Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

0138020272 ppt05

1,482 views

Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

0138020272 ppt05

  1. 1. Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction Ninth Edition By Frank SchmallegerPearson Education, Inc.
  2. 2. Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction Ninth Edition By Frank Schmalleger Chapter 5 Policing: Legal AspectsPearson Education, Inc.
  3. 3. A Changing Legal Climate • U. S. Constitution – Designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power • U. S. Supreme Court – 1960s – Chief Justice Earl Warren – Accelerated the process of guaranteeing individual rights – Strict procedural requirements – Miranda v. Arizona (1966) • After the Warren Court, the Supreme Court became more conservative – Recognized the need to ensure public safetyCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 3 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  4. 4. Constitutional AmendmentsCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 4 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  5. 5. Individual Rights • Checks and Balances – Legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government – No one individual or agency can usurp the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the ConstitutionCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 5 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  6. 6. Individual Rights • Due Process requirements – Evidence and investigation (search and seizure) – Arrest – Interrogation • Landmark case – A precedent-setting court decision that produces substantial changes in the understanding of the requirements of due process and the practical day-to- day operations of the systemCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 6 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  7. 7. Search and Seizure • Fourth Amendment – Warrant – Illegally seized evidence • The Exclusionary Rule – Weeks v. U. S. (1914) – Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial – Acts as a control over police behavior – At the time, only binding on the federal agentsCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 7 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  8. 8. Search and Seizure • Writ of certiorari – A writ issued from an appellate court for the purpose of obtaining the lower court’s records of a particular case – A mechanism for discretionary review • Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine – Legal principle that excludes from trial any evidence later developed as a result of illegal search and seizure – Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U. S. (1920)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 8 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  9. 9. The Warren Court (1953 – 1969) • Before the 1960s, the U. S. Supreme Court did not intrude into the overall operations of the system • Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – Made the exclusionary rule applicable to criminal prosecutions at the state level – This started the Warren Court on a course that would guarantee recognition of individual rightsCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 9 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  10. 10. Searches Incident to Arrest • Chimel v. California (1969) – Immediate control • Minnesota v. Olson (1990) – Extended protection against warrantless searches to overnight guests in the home of another • Minnesota v. Carter (1998) – Reasonable expectation of privacy • Georgia v. Randolph (2006) – One resident gives permission but the other says noCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 10 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  11. 11. The Burger Court (1969 – 1986) and the Rehnquist Court (1986 – 2005) • A swing toward conservatism • Late 1980s Supreme Court distanced itself from some earlier decisions of the Warren Court • Criminal defendants had most of the responsibility of demonstrating that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their dutiesCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 11 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  12. 12. Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule • Good-Faith Exception – Evidence seized on the basis of good faith but later shown to be a mistake may still use the seized evidence in court • U. S. v. Leon (1984) • Probable cause – A set of facts that would induce a reason person to believe that a crime was committedCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 12 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  13. 13. Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule • Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984) • Illinois v. Krull (1987) • Maryland v. Garrison (1987) • Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) • Arizona v. Evans (1995) • Herring v. U. S. (2009)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 13 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  14. 14. The Plain-View Doctrine • Plain view – Evidence visible to the police may be seized without a warrant as long as the police have a legal right to be in the viewing area and cause to believe the evidence is somehow associated with criminal activity • Harris v. U. S. (1968) • U. S. v. Irizarry (1982) • Arizona v. Hicks (1987) • Horton v. California (1990)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 14 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  15. 15. Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry • Emergency search – Warrantless search justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need • Warden v. Hayden (1967) • Mincey v. Arizona (1978) • Maryland v. Buie (1990) • Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) • Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) • Illinois v. McArthur (2001) • Hudson v. Michigan (2006)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 15 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  16. 16. Anticipatory Warrants • Anticipatory warrant – Warrant issued on the basis that evidence, not currently at the place described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed • U. S. v. Grubbs (2006)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 16 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  17. 17. Arrest • Arrest – The act of taking an adult or juvenile into physical custody for the purpose of charging the person with a criminal offense • U. S. v. Mendenhall (1980) • Stansbury v. California (1994) • Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) • Muehler v. Mena (2005) • Payton v. New York (1980)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 17 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  18. 18. Searches Incident to Arrest • Search Incident to an Arrest – A warrantless search of an arrested individual to ensure the safety of the officer – U. S. v. Robinson (1973) – Terry v. Ohio (1968) – Reasonable Suspicion • Would justify an officer in making further inquiry or in conducting further investigation – U. S. v. Sokolow (1989) – U. S. v. Arvizu (2002)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 18 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  19. 19. Searches Incident to Arrest • Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) • Brown v. Texas (1979) • Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) • Smith v. Ohio (1990) • California v. Hodari D. (1991)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 19 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  20. 20. Emergency Searches of Persons • Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) • U. S. v. Borchardt (1987) • FBI guidelines for conducting searches – There was probable cause at the time of the search to believe that evidence was concealed – There was probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed – The officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant – Action was no greater than necessaryCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 20 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  21. 21. Vehicle Searches • Carroll v. U. S. (1925) • Preston v. U. S. (1964) • Arizona v. Gant (2009) • South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) • Colorado v. Bertine (1987) • Florida v. Wells (1990) • Ornelas v. U. S. (1996) • Fleeting-Targets ExceptionCriminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 21 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  22. 22. Vehicle Searches • Florida v. Jimeno (1991) • U. S. v. Ross (1982) • Whren v. U. S. (1996) • Maryland v. Wilson (1997) • Brendlin v. California (2007) • Knowles v. Iowa (1998) • Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) • Illinois v. Caballes (2005)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 22 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  23. 23. Roadblocks and Motor Vehicle Checkpoints • Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990) • U. S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) • Illinois v. Lidster (2004) • Watercraft and motor homes – U. S. v. Villamonte-Marquez (1983) – California v. Carney (1985) – U. S. v. Hill (1988)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 23 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  24. 24. Suspicionless Searches • Compelling Interest – A legal concept that provides a basis for suspicionless searches when public safety is an issue • Suspicionless Search – A search conducted without a warrant and without suspicion – National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989) – Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association (1989)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 24 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  25. 25. Suspicionless Searches • Florida v. Bostick (1991) • Bond v. U. S. (2000) • U. S. v. Drayton (2002) • U. S. v. Flores-Montano (2004)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 25 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  26. 26. High-Technology Searches • People v. Deutsch (1996) • Kyllo v. U. S. (2001)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 26 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  27. 27. The Intelligence Function • Informants – Aguilar v. Texas (1964) • The source of the informant’s information is made clear • The officer had reasonable belief that the information is reliable – U. S. v. Harris – Illinois v. Gates (1983) – Alabama v. White (1990) – Florida v. J. L. (2000) – U. S. Dept. of Justice v. Landano (1993)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 27 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  28. 28. Police Interrogation • Interrogation – The information-gathering activity of police that involves direct questioning of suspects • Physical abuse – Brown v. Mississippi (1936) • Inherent Coercion – Tactics used by police interviewers that fall short of physical abuse but pressure suspect to talk – Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) – Chambers v. Florida (1940)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 28 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  29. 29. Psychological Manipulation • Psychological Manipulation – Manipulative actions by police interviewers, designed to pressure suspects to divulge information, that are based on subtle forms of intimidation and control – Leyra v. Denno (1954) – Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) – Chapman v. California (1967)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 29 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  30. 30. The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation • Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) • Edwards v. Arizona (1981) • Michigan v. Jackson (1986) • Minnick v. Mississippi (1990) • Arizona v. Roberson (1988) • Davis v. U. S. (1994) • Montejo v. Louisiana (2009)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 30 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  31. 31. Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision • Miranda v. Arizona (1966) • Miranda Warnings – The advisement of rights due criminal suspects by the police before questioning begins • U. S. v. Dickerson (1999) • U. S. v. Patane (2004) • Wong Sun v. U. S. (1963) • Waiver of Miranda rights by suspects – Moran v. Burbine (1986) – Colorado v. Spring (1987)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 31 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  32. 32. Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision • Inevitable-Discovery exception to Miranda – Brewer v. Williams (1977) – Nix v. Williams (1984) • Evidence can be used in court if it would invariably turned up in the normal course of events • Public-Safety exception to Miranda – New York v. Quarles (1984) – California v. Connelly (1986)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 32 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  33. 33. Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision – Kuhlmann v. Wilson (1986) – Illinois v. Perkins (1990) • Miranda and the meaning of interrogation – Rock v. Zimmerman (1982) • Miranda Triggers – The dual principles of custody and interrogation – Arizona v. Mauro (1987) – Doyle v. Ohio (1976) – Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993) – Florida v. Powell (2010)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 33 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved
  34. 34. Gathering of Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence • U. S. v. Carey (1999) • U. S. v. Turner (1999)Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 9/e Copyright © 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1994 by Pearson Education, Inc.Frank Schmalleger 34 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 • All rights reserved

×