Chapter 5 overview


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chapter 5 overview

  1. 1. Chapter 5 Police Officers and the LawLearning ObjectivesAfter completion of this chapter, students should be able to:1. Understand procedural laws and how they govern police actions.2. Identify landmark cases that established the exclusionary rule.3. Describe exceptions to seizure without a warrant.4. Understand a citizen’s rights while being interrogated.5. Identify the circumstances when police can make an arrest or hold someone in custody.Chapter OutlineI. Procedural Law and Oversight of the PoliceII. Rules of Evidence The Exclusionary Rule Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine Application to State Courts: Mapp v. Ohio Exceptions to the Exclusionary RuleIII. Search and Seizure The Fourth Amendment and the Right to Privacy Search Incident to Lawful Arrest Plain-View Searches Consent to Search
  2. 2. Search of Automobiles Search of PersonsIV. Other Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement Public Safety Exceptions The Good Faith Exception Issues of Privacy Deadly Force and Fleeing-Felon DoctrineV. Interrogations and Confessions Waiver of Rights Standards for an Admissible Confession Use of Physical Punishment and Pain The Right to an Attorney Delayed Court Appearance Limits on Deception Miranda Rights Right to Remain Silent Police Lineups Juveniles Interrogations and the War on TerrorismVI. Arrest Entrapment and Police Intelligence Activities Enemy CombatantsKey Terms
  3. 3. Arrest (p. 88) restricting the freedom of a person by taking him or her into police custodyCarroll doctrine (p. 81) terms allowing admissibility of evidence obtained by police in awarrantless search of an automobile when the police have probable cause that a crime hasoccurred and delaying a search could result in losing evidenceClear and present danger (p. 84) a condition relating to public safety that may justify policeuse of deadly force against a fleeing suspectDeadly force (p. 83) the power of police to incapacitate or kill in the line of dutyEntrapment (p. 88) the illegal arrest of a person based on criminal behavior for which the policeprovided both the motivation and the means, tested in Jacobsen v. United States (1992)Exclusionary rule (p. 76) a rule that prohibits the use of evidence or testimony obtained inviolation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, established in Weeks v.United States (1914) and extended to all state courts in Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Fifth Amendment (p. 85) provides several important due process rights regarding the rights ofthe defendantFleeing-felon doctrine (p. 83) the police practice of using deadly force against a fleeing suspect,made illegal in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), except when there is clear and present danger to thepublicFruit of the poisoned tree doctrine (p. 77) a rule of evidence that extends the exclusionary ruleto secondary evidence obtained indirectly in an unconstitutional search, established inSilverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1918) and in Wolf v. Colorado (1949)Good faith exception (p. 82) an exception to the requirement that police must have a validsearch warrant or probable cause when they act in good faith on the belief that the search waslegalIndigent defense (p. 86) the right to have an attorney provided free of charge by the state if adefendant cannot afford one, established in Gideon v.Wainwright (1963)Material witness law (p. 89) a law that allows for the detention of a person who has notcommitted a crime but is suspected of having information about a crime and might flee or refuseto cooperate with law enforcement officialsMiranda rights p. 86) rights that provide protection from self-incrimination and confer the rightto an attorney, of which citizens must be informed before police arrest and interrogation,established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Pat-down doctrine (p. 81) the right of the police to search a person for a concealed weapon onthe basis of reasonable suspicion, established in Terry v. Ohio (1968)
  4. 4. Plain-view search (p. 80) the right of the police to gather without a warrant evidence that isclearly visiblePolice lineup (p. 87) an opportunity for victims to identify a criminal from among a number ofsuspectsProbable cause (p. 79) the likelihood that there is a direct link between a suspect and a crimeProcedural law (p. 79) the body of laws governing how things should be done at each stage ofthe criminal justice processPublic safety exception (p. 82) the right of the police to search without probable cause when notto do so could pose a threat of harm to the publicRules of evidence (p. 76) administrative court rules governing the admissibility of evidence in atrialSearch incident to lawful arrest (p. 79) the right of police to search a person who has beenarrested without a warrantSearch warrant (p. 79) legal permission, signed by a judge, for police to conduct a searchSelf-incrimination (p. 86) statements made by a person that might lead to criminal prosecutionSixth Amendment (p. 85) provides the defendant constitutionally protected rights related to thetrial, witnesses, and right to counselWiretapping (p. 83) a form of search and seizure of evidence involving communication bytelephoneChapter Summary As part of the checks and balances within the criminal justice system, there are constitutionalamendments that provide guarantees against misconduct by police. Police practices are alsoaffected by city, state, and federal legislative bodies that pass laws to limit or expand policejurisdiction. Additionally, rules of evidence stipulate requirements for police procedures inconducting searches and seizures, gathering evidence, making arrests, and conductinginterrogations. The exclusionary rule, which defines admissibility of evidence in court, was extended tostates, as well as federal jurisdictions in the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio. Under the FourthAmendment protects Americans are to be protected from unreasonable search and seizures.However, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. These exceptions include: search incidentto lawful arrest, plain-view searches, consent to search, and the search of automobiles.
  5. 5. The police also have the authority to conduct a pat-down search of a person withoutprobable, but with reasonable suspicion, was established through the case of Terry v. Ohio. Otherexceptions to the exclusionary rule address situations such as: public safety, fleeing felons, goodfaith mistakes, and some intelligence activities, such as wiretaps. The Fifth Amendment protects Americans from self-incrimination, so that that a confessioncannot be obtained through physical coercion, lies, deceptions, unfair lineups, or denial of civilrights. The rules of evidence also define lawful arrest, which may not involve entrapment. Thelandmark case of Miranda v. Arizona had a historical impact on police practices regarding arrestsand interrogations of suspects. However, the current war on terrorism is not without its criticism regarding the arrest anddetention of suspected terrorist, with respect to constitutional procedures. Critics have accusedthe Justice Department for denying due process to many accused or suspected terrorist. Underthe Material Witness law, federal authorities can hold someone indefinitely if they suspect thatperson is withholding information or evidence.Media to ExploreGo to to view the U.S. Constitution andthe various Amendments.The National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement maintains a roster of stateresources for civilian oversight of the police at www.nacole.orgGo to and in the search box enter “interrogations”. The resulting search willprovide links to numerous articles, publications, and press releases related to interrogation policyand practices including the newly formed interrogation unit for “high value” terrorists.Go to and in the search box enter “high speed chases”. The resulting search willprovide links to numerous articles, publications and press releases related to high speed policechases.For further information about military tribunals that have been proposed to try enemycombatants and how they are different from military courts and criminal courts go