Chapter 6: Police and Law

Automobile Searches

- A warrantless search can happen because cars of more mobile so they differ greatly from houses in that they can be driven away and never found again. - Police officers have significant authority to search automobiles and to issue commands to people riding in vehicles. For example, at a traffic stop, the police can force everyone in the car out of their car even if there is no basis for suspicion that the passengers engaged in any wrongdoing. -

The Concept of Arrest

- An arrest is a significant deprivation of liberty. - Because arrests involve a more significant intrusion on liberty, they require a higher level of justification than stops. - All arrests must be supported by probable cause.

"Good Faith" Exception

- Exception to the exclusionary rule that permits the use of improperly obtained evidence when police officers acted in honest reliance on a defective statute, a warrant improperly issued by a magistrate, or a consent to search by someone who lacked authority to give such permission. - Police thought they were following rules but the judge issued the warrant improperly. - However, evidence can still be excluded if officers undertake a warrantless search based on their own discretionary decision, even if they honestly (but wrongly) believe that such a search is permitted in such circumstances.

Search by Consent

- If people consent to a search, officers do not need probable cause or even any level of suspicion to justify the search. - Consent effectively absolves law enforcement officers of any risk that evidence will be excluded from use of the 4th amendment rights. - A consent search - Cops may say "Do you mind me searching your downstairs area?" Most people say yes to this even if they have stuff to hide because they do not understand that they can say no and they also think if they say no that would make it seem like they are hiding something. - United States v. Drayton

The Application of the Exclusionary Rule to the States

- In Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court incorporated the 4th Amendment. However, the justices declined to apply the exclusionary rule to the states because they believed states could develop their own remedies to handle improper searches by the police. - Mapp v. Ohio: finally the courts applied the exclusionary rule to the states.

Special Needs Beyond the Normal Purposes of Law Enforcement

- In certain contexts, law enforcement officials have a justified need to conduct warrantless searches of every individual passing through. - ex. The use of metal detectors to examine airline passengers. - The Supreme Court does not require officers to have any suspicious, reasonable, or otherwise about the illegal activities of any individual. - Warrantless searches take place at entry points in the United States through customs, border crossings, ports, and airports. - Sobriety checkpoints - The courts declared that a general search for criminal evidence does not justify the use of a checkpoint such stops must be narrowly focused on a specific objective, such as checking for drunken drivers.

The Consequences of Miranda

- Miranda rights must be provided before questioning are asked during custodial interrogation. However, police have adapted their techniques in various ways that enable them to question suspects without any impediment from the warnings. For example, cops may question someone on their front porch before they arrest them. Others may delay the miranda rights until a little later as it may not be required to do it right away. - Some people will take the initiative to talk to the police out of feelings of guilt or trying to prove to the police that they did not commit the crimes. - Officers are also trained in interrogation techniques that are intended to encourage suspects to talk despite Miranda warnings. They often even lie to get the answers out of the suspects. - Even after hearing their rights, some suspects still do not understand their rights. They still may talk. Some people, especially vulnerable people with developmental disabilities or little education will be pressured into making self-incriminating statements. This is once cause of erroneous convictions. However, the leading cause of erroneous convictions is misidentifications made by witnesses and victims.

Exigent Circumstances details

- Officers can make an arrest without a warrant when there are exigent circumstances. This means that officers are in the middle of an urgent situation in which they must act swiftly and do not have time to go to court to seek a warrant. - This can justify both not needing a warrant for an arrest or for a search of private residencies. - They can enter someones home without needing a warrant especially when rendering emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from immediate injury.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

- Only a small minority of defendants file a "motion to suppress," asking a judge to exclude evidence that has allegedly been obtained in violation of the defendants rights. - Only a very small faction of motions to suppress evidence are granted. - "Good Faith" Exception - "Inevitable Discovery" Rule

Stop and Frisk on the Streets

- Police officers possess the authority to make stops and limited searches of individuals on the streets when specific circumstances justify such actions. - Terry v. Ohio

Use of force and the fourth amendment

- The 8th Amendment about cruel and unusual punishments only has to do with those who have been convicted of crimes. - The 4th Amendment or the due process of the 14th Amendment can be used for unnecessary force used.

Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest

- The authority to undertake a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is not limited by the type of crime for which the arrestee has been taken into custody. - Even someone pulled over for a traffic offense can searched. - A search can lead to an arrest - The justification for searches of arrestees emerged in the Supreme Court's decision in Chimel v. California. - Searches are lawful when the officers need to be sure that the arrestee does not have a weapon that could endanger the officers or others. - Officers can also make a protective sweep through other rooms where the suspect may recently have been. However, the arrest would not justify opening drawers and conducting a sweep of the whole house. - In a traffic stop, officers have the opportunities to use arrests of drivers as a basis for controlling warrantless searches of automobiles.

Warrants and Probable Cause

-The 4th Amendment requires that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The important elements are: 1. The existence of probable cause 2. Evidence must be presented to the judicial officer and be supported by "oath or affirmation" which means typically mean the police officer must say "yes" when the judicial officer asks them if they swear or affirm that all information presented is true to the best of their knowledge. This requirement may be fulfilled by presenting an affidavit. 3. The warrant must describe the specific place to be searched. A general warrant is not aloud. 4. The warrant must describe the person or items to be seized.

What are the 6 types of warrantless searches?

1. Search justified by special needs beyond the normal purposes of law enforcement. 2. Stop and frisk on the streets. 3. Search incident to a lawful arrest. 4. Exigent circumstances 5. Search by consent 6. Automobile searches

What are the two key issues that need to be addressed before deciding if a permissible consent search has occurred?

1. The consent must be voluntary. Police officers may not use coercion or threats to obtain consent. Gaining consent by using certain tricks, such as dishonestly telling someone that there is a search warrant and thereby imply that the person has no other choice, will result in the search being declared improper. 2. The consent must be given by someone who possesses the authority to give consent. Someone cannot, consent to have their neighbors house searched. The police cannot search when one resident of the dwelling is present and objects, even if another resident consents to the search.

Why did the Supreme Court see the exclusionary rule as necessary? Several reasons emerged from Mapp and Weeks.

1. Weeks declared that the exclusionary rule is essential to make the 4th Amendment meaningful. 2. Mapp indicated that the exclusionary rule is required by the constitution. 3. The majority opinion in Mapp concluded that alternatives to the exclusionary rule do not work. 4. The Mapp opinion argued that the use of improperly obtained evidence by officials who are responsible for upholding the law serves only to diminish respect to the law. 5. The Mapp decision indicated that the absence of an exclusionary rule would diminish the protection of all rights because it would permit all constitutional rights "to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend the enjoyment of rights. 6. The exclusionary rule is justified in Mapp as an effective means of deterring police and persecutors from violating constitutional rights.

Two Key Factors Arise in Automobile Searches

1. When can officers stop a car? Searches arise from the result of a traffic stop. Once this stop happens, police are free to make a visible inspection of a cars interior by shining a flashlight inside and looking through the windows. They can also look at the cars identification number on the dashboard and inside the door of a validly stopped car. All sworn officers can make traffic stops, even if they are in unmarked cars and serving in special vice or detective bureaus that do not normally handle them. A traffic violation however by itself does not provide an officer with the authority to search an entire vehicle. Only specific factors creating reasonable suspicion or probable cause justify officers in doing anything more than looking inside the car. The courts have expanded officers authority to search automobiles even when no formal arrest has yet occurred. There must be reasonable suspicion to believe that the stopped person may be armed and may pose a threat to the officers. The court permits thorough searches of cars without regard to probable cause when police officers inventory the contents of impounded cars. This means that containers found within the course of the inventory search may also be opened and searched when the examination of such containers is consistent with a police departments inventory policies. 2. How extensively can they search the car?

In the Terry decision, the Court specifies the following criteria, all of which must be present, to define a legal stop and frisk:

1. Where a police officer observes unusual conduct 2. which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience 3. that criminal activity may be afoot and 4. that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous 5. where in the course of investigating this behavior 6. he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries 7. and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others safety 8. he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in at attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

Whren v. United States

All sworn officers can make traffic stops

United States v Robinson

Although there is no reason to suspect the person has a weapon or believe that evidence related to the offense will be found in the person's pocket, the arrestee is subject to the same arrest-scene search as someone taken into custody for murder.

Shift in the Courts

At first, the courts asked the question: "Did the police violate the suspect's rights?" Later, the courts shifted its focus to the question "Did the police make an error that was so serious that the exclusion of evidence is required?"

Riley v. California (2013)

Cannot search cell phones without warrants

Tennessee v. Garner

Deadly force may not be used against an unarmed and fleeing suspect unless necessary to prevent the escape and unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officers or others.

"Public Safety" Exception

Exception to Miranda requirements that permits police to immediately question a suspect in custody without providing any warnings, when public safety would be jeopardized by their taking the time to supply the warnings. ex. See holster > where's the gun?

Totality of Circumstances

Flexible test established by the Supreme Court for identifying whether probable cause exists that permits the judge to determine whether the available evidence is both sufficient and reliable enough to issue a warrant

Stop

Government officials' interference with an individual's freedom of movement for a duration that typically lasts less than one hour and only rarely extends for as long as several hours. An example would be a stop for a traffic violation. Stops only require reasonable suspicion.

United States v. Drayton

Judicial decision declaring that police officers are not required to inform people of their right to decline to be searched when police ask for consent to search.

Nix v. Williams

Legal decision in which the Supreme Court created the "Inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule.

Virgina v Moore

Officers have opportunities to use arrests of drivers as a basis for conducting warrantless searches of automobiles. However, the search of the passengers compartment must be limited to areas within reach of the arrestee.

Inventory Search

Permissible warrantless search of a vehicle that has been "impounded" - meaning that it is in police custody - so that police can make a record of the items contained in the vehicle.

Probable Cause

Reliable information indicating that evidence will likely be found in a specific location or that a specific person is likely to be guilty of a crime. It is a flexible concept that various judicial officers apply differently.

Seizures

Situations in which police officers use their authority to deprive people of their liberty or property and which must not be "unreasonable" according to the Fourth Amendment. Cant be any intrusion on a persons liberty and freedom of movement. If officers assert their authority to halt that individuals movement, then a seizure has occurred; and the fourth amendment requires that the seizure be reasonable. One form of seizure is an arrest.

United States v. Leon

Supreme Court decision announcing the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.

Weeks v. United States

Supreme Court decision applying the exclusionary rule as the remedy for improper searches by federal law enforcement officials.

Terry v. Ohio

Supreme Court decision endorsing police officers' authority to stop and frisk suspects on the streets when there is reasonable suspicion that they are armed and involved in criminal activity.

Wolf v. Colorado

Supreme Court decision in which the 4th Amendment was applied against searches by state and local police officers, but the exclusionary rule was not imposed as the remedy for violations of the 4th Amendment by these officials.

Mapp v. Ohio

Supreme Court decision that applied the exclusionary rule as the remedy for improper searches by state and local officials.

Chimel v. California

Supreme Court decision that endorsed warrantless searches for weapons and evidence in the immediate vicinity of people who are lawfully arrested.

"Inevitable Discovery" Rule

Supreme Court ruling that improperly obtained evidence can be used when it would later have been inevitably discovered by the police.

Flordia v. Jardines

Supreme court decision saying that bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of a house was a search. $

Components of Miranda Rights

Suspects must be told that 1. they have the right to remain silent; 2. if they decide to make a statement, it can and will be used against them in court 3. they have the right to consult with an attorney and have the attorney present during the interrogation and 4. if they cannot afford an attorney, the state will provide one.

Miranda OTHER

The Miranda warnings apply only to what are called custodial interrogations. If police just walk up to someone on the street and begin asking questions, there is no need to inform the person of her or his rights. They were created by the Supreme Court to combat law enforcement practices, including physical violence and psychological pressure that has been used in the past to make a criminal suspect confess.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The objective standard developed by courts for determining whether a government intrusion into an individual's person or property constitutes a search because it interferes with the individual's interests that are normally protected from government examination. ex. If you keep a private diary in your nightstand, the police cant just come in and take it.

Miranda v. Arizona

U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring that suspects in custody must be informed of their rights to remain silent and be represented during questioning.

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the flexible "totality of circumstances" test for determining the existence of the probable cause needed for obtaining a search warrant.

Affidavit

Written statement of fact, supported by oath or affirmation, submitted to judicial officers to fulfill the requirements of probable cause for obtaining a warrant.

consent search

a permissible warrantless search of a person, vehicle, home, or other location based on a person with proper authority or the reasonable appearance of proper authority voluntarily granting permission for the search to take place

Reasonable Suspicion

a police officer's belief, based on articulable facts, that would be recognized by others in a similar situation, that criminal activity is afoot and necessitates further investigation that will intrude on an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy.

Berghuis v Thompkins

a suspect being questioned cannot assert his right to remain silent simply by remaining silent in the face of continued questioning by an officer

Knowles v Iowa

a traffic violation by itself does not provide an officer with the authority to search an entire vehicle

When do miranda rights need to be read?

after arrest and before questioning

Illinois v. Lidster

approved checkpoints to ask drivers whether they had witnessed an accident.

Michigan State Police v. Sitz

approved systematic stops to look for drunken drivers along highways

Florence v Board of Chosen Freeholders

arrests even for minor offenses also lead those arrested to be subjected to intrusive

Bumper v. North Carolina

cannot fake a warrant to obtain consent no coercion or threats

Maryland v Wilson

during a traffic stop, officers can order passengers as well as the driver to exit the vehicle even if there is no basis for suspicion that the passengers engaged in any wrongdoing

Deleware v. Prouse

forbids random stops of vehicles by officers on patrol

search

government officials' examination of and hunt for evidence on a person or in a place in a manner that intrudes on reasonable expectations of privacy.

New York v Quarles

introduced public safety exception

Brigham City v. Stuart

law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.

Stop-and-frisk search

limited search approved by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio that permits police officers to pat down the clothing of people on the street if there is reasonable suspicion of dangerous criminal activity.

Escobedo v. Illinois

made the link between the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel; connected 5th and 6th Amendments

What is the leading cause of erroneous convictions?

misidentifications made by witnesses and victims

Kentucky v King

officers can legally kick in the door and enter the apartment based on exigent circumstances even though it turned out that it was not the apartment that their drug suspect had entered.

Plain View Doctrine

officers may examine and use as evidence, without a warrant, contraband or evidence that is in open view at a location where they are legally permitted to be. Ex. If you ask the police to come into your house to file a burglary and their are drugs just laying around in the plain view, they are allowed to take them. The owner has lost any reasonable expectation of privacy and the police do not need a search warrant.

Bailey v. United States (2013)

officers may not follow people they observe leaving a residence that police are about to search and then detain those individuals a mile away.

California v. Acevedo

officers may search throughout a vehicle when they believe they have probable cause to do so.

South Dakota v. Opperman

permits thorough searches of vehicles without regard to probable cause when police officers inventory the contents of impounded vehicles.

Adams v Williams

permitted officers to rely on reports from reliable witnesses as the basis for conducting stop and frisks

New York v. Class

police can look at the vehicles can look at the identification number on the dashboard and inside the door of a validly stopped vehicle.

Massiah v United States

questioning of the defendant by a police agent outside of the presence of the defense counsel violated the defendants rights. Unless a defendant has waved rights.

Maryland v King

required taking a DNA sample using a cheek swab from those arrested for serious felonies in order to check databases to see if they might be guilty of other unsolved violent crimes.

Arizona v Gant

search of automobile after an arrest when the handcuffed driver posed no danger to the officers and could not reach into the car to destroy evidence.

What does misidentification made from witness and victims stem from?

show ups, lack of clarification that the guilty individual is not necessarily present in the line up/photos, showing multiple suspects at the same time, line up being overseen by affiliate officer and line ups no being videotaped

Illinois v. Wardlow

someone running at the sight of police in a high-crime neighborhood, their observation can be one consideration in determining whether a stop-and-frisk search is justified.

Brown v. Mississippi

statements produced after suspects were beaten by police were inadmissible

Rodriguez v. United States

the Supreme Court ruled that officers violate the Fourth Amendment if they prolong a drivers stay at a traffic stop for the purpose of waiting for a drug sniffling to arrive at the scene. $

Wyoming v. Houghton

the arrest of a driver justifies the search of a passenger's property or other locations in the vehicle if there is a reason to believe that those locations could contain criminal evidence or weapons.

Georgia v Randolph

the police may not search when one resident of a dwelling is present and objects even if another resident consents to the search

Exclusionary Rule

the principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial, even if this means that a guilty person might go free because of a lack of enough evidence to gain conviction. The exclusionary rule both applies to the 4th Amendment of no inappropriate searches and seizures and to the 5th amendment if the police made violations to the Miranda rights and improperly questioned a suspect, such as a failure to inform arrested individuals or their Miranda rights. The exclusionary rule does not necessarily require that cases against defendants be dismissed when constitutional rights have been violated. The prosecution can continue but improperly obtained evidence may not be used.

Flordia v J.L.

unverified anonymous tip does not serve as an adequate reason for a stop and frisk search

Warden v Hayden

when officers are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspected felon, they need not stop to seek a warrant and thereby risk permitting the suspect to get away

United States v. Jones

when police officers attached a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on the outside of a suspected drug dealer's car in order to monitor his movements without a warrant, the Supreme Court decided that this action constituted a search and that the Fourth Amendment's protections applied to the situation

Exigent Circumstances

when there is an immediate threat to public safety or the risk that evidence will be destroyed, officers may search, arrest, or question suspects without obtaining a warrant or following other usual rules of criminal procedure.