is largely exercised by individual officers in unique circumstances. Often times officers have to make split second decisions. Additionally officers are equipped with the weapons and technology to prove them with a broad range of actions they could take. Curbside justice happens when the officer must decide how to use his many resources in a quick and timely manner as a case unfolds in real time. Officers generally have more discretion in curbside justice situations due to their unpredictable nature.
What are some of the important cases we've discussed regarding the development of precedent on juries? In particular what happened in Duncan v. Louisiana and Baldwin v. New York?
Duncan vs Louisiana So this (African American) guy Duncan slapped a white youth on a the elbow. He had a criminal trial with no Jury and was given 60 days in prison. The supreme court ruled that Americans had the right to juries in criminal cases Baldwin vs New York Baldwin was given a criminal trial in New York City with no jury. Even though he requested a jury, the New York City Criminal act, all New York city trials are without a jury. The Supreme Court eventually overturned this ruling and said that according to the 6th amendment all criminal trials has the right to a jury.
What does the data say regarding the public interaction with police and the use of force?
ELLABORATE The data shows that higher public interaction results in less force. The public felt safer and and more willing to bring issues to police officers. There was more trust
There are three types of judicial selection in the states: What are they? Explain how they work and the pros and cons?
Election Pros: Democratic, More Judicial accountability Cons: Less judicial independence Merit Selection: Judges selected by a legislative commitee such as a bar association. Pros: Quality work is needed to get appointed and retain their job title Cons: Can still be political within the bar association, some people think the public doesn't have enough say in merit selection Appointment: A governor or a legislator appoints a judge Pros: Greater Judicial independence, unknowlegdeble voters aren't picking Cons: Governors can pick people without much experience
What is excessive force? How do you define it? What does it include? What precedent exists?
Excessive force is using more force than is needed to protect the officers, citizens and to stop the crime
What has been the impact of the exclusionary rule on police behavior? What are the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule? Should we keep it or abolish it or modify it? Why or why not?
Exclusionary rule: Basically courts have to throw out evidence that was obtained unlawfully It has not had the dramatic effect of completely stopping illegal searches and seizures. Pros SUPPOSED to prevent cops from searching people randomly and without a warrant Can prevent cops from coercing a confession from somebody -It has been shown to actually cause a decrease in illegal searches Cons: Cops don't always obey it Some people think the exclusionary rule doesn't work Right now, the courts have reached a decent compromise. The exclusionary rule still makes it hard for police to quickly search people, but the court have started making more exceptions to the rule, including "good faith" and "honest mistake" exceptions.
exculpatory evidence vs inculpatory evidence
Exculpatory: evidence that suggests the defendant's innocence Inculpatory: Evidence that proves guilt
Be able to discuss Ferguson, Baltimore and North Charleston cases. What were facts of the cases. Be able to answer question in number 20.
Ferguson Baltimore Freddie Gray was arrested for carrying a switch blade. Dang if you can get arrested for that then lock me up too. Anyway, after Gray arrived at the police station, the found he had fell into a coma due to injuries sustained during the car ride. Gray eventually died in the hospital. Tensions rose, and words were exchanged between police and the community, and eventually riots, looting, and fires broke out in Baltimore. Since the riots and violence in Baltimore in 2015, the BPD made stricter hiring standards for recruits, added community engagement programs, fired the police commissioner, rolled out body cams for these officers Charleston
What happens in the Buried Bodies article? What is the case about? Why does it reflect on the issue of substantive versus procedural justice? What would you have done if you were Garrow?
Garrow killed some people. Garrow's lawyers all but confirmed that Garrow killed these people but because confidentiality agreement they didn't say anything. The lawyers (Armani and Belge became increasingly conflicted as they found more incriminating evidence against Garrow. Armani eventually destroyed the incriminating evidence. During the Court trial, Garrow recounted a truly shocking life story to try to support his insanity case. He lost When the lawyers admitted that they had kept quiet about Garrow's crimes for so long, the public was outraged, even though the lawyers were actually commended by some of their colleagues for following their duties and they did not recieve any punishment. Garrow was sentenced to prison, but eventually escaped, this time, Armani used his confidential knowledge of Garrow (even though Garrow still had confidentiality rights post-representation) to help the police find Garrow. The cops found Garrow and gunned him down when Garrow tried to shoot one of the officers. Subtanstive justice may not have been served because the lawyers knew the guy was guilty and the victims families suffered because of not knowing what happened to their family members Procedurall justice was served because the lawyers represented their client and protected his confidentiality If I was garrow I would have moved to europe.
What is the development of precedent and the 6th amendment as discussed in class? What cases did we discuss? What happened in these cases and what precedent did they establish?
Gideon v Wainwright (1963) -Selectively incorporated the right to an attorney in all felony matters -over turned Betts v. Brady (1942) Escobo v Illinois -Right to an attorney was extended back in time so that it attached to the interrogation stage Argersinger v Hamlin -Right to counsel applies any time there is a possibility of imprisonment Alabama vs Shelton (2002) These cases required the state to supply lawyers to those who could not afford them. SUMMARIZE
What was the case of Holland v. Illinois about? What is the significance of this case? What precedent did it establish?
Holland vs Illinois share some similarities with Batson. I someways, it is like the underbelly of Batson. Holland was sentenced to a criminal trial. He issued a 6th amendment Batson challenge that the prosecutors had discriminated against African Americans for the jury selection. The courts ruled the opposite of Batson for two reasons: 1. Since they couldn't prove that the prosecutors discriminated, the court decided the claim was without merit. the petit jury was only 6 people, and there were only 2 African Americans in the jury pool to begin with, so it was hard to prove that the prosecution discriminated against African Americans. 2. Prosecutors are not forced to include people of a certain race in the jury. This would just be another form of racial discrimination and would lead to an unfair jury.
What is Hot Spot Policing?
Hot spot policing is focusing efforts and officers on geographical areas with higher crime
What doesn't the Constitution say about juries?
It doesn't say anything about the jury size or unaminities, or peers, or representation
What is the significance/relevance of independence versus accountability in the judicial selection process?
It is an issue where each side feels very strongly and both sides have good reasons. People believe judges should be independent of having to be elected to keep their job so they can make neutral decisions and they don't have follow the current regime. Conversely Americans also believe that judges should be held accountable for their actions by being elected (or voted down from office). The current American system meets somewhere in the middle of these two sides. Judges are selected by -Appointment -Election -Merit Selection Judges also enjoy a much longer job tenure than other government officials. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.
What does Judge Learned Hand mean when he says "a society of laws must be measured by how it treats its worst examples, not its best."?
It means that if a principle (such as confidentiality) applied only those who have good standing in society, then it wouldn't be fair. How a society treats the worst criminals determines how fair it is. It also means that all citizens have the right to confidentiality with a lawyer. The article argued that if deny rights to a frank Garrow, then what will happen someone else comes along when the facts are a little less clear? This article asks if we really want the public to decide who is guilty or not.
What do they mean by Vanishing Trials? What is the impact of the vanishing trial?
It means that less and less cases are going to trial. Some consequenses could be that americans are having less say to publicly express their legal voice in the public forum of the court. This also puts more power into lawyers hands, because lawyers would rather settle cases on their own terms than with an unknown jury.
How does the Buried Bodies article raise the question about where the boundaries are to the loyalty owed to a client (attorney client privilege)?
It questions where we should draw the line about when lawyers are aloud to keep silent. In the case of the buried bodies case, the lawyers knew Garrow was a killer but they chose to keep silent because of their loyalty to Garrow. The articles argues that by protecting people like Garrow's rights, the lawyers protected future convicted american's who's cases facts may have been more nebulous.
What does the traditional or watchman style of policing refer to?
It refers to an informal, reaction based policing style which focuses on maintaining order through informal methods
Where do judges have discretion? What are the limits on discretion? The Kozinski article provides some insight here.
Judges have discretion in a few areas: -Could dismiss the case -Plea Barganing -They can make findings of fact -Interpret the language of the constitution -Determine whether officials in executive branches overreach their power -Fashioning remedies for violations of the law Judges also have significant constraints 1. Internal constraints: Self respect 2. Collegues: Judges need to pursuade those they work with that their decisions are legally sound 3. The political process: Voters, the executive branch, and the legislative branch influence in appointing justices 4. Judges need to respect precedent 5. Could be overturned on appeal Self indulgence is an occupational hazard for a justice
For review...what is judicial review? What is the significance of Marbury v. Madison?
Judicial Review is the ability of the court to rule laws unconstitutional. Marbury vs Madison: When Adams and Jefferson changed presidency, Jefferson tried to deny all of the supreme court justice nominations that John Adams made right before he left office. One of the nominees, Marbury took the issue to the Court He asked the court to make Jeffersons Secretary of State (Madison) explain why the Jefferson administration denied the nominations. This raised three questions: 1. Did Marbury have any right to ask? 2. Did the court have any right to grant his request? 3. Did the court have any right to enforce there decision? Answer: The courts could not grant Marbury's request. Explanation: Though according to the Section 12 of the Judiciary act of 1789 Marbury DID have the right to ask for information and try to get the supreme court job, the Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the section 13 the JA of 1789 was unconstitutional because it went against article 3 of the constitution, which stated that the Supreme court only had original jurisdiction in matters of which the state was a party, international things, and ambassadors. By not over reaching his powers, Marshall actually gave the supreme court MORE legitimacy. He gave a very good opinion. He finessed the crap out of this situation.
What do attorneys do? What functions do they serve?
Lawyers counsel clients about legal options and represent them in criminal or civil court proceedings.
Nix v. Williams (1984)
Legal decision in which the Supreme Court created the "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule, which states that unlawfully obtained evidence CAN be used if it would have been found eventually through lawful means Summary: Question should unlawfully obtained evidence be excluded if it would have been found lawfully eventually? Answer: No, it should be included Williams murdered a 10 year old girl. Basically, the police talked Williams into helping them find a dead body, but they did not give him a trial or read him his rights until after he showed them the body and he was arrested.
Ferguson
Long story short: Police officer Darren Wilson Shot 18 year old Michael Brown 9 times for stealing some cigarillos. There was a controversial interaction between the police officer and Brown with conflicting accounts. Some say Brown acted aggresively, but others say there was no aggression. Either way, the police officer shot an unarmed brown 9 times and killed him for stealing some cigarettes. The events prompted an overhaul of the Ferguson police department.
What are the functions do judges serve? What are the different means of judicial selection for federal judges? For state judges?
Main functions judges serve: -"Umpire" -Learn old cases and precedents -Preside over trials and hearings -Make rulings, laws, and policies -Issue various warrants Means of selection for federal judges include: Article 3 judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the president Article 1 Judges are appointed by congress for 10 year terms For States: Judges can be selected through -Appointment -Merit Selection -Non Partisan and Partisan Elections
What happened in the Caperton v. A.T. Massy Coal Company case (2008)? Why is this case relevant?
Massey beat Caperton in a dispute, but Caperton had asked Justice Brent Benjamin to recuse himself since Massey had given him $3 million in campain donations. The case went up to the supreme court and the court decided that Benjamin did have to recuse himself because there could have been potential for bias.
Is there too much discretion? Is so, how do you limit it?
Officers have too much discretion because their potential to use force is greater than their job preparation. By using less guns and patrol cars, officers will take longer to reach the point of having to make those tough calls to use force.
What is PERF? What theory of policing does it resemble?
PERF is the Police Executive Research Forum. PERF helps to improve the delivery of police services through the exercise of strong national leadership; public debate of police and criminal justice issues; and research and policy development. It represents the opposite of Broken Windows because it values reducing the likelihood of violent enccounrters over preventing small infractions
What is the Problem Oriented Model of Policing (POP)?
POP is police led efforts to change the underlying conditions at hot spots that lead to reccuring crime problems. Problem oriented policing involves SARA: Scanning to look for problems in policing, Analyzing the problems, Responding with a solution, and Assessing the response. -POP systematically analyzes problems in the community -Searches for effective solutions -Evaluates the impact of their efforts
How are partisan politics, patronage and corruption all connected to the functioning and history of police?
Political machines used to hire their own police force in their own cities. Police could be corrupt and very biased. Police were not known to be efficient either. After years of reforms, policing is now controlled by independent, civil service beaurocracies. Corruption has greatly reduced. Today politics still affect police because they are under scrutiny from a civil rights perspective.
What are the pros and cons of discretion in policing?
Pros of Curbside Justice and Higher Police discretion Pros: -Enhanced public/police safety -Individualized justice -Efficiency Cons: -Unequal treatment -Corruption -Racial profiling -Harrasment
Anderson vs Creighton
Question Can a federal officer who participated in a search that violated the Fourth Amendment be held personally liable for monetary damages if a reasonable officer would have assumed that the search comported with the Fourth Amendment? Answer: No This is a fourth amendment issue. FBI agent Russel Anderson searched the Creightons home without a warrant because he thought they might be hiding a bank robber. The Creightons were pissed and filed a claim for monetary damages. They lost because the court said that the FBI agent Anderson reasonably believed he was following thew law. I disagree. I think the creightons should have won because an agent shouldn't search a families home without a warrant.
What was the Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment? What was the outcome of the study? What was its conclusion about the watchman style of policing?
Researchers wanted to see how patrol affected crime levels and and citizens feelings of security. They divided 15 "beats" (or patrol routes) into 3 sections of 5 beats. One set of 5 had minimal patrol that only showed up after a crime (reactive), One set had moderate patrol, and one set had intensified "proactive" beats where there was 2 to 3 times the normal police officers. The researchers measured: Citizen fear Satisfaction with police If the citizens would notice and the level of recorded crime Strangely enough, citizens didn't really notice the changes and there wasn't a noticed change in recorded crime. There was not a notable change in burgarlies, auto thefts, larsenys, ect. However, the study did find that other strategies such at hot spots policing and service goals would be more effective.
Cases relevant to use of force. What are the facts? What was the outcome and precedent set? : Tennessee v. Garner(1974); Graham v. Conner (1989); Scott v. Harris (2001); Armstrong v. Villages of Pinehurst
Scott Vs Harris: When Harris used deadly force to ram his car into Harris' vehicle in a high speed car chase, rendering harris a quadriplegic, harris said that Scott (the cop) used unreasonable force and had excessive seizure. The court ruled that since... -Harris initiated the chase -Video footage showed that Harris was driving in a way that proposed an imminent threat to innocent bystanders The cop was allowed to use deadly force to stop Harris Garner v Graham: The cops questioned and injured Graham during a diabetic reaction. The court ruled that the officer acted reasonably. Tennessee vs Garner: A cop shot a teenager running away when the cop said he would only shot a warning shot. The cop said his warning shot missed The Tennessee law authorized the use of ALL force to stop an escape Armstrong V Villages of Pinehurst The cops tazed a mentally ill arstrong who was surrounded by five policemen and hospital workers andhowed no signs of danger. Armstrong was found to be right and this case led to the court ruling that police could only use tasers if tyhe victim presented an immediate threat.
What is selective incorporation? How is it related to the 14th amendment? Why is selective incorporation relevant to the exclusionary rule?
Selective Incorporation is adapting the law to modern times but keeping the bill of rights.
What is the difference between solo practitioners versus a law firm?
Solo pracitioners -Handle "unsavory" cases of divorce, criminal law, immigration, personal injury, etc -Must take a large case load because each case has low pay -Appear in court more but have less prestige Law Firm -More for corporations -Can have over 3,000 clients -They lobby for policies which benefit their clients -"Finders, minders, and grinders" -Handle basically legal everything. Handle uncertainty -Clientele consists of corporate elite -Higher prestige
Which amendments talks about juries? What does they say? What is the voir dire process? What are the methods of challenging jurors in the selection process? What was the case of Holland v. Illinois about? What is the significance of this case? What precedent did it establish?
The 6th and 7th Amendments talk about juries. the 6th amendment says that accused people have the right to a speedy trial, a fair jury, and a lawyer if they want one. The 7th amendment says that people have thew right to juries in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning juries findings of fact.
What did Wilson and Kelling propose as an alternative to the watchman style of policing?
The Broken Windows Theory Wilson and Kelling proposed that preventing minor infractions such as broken windows, spray paint on walls, and people sleeping under benches would help people feel safer and thus prevent larger infractions. Additionally, they proposed and almost "Andy Griffith" style of policing which emphasized foot patrol. The authors cited that when officers went on foot patrol, citizens trusted cops more and believed that cops were more involved. These results held up even when the cop and the citizens were different races.
What happened in the Republican Party v. White (2001)? Why is it significant?
The Minnesota Announcement Clause: Minnesota State judicial candidates cannot say their opinions on political issues when running for office. Candidate Gregory Warsal filed suit against the Announcement clause and said that it violated his 1st ammendment rights. The case went up to the supreme court and his case won. Significance: The state judicial system cannot limit what candidates say on controversial political issues when running for office
What is the plain view doctrine? What are the three elements required for the plain view doctrine? Which case set this as precedent?
The Plain view doctrine allows officers to seize things without a warrant if they are found in plain view during a lawful observation 3 Requirements for plain view: -Must be in plain view -Officer must have legal right to be where he is when he sees the contraband -The incriminating character of the contraband must be readily apparent to the officer Case: IDK!!!!
What is reasonable use of force?
The least amount of force an officer needs to keep people safe
What are the Peelian Principals
The main idea is to: -Prevent Crime -Policemen are part of the community -Use force as a last resort
What are the 4 levels of prosecutors in the US?
The national level (The U.S department of justice) The State Level (state attorney's) the county level (sometimes called a district or state's attorney)--> most powerful because they are involved in all aspects of the case, have little supervision, and are largely out of the public view. They have high discretion. the local/city level (sometimes called solicitors)
What is the plain feel doctrine? What case established this as precedent?
The plain view doctrine permits use of contraband as evidence if it is detected by the officers sense of touch. According to the plain view doctrine, plain feel = plain view MN vs Dickerson established this precedent When cops saw dickerson turn away from cops in an area known for cocaine trafficking, the officer patted dickerson down and felt a lump. The officer reached into dickersons pocket and confirmed that the lump was cocaine. However the court decided that the officer stepped out of the boundaries of Terry V Ohio because he was not preforming a pat down. The officer knew Dickerson did not have a gun and was looking for drugs
Mapp vs. Ohio
The police illegally searched Dollree Mapp's home in search of a fugitive, but found "obscene" media in her house. Q: Were obscene materials found in Mapp's home protected by the first a=mendment? The supreme court brushed this question aside because they said all searches and seizures in violation of the fourth amendment are inadmissible in state court.
What is the prosecutors or prosecutorial dilemma? How is it explained by Davis in he article and he Duke lacrosse case?
The prosecutors dilemma is that on hand, prosecutors are supposed to fight for justice not convictions. On the other hand, prosecutors are supposed to advocate for a particular point of view and interpret facts in favor of their case. They want to win but they are supposed to make sure that justice is done Duke Lacrosse Case Nifong Prosecuted two duke lacrosse players for raping an african american stripper. Nifong wanted to win a DA election. Since most of his constituents were black and most of the Duke lacrosse team was white, Nifong really wanted to win this case to look good for his african american voters. Even though DNA evidence showed that the Lax bros were innocent, Nifong hid that evidence and continued with the prosecution. As media coverage increased, Nifong eventually dropped the charges and was disbarred.
What is the public perception of judges?
The public perceives that they are a computer that hears all the facts of a case and comes up with a verdict, similar to how to a computer crunches numbers.
What are the qualifications to be a juror or what could limit a person's eligibility to be a juror?
The qualifications to be a juror are -Be a us citizens -meet local residency requirements -Not have been convicted of a felony -Understand english Their occupation, such as being a lawyer, doctor, minister could result in them being excused. If people would endure hardship from jury duty, then they might be excused
What is the theory of Broken Windows? How is it related to zero tolerance policing and Mayor Guiliani? What are some alternative explanations?
The theory of broken windows states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes.
Are jury trials required for federal civil cases? For state civil cases?
They are not required for either, but are allowed for both
What did Weisburd and Eck and Walker propose as the best model of policing and why?
They proposed that problem oriented policing is the best model Problem oriented policing involves analyzing problems in a community, developing solutions, then evaluating the effectiveness of those solutions The authors believe that POP will reduce crime, disorder, and fear. The authors also believe that community policing can be effective when used to supplement Problem oriented policing
What are the functions of a jury?
To interpret the facts of the case and to deliver a verdict -To protect citizens against the government
What is the history of policing in the US? Why look at the history?
US Policing History: -Was Reactionary instead of pre-emptive -monetary incentive in certain areas, so corruption was common Divided into 4 Parts: -Sheriff: "Jack of all trades" who ran elections, collected taxes, maintained infrastructure, and law enforcement -Constable, who enforced the law and maintained order -Watch: These guys reacted to fire, crime, or disorder. Watches started out as night watches and all males were expected to serve -Slave Patrol: These guys guarded against slave revolts and runaway slaves Looking at Police History: -Helps understand how current policing policies and functions evolved -Highlight changes that have occurred -put current problems into perspective -help us understand which reforms have worked -help us understand the unintended consequences of some reforms
What is an adversarial system? Why relevant to attorneys?
Under an adversarial system, the parties to a case develop and present their arguments, gather and submit evidence, call and question witnesses, and, generally control the information presented according to the law and legal process. The adversary system pits prosecutors against defense attorneys. It is the responsibility of the opposing parties, not the judge or the jury, to define the legal issues in the case and present the evidence supporting their positions. (Neubauer)
What about insurance lawyers or so called "ambulance chasers"? Take a look at the article Zitrin and Langford and ask how and where insurance lawyers fit in the different types of civil lawyers we have just discussed?
What about them? -Insurance companies usually consider ambulance chasers the "bane of their existence" -In contrast, Insurance companies like injury mills, which settle a large number of cases with insurance companies for low amounts of money -Some of these lawyers have honest intentions, but some of these lawyers are sleazebags
What is community policing? What are the 4 major components of community policing?
the system of allocating police officers to particular areas so that they become familiar with the local inhabitants.
