Chapter 7


Published on

Constitutional Law

Published in: Education
  • 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 7

  1. 1. Chapter 7: Police and Constitutional Law
  2. 2. Chapter 7 Learning Objectives <ul><li>What authority do police officers possess to stop and search people and their vehicles? </li></ul><ul><li>When and how do police officers seek warrants in order to conduct searches and make arrests? </li></ul><ul><li>Can police officers look into people’s windows or backyards to see if evidence of a crime is present? </li></ul><ul><li>In which situations police can officers conduct searches without obtaining a warrant? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the purpose of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the exclusionary rule? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Legal Limitations on Police Investigations <ul><li>Search and seizure concepts </li></ul><ul><li>The concept of arrest </li></ul><ul><li>Warrants and probable cause </li></ul>
  4. 4. Search and Seizure Concepts <ul><li>The Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from undertaking “unreasonable searches and seizures” </li></ul><ul><li>The Supreme Court defines searches as actions by law enforcement officials that intrude on people’s reasonable expectations of privacy </li></ul>
  5. 5. Search & Reasonable Privacy <ul><li>Search </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government officials’ examination of, and hunt for, evidence in or on a person or place in a manner that intrudes on reasonable expectations of privacy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reasonable expectation of privacy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The objective standard developed by courts for determining whether a government intrusion into an individual’s person or property constitutes a search when it interferes with the individual’s interests that are normally protected from government examination </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Stop and Reasonable Suspicion <ul><li>Stop </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reasonable suspicion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A police officer’s belief based on articulable facts that would be recognized by others in a similar situation as indicating that criminal activity is afoot and necessitates further investigation that will intrude on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Concept of Arrest <ul><li>Arrest involves a more significant intrusion on liberty and requires a higher level of justification </li></ul><ul><li>Unlike stops, which require only reasonable suspicion, all arrests must be supported by probable cause </li></ul>
  8. 8. Probable Cause <ul><li>Sufficient evidence exists to support the reasonable conclusion that a person has committed a crime </li></ul><ul><li>To obtain an arrest warrant, the police must provide a judicial officer with sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause </li></ul><ul><li>Supported by oath or affirmation </li></ul>
  9. 9. Affidavit and Totality of Circumstances <ul><li>A written statement of fact, supported by oath or affirmation, submitted to judicial officers to fulfill the requirements of probable cause for obtaining a warrant </li></ul><ul><li>Totality of Circumstances </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Flexible test established by the Supreme Court for identifying whether probable cause exists to justify a judge’s issuance of a warrant </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Plain View Doctrine <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Open Fields Doctrine </li></ul><ul><li>Plain feel and other senses </li></ul>
  11. 11. Open Fields Doctrine <ul><li>First announced by the Supreme Court in Hester v. United States (1924), property owners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields on and around their property </li></ul><ul><li>If criminal evidence is visible, then probable cause has been established for its seizure without a warrant. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Open Fields Doctrine <ul><li>Supreme Court doctrine under which property owners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields on and around their property </li></ul>
  13. 13. Plain Feel and Other Senses <ul><li>Law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a warrantless search under the plain view doctrine </li></ul><ul><li>Also, if officers smell the distinctive odor of an illegal substance, such as marijuana, they are justified in investigating further </li></ul><ul><li>Police officers cannot aggressively feel and manipulate people’s property, such as a duffel bag, in an attempt to detect criminal evidence </li></ul>
  14. 14. Warrantless Searches <ul><li>Special needs beyond the normal purposes of law enforcement </li></ul><ul><li>Stop and frisk on the streets </li></ul><ul><li>Search incident to a lawful arrest </li></ul><ul><li>Exigent circumstances </li></ul><ul><li>Consent </li></ul><ul><li>Automobile searches </li></ul>
  15. 15. Terry v. Ohio (1968) <ul><li>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 </li></ul>
  16. 16. Chimel v. California (1969) <ul><li>Supreme Court decision that endorsed warrantless searches for weapons and evidence in the immediate vicinity of people who are lawfully arrested </li></ul>
  17. 17. Questioning Suspects <ul><li>Miranda v. Arizona (1966) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring that suspects in custody must be informed of their rights to remain silent and be represented during questioning </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Consequences of Miranda </li></ul><ul><li>Only upon asking questions to a suspect </li></ul>
  18. 18. Miranda Rights Warning <ul><li>Suspects must be told four things: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>They have the right to remain silent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If they decide to make a statement, it can and will be used against them in court </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They have the right to have an attorney present during interrogation or to have an opportunity to consult with an attorney </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If they cannot afford an attorney, the state will provide one </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Court Cases Linked to Miranda <ul><li>Escobedo v. Illinois </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Court made the link between the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Massiah v. United States (1964) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Supreme Court declared that the questioning of the defendant by a police agent outside the presence of defense counsel violated the defendant’s rights </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. The Exclusionary Rule <ul><li>The application of the Exclusionary Rule to the States </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The exclusionary rule does not necessarily require that cases against defendants be dismissed when constitutional rights have been violated; the prosecution can continue, but it may not use improperly obtained evidence </li></ul>
  21. 21. Court Cases <ul><li>Wolf v. Colorado (1949) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Supreme Court incorporated the Fourth Amendment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mapp v. Ohio (1961) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule <ul><li>The Supreme Court began creating exceptions to the exclusionary rule after Warren Burger became chief justice in 1969 </li></ul><ul><li>Good faith exception means that the officers acted with the honest belief that they were following the proper rules, but the judge issued the warrant improperly; in addition, the reliance and honest belief must be reasonable </li></ul>
  23. 23. “Good Faith” Exception <ul><li>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 was improperly issued by a magistrate, or a consent to search was issued by someone who lacked authority to give such permission </li></ul>
  24. 24. Inevitable Discovery Rule <ul><li>Nix v. Williams (1984) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Supreme Court agreed that improperly obtained evidence can be used when it would later have been inevitably discovered anyway without improper actions by the police </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Supreme Court has created the exclusionary rule as a means of insuring that Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights are protected; it has also provided exceptions to this rule </li></ul>
  25. 25. Chapter 7 Summary <ul><li>The Supreme Court has defined rules for the circumstances and justifications for stops, searches, and arrests in light of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures </li></ul><ul><li>Most stops must be supported by reasonable suspicion; an arrest or a search warrant must be supported by enough information to constitute probable cause </li></ul><ul><li>The plain view doctrine permits officers to visually examine and use as evidence, without a warrant, any contraband or criminal evidence that is in open sight when the officers are in a place where they are legally permitted to be </li></ul>
  26. 26. Chapter 7 Summary <ul><li>Searches are considered “reasonable” and may be conducted without warrants in specific circumstances, such as border checkpoints and airport security, that present special needs beyond the normal purposes of law enforcement </li></ul><ul><li>Limited searches may be conducted without warrants when officers have reasonable suspicions to justify a stop and frisk for weapons on the streets, when officers make a lawful arrest, when exigent circumstances exist, when people voluntarily consent to searches of their persons or property, or in certain situations involving automobiles </li></ul><ul><li>The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination helps protect citizens against violence and coercion by police as well as helping maintain the legitimacy and integrity of the legal system </li></ul>
  27. 27. Chapter 7 Summary <ul><li>The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona required officers to inform suspects of specific rights before custodial questioning, although officers have adapted their practices to accommodate this rule and several exceptions have been created </li></ul><ul><li>By barring the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police from violating citizens’ rights during criminal investigations </li></ul><ul><li>The Supreme Court has created several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the inevitable discovery rule and the “good faith” exception in defective warrant situations </li></ul>