Ch 16 Arrest, Interrogation & ID


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide

Ch 16 Arrest, Interrogation & ID

  1. 1. Scheb and Scheb, Criminal Law and Procedure 7 th edition Chapter 16: Arrest, Interrogation and Identification Procedures
  2. 2. Arrest <ul><li>The term “arrest” refers to the deprivation of a person’s liberty by someone with legal authority. </li></ul><ul><li>Generally, an arrest occurs when a person suspected of having committed a crime is taken into custody by a police officer, although in some circumstances a private individual can effect an arrest. </li></ul><ul><li>An arrest requires “probable cause” and, with certain exceptions, is subject to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Warrantless Arrests <ul><li>The Supreme Court has approved warrantless arrests where crimes are committed in plain view of police officers or where officers possess probable cause but exigent circumstances prohibit obtaining a warrant. </li></ul><ul><li>Courts generally uphold a peaceful warrantless entry into a home where there is probable cause to arrest an armed suspect for a serious felony and the suspect will likely escape or evidence will be destroyed. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Use of Force in Making Arrests <ul><li>The excessive use of force by police has become a major issue in America, especially within minority communities. </li></ul><ul><li>The excessive use of force by police became a national issue after the infamous Rodney King incident in Los Angeles in 1991. </li></ul>
  5. 5. The Rodney King Case <ul><li>In April 1992, an all-white jury acquitted the four police officers charged in the Rodney King case, sparking six days of riots in L.A. </li></ul><ul><li>One year later, two of the officers were convicted of federal civil rights violations and sent to prison. </li></ul><ul><li>In 1993, a jury awarded Rodney King $3.8 million in his suit against the City of Los Angeles. </li></ul>
  6. 6. The Amadou Diallo Case <ul><li>Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant, was shot and killed by police in NYC in February 1999. </li></ul><ul><li>Four white officers looking for a rape suspect fired 41 shots at Diallo, striking him 19 times as he stood in the vestibule of his apartment building. </li></ul><ul><li>The four officers were acquitted of all criminal charges. </li></ul><ul><li>The acquittal of the police officers charged in the Diallo shooting touched off a wave of protests and civil disobedience. </li></ul>
  7. 7. How Often do Police Use Force? <ul><li>A survey by the International Association of Police Chiefs showed that in 2001, a claim of police brutality was made 3.6 times for each 10,000 calls for service -- or less than 1%. </li></ul><ul><li>The study noted this finding was consistent with other statistical evidence on the topic, including a Police Contact Survey from the U.S. Department of Justice that also found reports of police brutality at less than 1%. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Police Brutality Reported by Group, 1999 Note: Figures are percentages <ul><li>Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “National Crime Victimization Survey 1999” </li></ul>
  9. 9. Judicial Perspectives on the Use of Force by the Police <ul><li>“ Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor (1989) </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Graham v. Connor (1989) <ul><li>“ Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests’ against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>C.J. Rehnquist, writing for the Court </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Graham v. Connor (cont.) <ul><li>“ The test of reasonableness requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>C.J. Rehnquist, writing for the Court </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Graham v. Connor (cont.) <ul><li>“ The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>C.J. Rehnquist, writing for the Court </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Use of Deadly Force <ul><li>“ While it is not always clear just when minimal police interference becomes a seizure, … there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Justice Byron White, writing for the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner (1985). </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Tennessee v. Garner (cont.) <ul><li>“ The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Justice Byron White, writing for the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner (1985). </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Investigatory Detention <ul><li>The second category of citizen-police encounters is the investigatory detention, sometimes referred to as a “stop and frisk” or a Terry stop. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Terry v. Ohio (U.S, Sup. Ct., (1968) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Police who have “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity is afoot may temporarily detain a persons for questioning and, based on a reasonable suspicion that the detainee is armed, may perform a pat-down search of the suspect’s outer clothing to locate weapons. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Investigatory Detention (cont.) <ul><li>An officer who feels an object that may be a weapon may seize it, and if it turns out to be other than a weapon, it may be seized if it is contraband. </li></ul><ul><li>Stops as long as forty minutes have been held to be reasonable. </li></ul><ul><li>Courts apply the “stop and frisk” rationale to stops of vehicles as well as pedestrians. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Police Interrogation <ul><li>Interrogation refers to the questioning of a suspect by law enforcement officers; either to elicit a confession, admissions, or information that otherwise assists them in solving a crime. </li></ul><ul><li>In 1897 the Supreme Court held that to force a suspect to confess violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. </li></ul><ul><li>In 1936 it held that a coerced confession deprived a defendant in a state criminal case of due process of law. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Key Warren Court Decisions on Police Interrogation <ul><li>In 1964 the Supreme Court made the Self-Incrimination Clause applicable to state criminal prosecutions ( Malloy v. Hogan ) and recognized the right of suspects to have counsel present during interrogation ( Escobedo v. Illinois ). </li></ul><ul><li>In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court required police officers to warn suspects of their constitutional rights prior to interrogation. </li></ul>
  19. 19. Miranda Warnings <ul><li>Before police engage in interrogation of suspects in custody, they must provide the Miranda warnings or risk the likelihood that incriminating statements will be suppressed as illegally obtained evidence. </li></ul><ul><li>A waiver of Miranda rights by a suspect must be knowingly and voluntarily. </li></ul><ul><li>Courts scrutinize waivers closely, especially waivers by juveniles. </li></ul>
  20. 20. Miranda Warnings (cont.) <ul><li>A confession or incriminating statement obtained in violation of the Miranda rules is inadmissible in criminal prosecutions to prove guilt unless… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>it was located on the basis of independently and lawfully obtained information (independent source doctrine) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>or would have been discovered by independent search (inevitable discovery rule). </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. The Public Safety Exception <ul><li>Allows police to ask suspects questions about the location of weapons before providing Miranda warnings. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>See New York v. Quarles (U.S. Sup. Ct., 1984) </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Police Identification Procedures <ul><li>Witness Identification: </li></ul><ul><li>lineups </li></ul><ul><li>showups </li></ul><ul><li>photo packs </li></ul><ul><li>Forensic Methods: </li></ul><ul><li>DNA tests </li></ul><ul><li>fiber samples </li></ul><ul><li>handwriting exemplars </li></ul><ul><li>voice exemplars </li></ul><ul><li>fingerprints </li></ul>
  23. 23. Lineups <ul><li>Police use a lineup where a group of individuals, one of whom is the suspect in custody, appears before a victim or witness, usually shielded from the suspect’s view. </li></ul><ul><li>The Supreme Court has held that there is no Fifth Amendment immunity against being placed in a lineup as a means of identification. </li></ul>
  24. 24. Lineups (cont.) <ul><li>In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized a defendant’s due process right to exclude identification testimony that results from unnecessarily suggestive procedures that may lead to an irreparably mistaken identification. </li></ul><ul><li>In 1972 the Court held that a defendant has the right to have counsel present at a lineup after formal charges have been made against a defendant. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Showups <ul><li>In a showup police take the victim to the suspect to make an identification. </li></ul><ul><li>This form of “on-the-scene” confrontation between an eyewitness and a suspect is inherently suggestive because when the police take a victim for a showup, they usually believe they have caught the offender. </li></ul>
  26. 26. Photo Packs (Mug Shots) <ul><li>A photo pack is simply a set of “mug shots” that are shown individually to the victim or eyewitness in the hope of being able to identify the “perp.” </li></ul><ul><li>In analyzing a defendant’s claim an impermissibly suggestive photo pack identification, courts generally apply a two-part test: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First, did the photo array present the defendant in an impermissibly suggestive posture? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Second, if so, under the totality of circumstances, did the procedure give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification? </li></ul></ul>