SOC 330 Chapter 3
Fifth Amendment
(The Fifth Amendment imposes restrictions on the government's prosecution of persons accused of crimes. It prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy and mandates due process of law) ○ You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself § Based on the doctrine of fundamental fairness ○ Miranda v Arizona, 1966 and Miranda Warnings Broadened protections; suspects must be notified of specific rights before a confession in order to be admissible in court
Thurman v City or Torrington (1985)
- Cops watched man stab his wife 13 times rather than helping, she sued - Let police departments to taking a more legalistic approach to domestic abuse Also relates to negligence
} Groh v Ramirez, 2004
- The search warrant Groh had written did not specify what was to be seized - Ramirez argued that this violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures - Groh sought qualified immunity, reasoning that the omission in the wind was merely an negligent oversight - The court agreed with Ramirez, noting that the warrantless so deficient at a reasonable officer should've known it was invalid - The agents behavior violated a federally protected right and that this rape was clearly established at the time w No qualified immunity from civil liability was warranted
terry v ohio
1986 Terry was observed by a second police officer engaging in suspicious behavior in front of a store in downtown Cleveland with others. The officer thought they were casing for robbery. He patted them down and discovered a weapon he deemed a concealed weapon. Since stop and frisks represent a limited intrusion on the citizen's liberty, these practices are permissible even if the officer does not have probable cause to believe a crime is about to be committed.
Illinois v wardlow
2000 ® Unprovoked flight from the police provides an officer with ample reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain that suspect. Further, this behavior, coupled with the fact that the encounter took place in a high-crime area, produced legal justification to stop and detain the citizen, Suspicion may be formed by taking both behavior and location into consideration
arizona v johnson
2008 Lemon Johnson was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for traffic violations; the officer questioned the passengers for gang involvement, asked them to get out and patted them down; found a gun and drugs Court ruled this was allowed against the argument that the police didn't stop him, they were already talking to him under a stop for different reasons.
which amendments are most important to policing?
4 5 6
rules for arrest fall under the ___ amendment
4th amendment because arrest is considered seizure of a person
Good faith exception
Act in good faith requesting a warrant, but find out they really didn't have probable cause but they thought they were solid; evidence is feasible.
stop and frisks
An officer may stop a person, depriving him of freedom of movement, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person was/is involved in a crime. The officer may frisk the person is there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the citizen is armed and poses a threat to the officer for the duration of the stop.
4 Types of Law
Criminal Law Civil law (torts - violations of civil law) Substantive law ○ Written laws Procedural law ○ Case law
Criminal Procedure
Criminal procedure is the process by which a person accused of a crime is processed through the criminal justice system. --It also consists of rules that the government must abide by to ensure that certain rights enjoyed by the public are not violated and ensures fairness in the processing of people accused of crimes. --Criminal procedure is also related to the adjudication process; fair trial, right to retain counsel and various pretrial procedures
inevitable discovery exception
If you can prove you would have eventually found it anyway, evidence is feasible.
arrests
Involve a seizure of the citizen by the police that are characterized as lengthy and highly intrusive; intent is criminal prosecution; probably cause is required to make an arrest
case law relating to inevitable discovery
Nix V Williams, 1984, inevitable discovery, tricked into telling where dead body is
(Maryland v Buie, 1990)
Officers can also perform a limited protective sweep of a home to determine whether there are others who could pose a safety risk for officers (similar to frisks)
Payton v NY
Officers do need warrants in private property settings
Edwards v. Arizona, 1981
Significant lapse in time between interrogations could create a situation where a waiver during the subsequent interrogation was considered voluntary.
Maryland v. Shatzer, 2010
The court held that a break of more than two weeks created a presumption of voluntariness in the second interrogation
consensual encounters
These involve voluntary interactions between the police and the public, and the questioning by the officer is typically non coercive. There is no legal justification needed in these encounters, and because the encounter is consensual, the citizen is free to terminate the encounter at any time. Thus, there is no seizure under the meaning of the 4th Amendment.
Case law relating to good faith exception
United States v Leon (1984), wrong information used to create probable cause, good faith Mass v Sheppard, good faith exception, 1984, wrong form of information Arizona v Evans, 1995, good faith, computer error
case law relating to exclusionary rule
Weeks v US (1914), originally, but it was not until the decision in Mapp V Ohio in 61 that the court incorporated the rule to govern evidence collected by state and local police officers.
• Searches and Seizures of Property Preferred that officers have
a search warrant § (A written order, issued by a magistrate, directing a peace officer to search for property connected with a crime and bring it before the court § Eliminates the possibility of a general warrant
affidavit
a written oath; the officer describes exactly what is to be seized and exactly what is to be searched
written laws are a relatively new concept
about 500 years old
Community policing can also increase___ for the police
civil liability ◊ The number of contacts between the police and the public increases which leads to more opportunities for civil liability ◊ This also exposes police to areas that were not considered public matters ◊ This also shits discretion and policy creation to the lowest level of organization. Officers have more opportunity and responsibility for creating and implementing policies are custom on behalf of the organization under the color of law } Control and accountability of police officers will decrease and make direct supervision Morgan } An example is Compstat The NYPD has realize reductions in crime, and at least some of these benefits can be attributed to their aggressive zero-tolerance models police services
most extensive old law code?
code of Hammurabi ○ 2200 BC ○ Crimes and punishments ○ Eye for an eye ○ Also set out deadlines for how police should deal with regular citizens
§ Emerging liability issues for the 21st-century (moving forward)
community policing use of force the impact on officer/depolicing issues
w Officers may be free from civil liability if they can demonstrate their actions were
conducted in good-faith w The officer acted in accordance with agency rules and regulations w The officer acted pursuant to a state that was reasonably believed to be valid, but was later declared unconstitutional w The officer acted in accordance with orders for a superior that were reasonably believes to be valid w The officer acted in accordance with the advice from a legal counsel that was reasonably believes to be valid
○ In US v Seslar (1993), three different types of police-citizen encounters were identified:
consensual encounters investigative detentions arrests
____ will trump all else
constitutional law
Criminal Law as a political phenomenon
created to regulate behavior of fellow citizens
an arrest is an act of
depriving a person of his or her liberty by legal authority and is performed for the purposes of interrogation or criminal prosecution
The police are the primary government agent responsible for
enforcing criminal law, initiating the formal criminal justice system, and assisting in the prosecution of law violators
Excessive use of force
entails the application of physical force that is not in line with the level of resistance faced by the officer
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is the extension of the
exclusionary rule □ It indicates that not only evidence seized improperly must be excluded from criminal court, but also any additional evidence seized after that police action (such as improper interrogation) Wong Sun v. United States (1963)
Qualified immunity
extends to please officers performing duties that are discretionary in nature } More common than absolute } Saucier v. Katz, 2001 - Did the officers conduct violate a constitutional or federally protected right? - Was this right clearly establish at the time of the action? - If a court determined that the law was not clearly established or that the officers conduct was reasonable, the officer is to be afforded immunity from liability.
plain-view doctrine
falls beyond the warrant requirements. Police must have major justification for being present at the scene, the initial intrusion must be lawful, evidence seized must be in plain view and police may not take actions that expose to view concealed portions of the premises or its contents. The objects seized must be immediately apparent as evidence or contraband. ex: arizona v hicks 1987 (§ Example of the plain-view doctrine in action § Proved all criterion must be present Stereo-equipment example)
Congress ---> State legislatures ---> Municipalities --->
federal statutes state statutes ordinances
The Carroll doctrine provides
for warrantless searches of motor vehicles if the vehicle is, in fact, mobile and if there is probable cause. □ 1925 □ "Motor vehicle exception" □ The inherent mobility of a vehicle may permit destruction of evidence, allow the occupants to flee the jurisdiction, and make obtaining a warrant in this situation impractical for law enforcement. □ The scope of the search may extent to the entire car, including the trunk and closed containers, if there is probable cause to believe these locations contain evidence or contraband (US v Rodd, 1982).
Assault
involves the intentional causing an apprehension or harmful or offensive conduct, it is the attempt or threats accompanied by the apparent ability to inflict bodily harm another person
Battery
is harmful or offensive body contact between two people such as when an officer any force to an individual without justification Assault involves menacing conduct, where as battery must involve actual contact
Open Fields Doctrine
items in open fields are not protected by the 4th amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures so they can properly be taken by an officer without a warrant or probable cause § People who leave items in public view do not enjoy a right to privacy ○ Warrants are not required for property that is abandoned § This is why police can search the garbage § California v Greenwood, 1988
Chimel
police can search immediate area
what burden of proof is needed for an arrest?
probable cause
In contrast, arrests must be based on
probable cause § Probable cause "exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed (Brinegar V US. 1949). "More likely than not"
Stops and frisks must be based on the legal standard of
reasonable suspicion § That which is based on objective facts and logical conclusions that crime has been or is about to be committed, based on the circumstances at hand § Alabama V White (1990) acknowledged that reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause and may arise from information that itself has questionable reliability. --------------------It is less rigorous than other standards so the scope of officer behavior is necessarily limited to actions such as stopping a suspect or frisking a suspect
• Prior to 1937, there were few important procedural rulings by the US supreme court that applied to the ___, only rulings for the ___
states, federal level (Bill of Rights) ○ The safeguards found in the Bill of Rights had not yet been applied to the states § It wasn't until the 1930s and 60s that the courts began including these in requirements for police behavior □ Result of the "due process revolution" § The 60s were characterized by widespread support for the protection of the civil rights of individuals § The Warren court of this time, named for Justice Earl Warren, was associated with a liberal political philosophy because the majority of judges supported more legal restrictions on the police. □ From the philosophical POV, police were "handcuffed" in their ability to fight crime
no reasonable suspicion necessary for frisking if
that person has been arrested already and taken into custody □ Police can also search the immediate area of the person without a warrant in this circumstance
Police, however, are also accountable to
the rule of law They are also responsible for both public safety and protecting civil liberties Criminal procedure and civil liberties are mechanisms to ensure that police operate in such a way as to not compromise citizens' individual liberties while engaging in law enforcement and also provide remedies for citizens when these liberties are compromised.
} Police officers may defend themselves from the federal litigation if they can claim
there was probable cause to believe their action was legal - Hunter v. Bryant - Even if it is later determined that probable cause did not exist, but the officer was acting on good faith, the officers immune from liability - Probable causes so strong that defense interest and search and seizure cases that some courts have held that it probable causes present, the officers not liable even if malice is involved in officers act
Claims for false arrest
to rise from intentional illegal detention of an individual for prosecution, the suits typically arise from warrantless arrest
interdependency among sources of legal authority
ultimate authority is the constitution
The 4th Amendment provides safeguards from
unreasonable searches and seizures ○ Probable cause required for searches and seizures of persons § "substantial and trustworthy evidence" § Must specify what or who § Must specify exactly where § Must explain how the two above are connected with criminal activity ○ Categories of items that can be seized § Items resulting from crime § Items illegal for anyone to posses § Items that could be "evidence" of a crime § Items used to commit crimes ○ Most common forms of seizure: § Stop and Frisk §Arrests
Wrongful death suit
when I'm justified police action results in the death of the citizens
Absolute immunity
when a civil action is brought against those protected by this form of immunity that will be dismissed by the court } This form of immunity has little application to liability for police officers, and it is typically reserved for the judiciary } The lone exception to this rule is when an officer commit perjury in court, the officer may seek absolute immunity from lawsuits from ( ~ 1983 ) lawsuits } Although immune from civil lawsuits, the act of perjury is a criminal offense which officers maybe charged and convicted in criminal courts
To prove negligence four criteria must be satisfied
} Legal duty - Involves those actions on the part of the defendants as prescribed by the courts that require some action - There must be a legal basis for the requirement of certain behavior or activity } Breach of duty - Failure to conform with duty - It must be demonstrated that a reasonably prudent person would believe the officer breached his or her duty to a plaintiff - This breach of duty must cause some type of injury but for the actions of officer the plaintiff would not have to be injured or damaged } Injury must have resulted from this action, including mental physical or economic injury } Failure to arrest maybe negligent behavior if the plaintiff to prove the police officers in action caused injury or damage.
Civil Liability
§ 30,000 lawsuits per year § Upwards of $780 billion (paid out) annually § Avenues of liability □ State and federal Most suits are found in favor of the police
□ Indianapolis v Edmond (2000)
§ Determining whether a driver is in possession of drugs does not represent the same level of immediate public safety risk as demonstrated in Sitz and thus this practice is unconstitutional □ Later, however, the court sis permit checkpoints designed to gather information about a specific crime. ® Public interest of a death investigation outweighed any minor inconvenience or privacy concern experience by individual drivers, making suspicion less stops reasonable (Illinois v. Lidster, 2004)
Exclusionary Rule
§ Evidence obtained by the government in violation of the fourth amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is not admissible in criminal prosecution to demonstrate guilt (Can't use in court). Premised on the belief that excluding illegally seized evidence from court will deter police officers from acting improperly
what happens after an arrest?
§ Most critical task § Following an arrest, administrative procedures like fingerprinting, photographing and booking occur
Vehicle Searches
§ Motor vehicles have substantially fewer 4th amendment protections than fixed premises. □ This is because they are highly mobile, allowing for evidence to be moved and suspects to flee police custody □ The contents of motor vehicles travel in plain view, thus exposing them to public review □ They are also highly regulated by the government (driver's licenses, insurance, etc.) § Police officers may stop motor vehicles if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime as been committed. On stopping a vehicle, officers may investigate to determine whether there is probable cause to arrest a driver or passengers, or issue a summons or ticket □ Officers have a lot of discretion when it comes to traffic stops. § Whren v US, 1996 □ Officers approached a vehicle stopped for an abnormally long time at an intersection at a light, drug involvement was suspected, Whren was observed to be holding a bag of cocaine and was arrested. □ This was ruled permissible □ Pretext stops of vehicles are not unreasonable ® Need probable cause to search the car Jay-z Essay Question*******
Citizens can also provide consent for officers to search without a warrant
§ Officers need not inform people of their right to refuse consent; it must be demonstrated that consent was given and not coerced by the officer When searching a home, consent from all people in home must be given
hot pursuit exception
§ Police may follow a felon or otherwise dangerous criminal into a place typically protected by the 4th amendment, such as a home, or may cross jurisdictional boundaries § Must be based on probable cause (which can be developed via hearsay or direct observations) § The gravity of the offense must be taken into consideration □ Minor offenses don't provide justification for a warrantless pursuit § Once the suspect is found any search must cease
requirements for arrest
§ Required to enter private premises to make an arrest § Issued if probably cause shows: □ A violation of the law has been committed □ The person to be arrested committed the violation
6th Amendment:
§ Right to have a lawyer § Right to "effective assistance of counsel" § Right may be waived § Protecting the accused from miscarriages of justice □ .05% of all felony convictions are in error □ Approximately 27,500 in 2015 § The most important factors in contributing to wrongful convictions are: □ Eyewitness misidentification □ Police errors □ Prosecutorial errors Guilty please made by innocent defendants
preference that arrests be made with
§ There is also a preference that arrests be made on issuance of an arrest warrant issued by a magistrate; must most arrests aren't
community policing in zero zolerance
® But more contact is more stop and frisk/opportunity for things to go wrong ® And community policing officers will have more ability to make decisions, engage in problem solving activities, and facilitate partnerships with citizens ® With community policing Vaughn in Cooper and Del Carmen outline these arguments ◊ There is an increasing women's and minority voices police organization design to reduce citizens complaints ◊ There are improvements in attitudes towards the police ◊ There are improvements in and confidence and the police and the criminal justice system ◊ Because the police and the public are working in partnership, there may be less antagonism the misunderstanding between them
□ 4 Defenses to ( ~ 1983 )
® Defenses for officers for civil liability ® Absolute immunity ® Qualified immunity ® Probable cause Good faith
The statute went largely unutilized until the court considered Dickerson v US in 2000
® Dickerson made presumably voluntary incriminating statements to the FBI during custodial interrogation prior to being advised of the Miranda warnings he argued that because of this his statements were inadmissible evidence against him criminal trial. The government argued that these voluntary statements were admissible as evidence. Congress may not supersede legislatively
□ Michigan Department of State Police v Sitz (1990)
® Motorists were stopped at a checkpoint, for 25 seconds, so the officers could conduct preliminary investigations for intoxication. ® The court determined that the stops were not unreasonable by adopting a balancing test of three factors ◊ The gravity of public concerns served by the seizure ◊ The degree to which the seizure advances the public interest ◊ The severity of the interference with individual liberty Sitz does not permit random stops for sobriety checks, and such stops absent reasonable suspicion are restricted to fixed checkpoints
Color of law ( ~(section) 1983 )
® Title 42 of the U.S. Code ® There must be a violation of a protected right (constitutional) ® The officer was acting as an officer, acting with authority: color of law The misuse of power possessed by an individual who is a "state actor" and derives his or her power from the government
Violations of constitutional or federally protected rights ( ~ 1983 )
® Typically, plaintiffs will seek free drafts for violations in one of the amendments outlined in the Bill of Rights or the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
The police must take appropriate safeguards to ensure that the defendants rights are not violated during procedures police must advise defendants that they have
® the right to remain silent, any statement made may be used against the defendant in court ® the defendant has the right to have an attorney present during questioning and ® if the defendant cannot afford an attorney then the state will appoint one prior to questioning ® The defendant must intentionally involuntary waves these rights prior to questioning and although this waiver does not have to be written any police organizations do require a written waiver by the defendant ◊ "You can decide at any time to waive these rights..." "Do you understand these rights?"
Procedural law: right of the accused
• The process of criminal procedure is concerned with two competing values; ○ The need to protect the freedom of citizens from government tyranny while simultaneously ensuring a civil and ordered society that I free from disorder and crime ○ Mapp V Ohio: Exclusionary rule ○ Terry V Ohio: Stop and Frisk is allowed ○Nix V Williams: Inevitable discovery is the exception to the exclusionary rule
Costs of Liability in Policing
□ Ancillary costs associated with retraining officers and purchasing new, as well as personal costs for officers and supervisors who are targets of litigation □ Civil litigation has increased, both in the frequency of lawsuits and any amount of money paid to plaintiffs □ A number of civil lawsuits against police continues to grow exponentially □ Silver estimated that police face more than 30,000 suits per year □ In 2014, 10 largest cities in the United States paid 248.7 million to settle police conduct lawsuits □ The costs of liability could be as high as $780 billion annually □ The propensity of the public and its lawyers to sue officers for their actions during encounters may have increased □ Ross conducted an analysis of federal lawsuit alleging failure to train officers in the years 1989 and 1999 □ Many of these cases are settled prior to court □ 60% of officers reported that the decision to settle motivated by the desire to avoid paying more money later □ Other motivations included wanting to make the case go away, avoiding losing in court, avoid embarrassment, & compensate for no police wrong doing □ Most police lawsuits are decided in favor of the officers, only about 4% of all claims against the police were found in favor of the plaintiffs These civil suits can cause significant damage to the reputations of police officers and the police department, the costs associated with protecting officers in the department from losses can be high regardless of the final determination
Inevitable discovery
□ If the police do not advised suspect of their Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation and the information given during interrogation may not be used in criminal court according to the exclusionary rule □ Furthermore if the suspect provides information during the interrogation that leads to the recovery of physical evidence this evidence may not be used in court ® Unless the police can demonstrate that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered without the benefit of the information provided during the improper interrogation ◊ Brewer v Williams, 1977 ◊ Nix v Williams, 1984 } Tricked him into telling where body was; argued they would have found it eventually } Evidence of would've been inevitably discovered by the police is admissible
6 standards of proof
□ Mere suspicion ® Gut feeling, cannot stop anybody with mere suspicion □ Reasonable suspicion ® Must be able to articulate, can stop somebody legally with this ® Reasonably intelligent person would believe a crime occurred ® Needed for stop and frisk □ Probable cause ® Have to have some sort of tangible evidence □ Preponderance of evidence ® Evidence in favor of an occurrence outweighs lack there of ® More likely than not ® Needed in civil cases □ Clear and convincing evidence ® Highly probable that this occurred ® Federal court ® Needed to prove insanity defense □ Beyond a reasonable doubt ® Reasonable person believed beyond a reasonable doubt that that person was guilty
Public Safety Expectation
□ NY v Quarles, 1984 ® Public safety can outweigh the suspects right to be free from self-incrimination ® In this case the suspect had a firearm ® He was asked to locate it to maintain public safety ® Miranda-ed after
Civil liability in state courts
□ Officers and supervisors maybe defendants in state court went state torts are violated □ The three classifications of state tort laws ® Strict liability torts, negligent tort, intentional tort Strict liability torts ◊ Involves the creation of some condition that is so hazardous of the person engaging in such an activity can be reasonably certain that injury or damage will occur Rarely involve the police
Avenues of liability
□ Police maybe defendants into ways, they may be sued in state courts for violations of state laws, or they may be sued in federal court for violations of constitutional or federally protected rights □ Defendants may be held liable simultaneously in both arenas for the same action the action violates both state torts and civil liberties ® If the officers actions are negligent under state tort laws and are at the same time a violation of federal civil rights the plaintiff may seek relief in both state and federal courts. If the action by the officer is also a violation of criminal law, then prosecutors may seek indictments in criminal court as well
US v Watson 1976
□ Routine felony arrests made in public do not require a warrant even if officers have ample time to get one
§ Wyoming v Houghton, 1999
□ Searches of passengers' belongings with probable cause are reasonable
§ NY v Belton (1981)
□ The court held that the passenger compartment of a vehicle may be searched if the occupant is under arrest ® Similar to Chimel rule □ The search of the vehicle is permissible when done contemporaneous with an arrest and officers were not required to articulate probable cause for the search Bright-line rule
Thornton v US, 2004
□ The petitioner was under arrest and the search pursuant to the arrest was reasonable to protect the officer safety and preserve evidence Person parked and left the vehicle and was then searched and had car searched
Civil liability in federal courts
□ There has also been a tremendous increase recently and the number of civil liability filings against police federal courts □ The most typical Avenue for redress has come through the resurrection of title 42 of the US code ® This states that citizens can seek relief from officials who violate their constitutional rights under the guise of their governmental positions ® It does not create any substantive rights, instead it outlines the procedure individuals can follow to seek compensation for violations of their constitutional rights 1. The defendant must be acting under the color of law There must be a violation of a constitutional or federally protected right
investigative detentions
□ These encounters involve a temporary detention of the citizen's movement by the police. Officers may detain citizens for questioning when there is reasonable suspicion to believe the citizen has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. This type if temporary detention has also been referred to as a "Terry Stop" after the landmark court decision (Terry v Ohio 1968) ® Reasonable suspicion Limited intrusion into liability
§ Arizona v. Gant (2009)
□ This scope of the Belton rule was limited □ The scope the search was unreasonable Search of vehicle pursuant to an arrest is not necessarily automatic officers must reasonably believe that the search will produce evidence related to the crime for which the person was arrested and the person under arrest must be in close proximity to the passenger compartment where weapon can be obtained or evidence destroyed
not all stops mean you will be frisked
□ You need reasonable suspicion for both separately □ The purpose of the frisk is limited in scope to weapons or instruments that can injure the officer and may not be used as a "fishing expedition" for evidence or other contraband. □ Drugs found during a frisk cannot be legally used in trial because frisks are specifically for the purpose of finding a concealed weapon. (Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993))
use of force
◊ A big exposure to civil liability ◊ Graham v Connor ◊ Tasers are an increasingly popular form of less lethal force being adopted by police departments } The court has yet to fully examine under what conditions the application of CED's is considered reasonable, creating a potential for emerging source of liability for police in America } They can be applied at a distance reducing the need for officers to be in close proximity with the citizens and not making it a safer use of force alternative for officers } This also lowers the need to use firearms } However debate exists regarding whether they are truly safe alternatives during a less than lethal please public encounter } However, given the potential for unintended injury or death, it may be more appropriate to reserve Taser application for more resistant suspects or when there's immediate threat to officers or others and less intrusive tactics are unavailable } In Bryan v McPherson, 2009 - It was a rule but no qualified liability should be awarded to the officer because his use of a Taser on a citizen that was facing the opposite direction and not showing signs of bad behavior or ignorance. The Taser caused very unnecessary injuries to the citizens.
Intentional torts
◊ Involve behavior specifically designed to cause some type of injury or harm ◊ Culpable state of mind of the officer } Actions were purposive and designed to bring about some type of injury or property loss Examples and use of excessive force, wrongful death assault, battery, and false arrest Excessive use of force wrongful death assault battery claims for false arrest
Negligent torts
◊ Negligent torts only require inadvertent and unreasonable behavior resulting in damage or injury ◊ Negligence is injury that is the result of a lapse of due care where the ingredients for injury were the result of some action or in action on the officers part Negligence provides liability for unreasonably creating a risk
The impact on officers/ De-policing issues
◊ Officers and supervisors must accept the potential for civil liability as a part of policing ◊ Many police officers believe that lawsuits are simply a part of policing ◊ 18.5% of officers had been sued for a job related matter in a survey taken in 2001 ◊ Once prosecuted officers are often evaluated on past performance rather than just on incident in question } This is a cause of stress for many officers } Is problems may also lead to increased cynicism among officers ◊ Even when they're not identified as defendants, civil lawsuits can impact other officers in the police organization } In the wake of lawsuit, officers may feel the need to pro actively engage in fewer interactions with the public } Officers rationalize this as a normal response and then if they interact with your citizens it decreases the likelihood of being named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit - This is called depolicing or the Ferguson effect - Some have cautioned this may lead to increases in crime } Data did not support the hypothesis that officers who have more experience with litigation will avoid situations that could increase their exposure to liability The best way to avoid this his foster an environment that is not allow it to occur in the first place
Graham v. Connor, 1989
◊ Outlines the conditions under which officers may be held civilly liable for unreasonable force, while also outlining the conditions for immunity. ◊ Graham needed orange juice for his diabetic condition, his friend took him to the store but the line was too long, so he left to go to a friends house. The police saw this as a dangerous and suspicious action and stocked him for questioning. This caused Graham to acquire injuries. ◊ The court held that officers might be liable pursuant to ( ~ 1983 )for excessive use of force. ◊ A standard of objective reasonableness is to be used in such cases as this, indicating the force must be considered from the view of the officer at the same time of the event and not in 2020 hindsight
® Often times the general public evaluates the reasonableness of the officer involved floors based on 2020 hindsight
◊ This is exactly the message Graham forbids. ◊ Citizens review specific incidents of force and determine on a case-by-case basis whether it passes the sniff test } It is imperative for policymakers at least to be aware of how the public will perceive the reasonableness of officer action during use of force encounters.
common law
○ Also called case law ○ Precedent ○ Stare decisis doctrine § "let it stand" □ Decision of what was done before § "stand by and adhere to decisions"
creating criminal law in the US
○ US constitution trumps any local ordinance ○ Ultimate law of the land lies with constitution
england's contribution to american criminal law
○ William I § Claimed himself king § Declared all laws and rights under administration of king § King is administration of justice ○ Eyres § Group of traveling judges that dealt with the kings justice § Dealt with civil disputes between citizens ○ Common Law § What we use today § Precedent set by other judges ○ Magna Carta § King John, Robin Hood □ Pressured into creating magna carta § Provisions of people not being oppressed by government
7 warrantless searches/seizures that are perfectly legal:
○ part of the arrest ○ Stop and frisk ○ Hot pursuit ○ "Moveable (car) exception" ○ Plain sight ○ Open-fields doctrine ○ Consent given
