Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Ch 5
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Ch 5


Published on

  • 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

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Chapter 5Police Officers and the Law
  • 2. US ConstitutionDue process:-rights of accused-procedures-lacks specifics
  • 3. 5th AmendmentNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
  • 4. Procedural LawBody of lawsGoverning each stageCriminal Justice processViolation-person goes freeLegislative/judicial oversight
  • 5. Rules of EvidencePolice gather evidenceProsecutor presents evidenceDefense argues againstJudge rules
  • 6. Rules of EvidenceRequirements of admitting evidenceDefine qualifications of an expertNature of testimony
  • 7. Rules of EvidenceSearch and seizureInterrogationArrestingRelevance of evidence
  • 8. Exclusionary RuleEvidence obtained illegally is inadmissibleWeeks v. US (1918);-no warrant-evidence thrown out-federal level only
  • 9. Fruit of the Poisoned Tree DoctrineExclusionary rule extended:-from evidence directly obtained illegally-to evidence indirectly obtained illegally
  • 10. Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine Takes police to hidden gun/money Suspect confesses to whole event Detectives confront suspect w/bag & mask CSA sees car opens trunk-mask/bag Search warrant for residence Bank robbery-fingerprints lifted/ID’d
  • 11. Fruit of the Poisoned Tree DoctrineProbable cause hearing:-defense -search warrant listed residence-judge rules car search illegal-any/all evidence obtained inadmissible-objects in car/confession/suspect leading to hidden items-left? fingerprints at bank---suspect has banked many times /past three years
  • 12. Mapp v. Ohio 1961No punishment for illegal evidencePolice:-forced confessions-ignore constitutional rights of accusedSupreme Court applied Exclusionary Rule to state courts
  • 13. Search & Seizure4th Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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.
  • 14. Probable CauseA set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed and that the person accused had committed the crime.
  • 15. Search & Seizure4th Amendment:-right to privacy not clearly defined-Supreme Court interpretations-”reasonable expectation “of privacy
  • 16. Search & SeizureExceptions to warrant requirement:A. Incident to lawful arrest-person-immediate control-Chimel v. CA (1969)-vehicle (seats/console)-AZ v. Gant 2009
  • 17. Search & SeizureExceptions to warrant requirement:B. Plain view-police have lawful presence-cannot move items/objects-6 foot officer/5 foot wall sees marijuana plants-exigent circumstances
  • 18. Search & SeizureExceptions to warrant requirement:C. Consent-authority to give limited-once given can be withdrawn
  • 19. Searching VehiclesCarroll v. US 1925:-search of vehicle w/o warrant admissible if:-PC to believe crime occurred-delay in search would result in loss of evidence
  • 20. Searching VehiclesDrug dogs:-sniff exterior of vehicle-w/o particular reason-legal stop-no “unreasonable” prolonged stop
  • 21. Searching VehiclesImpounded vehicles:-inventory-clear written protocols/standards-force locks-protect police libability
  • 22. Searching PersonsCourt recognizes officer safety!!!-pat down searches for weapons-Terry v. Ohio (1968): Terry stop-stop-talk-frisk-”reasonable suspicion”-PO articulate reason for stop
  • 23. Public Safety ExceptionsImmediate action by police to protect public-armed suspect-no weapon upon arrest-search immediate area of suspect’s path-ask where gun isSearch of airline/bus passengers/subway (2005):-w/o PC-w/o warrant-”implied consent”
  • 24. Border searches:-no reasonable suspicion/PC/warrant-no permission needed since cannot refuse-legislated/case lawSchool searches:-administrators/not police-backpacks/purses/lockers-on and near school property-2009: no strip searches
  • 25. Good Faith ExceptionPolice thought warrant was valid:-invalid due to clerical error-wrong address /dates on warrant-evidence obtained admissible
  • 26. Privacy IssuesWiretapping:-phones-search and seizure-consent-PC/warrantElectronic communications:-strict guidelines-terrorism is an exception
  • 27. Other exceptionsUSA Patriot Act:-searches w/o warrantIncarceration:-no expectation of privacy-applies to probation/parole
  • 28. Deadly ForceFleeing felons-shoot-Tenn. V. Garner (1985)-only shoot fleeing felons if:-”clear and present danger”
  • 29. Interrogations/Confessions DO NOT WRITE DOWN Miranda: You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand? If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand? If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
  • 30. Interrogations/ConfessionsMiranda:-in custody-interrogationWaiver of rights:-Knowingly-Voluntarily-Willingly
  • 31. Exception to MirandaExcited utterance:-spontaneous-uncoerced-confess to 3rd party
  • 32. Right to AttorneyGideon v. Wainright (1963)-indigent has right to lawyer at trialEscobedo v. Ill (1964)-right to lawyer during interrogations Miranda v AZ (1966)-suspects have to be told of rights
  • 33. Police DeceptionDeception during interrogations:-lawful-exception-telling suspect they have a dealPolice line ups:-w/o consent-attorney present-all look alike-actual suspects-persons not capable of being guilty
  • 34. Terrorism DO NOT WRITE DOWNEnemy Combatants:-water boarding?-torture?-same rights as criminals?