This document discusses legal aspects of policing, including restraints on police power and protections of personal freedoms. It covers when police can conduct searches and seizures, the legal definition of arrest, and requirements for interrogations like Miranda warnings. Notable Supreme Court cases that have shaped police procedures are examined, such as establishing Miranda warnings and applying search and seizure laws to states.

1. Policing-Policing-Legal AspectsLegal Aspects

2. Gregory L. Riley, Sr., InstructorGregory L. Riley, Sr., Instructor
Norwalk Community CollegeNorwalk Community College
Introduction to Criminal JusticeIntroduction to Criminal Justice
Policing: LegalPolicing: Legal
AspectsAspects
Chapter 5Chapter 5

3. Objectives
 Identify legal restraints on police action, and list instances of police
abuse of power. 125
 Explain how the Bill of Rights and democratically inspired legal
restraints help protect personal freedoms in our society. 127
 Describe the circumstances under which police officers may
properly conduct searches or seize property. 128
 Define arrest, and describe how popular depictions of the arrest
process may not be consistent with the legal understandings of the
term. 139
 Describe the intelligence function, including police interrogations,
and explain the role of Miranda warnings. 150

4. Abuse of Police Powers CasesAbuse of Police Powers Cases
 Dylan Noble (2016)Dylan Noble (2016)
 Amadou Diallo (1999)Amadou Diallo (1999)
 Michael Brown (2014)Michael Brown (2014)
 Rodney King (1991)Rodney King (1991)
 Freddie Gray Jr. (2015)Freddie Gray Jr. (2015)
 Killedbypolice.netKilledbypolice.net

5. A Changing Legal ClimateA Changing Legal Climate
 In the 1960s, the U.S. SupremeIn the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme
Court, under the direction of ChiefCourt, under the direction of Chief
Justice Earl Warren, accelerated theJustice Earl Warren, accelerated the
process of guaranteeing individualprocess of guaranteeing individual
rights in the face of criminalrights in the face of criminal
prosecution.prosecution.
 Warren Court rulings bound theWarren Court rulings bound the
police to strict proceduralpolice to strict procedural
requirements in the areas ofrequirements in the areas of
investigation, arrest, andinvestigation, arrest, and
interrogation. 126interrogation. 126

7. Warren Court’s Landmark CaseWarren Court’s Landmark Case
 The apex of the individual rightsThe apex of the individual rights
emphasis in Supreme Courtemphasis in Supreme Court
decisions was reached in thedecisions was reached in the
1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona,1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona,
which established the famouswhich established the famous
requirement of a police “rightsrequirement of a police “rights
advisement” of suspects.advisement” of suspects.
 The Warren Court accepted theThe Warren Court accepted the
fact that a few guilty would go freefact that a few guilty would go free
so that the rights of the majority ofso that the rights of the majority of
Americans would be protected.Americans would be protected.
127127

8. Circumstances Triggering Miranda
Warnings
CustodyCustody InterrogationInterrogation

9. Miranda WarningsMiranda Warnings
 The duty to warn only arises when police officers
conduct custodial interrogations.
 The Constitution does not require that a
defendant be advised of the Miranda rights as
part of the arrest procedure, or once an officer
has probable cause to arrest, or if the defendant
has become a suspect of the focus of an
investigation.
 Custody and interrogation are the events that
trigger the duty to warn.

10. Individual RightsIndividual Rights
 AA “landmark case”“landmark case” is ais a
precedent setting courtprecedent setting court
decision that producesdecision that produces
substantial changes both in thesubstantial changes both in the
understanding of theunderstanding of the
requirements of due processrequirements of due process
and in the practical day-to-dayand in the practical day-to-day
operations of the justiceoperations of the justice
system.system.
 Think of landmark cases asThink of landmark cases as
“rules of the game”, guidelines“rules of the game”, guidelines
that police and the rest of thethat police and the rest of the
justice system MUST follow.justice system MUST follow.
128128
 Due process requirementsDue process requirements
mandate that justice systemmandate that justice system
officials respect the rights ofofficials respect the rights of
accused individuals throughoutaccused individuals throughout
the criminal justice process.the criminal justice process.
Most due processMost due process
requirements of relevance torequirements of relevance to
the police pertain to threethe police pertain to three
major areas: (1) evidence andmajor areas: (1) evidence and
investigation (often calledinvestigation (often called
search and seizure), (2) arrest,search and seizure), (2) arrest,
and (3) interrogation. 128and (3) interrogation. 128

11. Due Process RequirementsDue Process Requirements
 ““[The police] are not[The police] are not
perfect; we don’t signperfect; we don’t sign
them up on some far-them up on some far-
off planet and bringoff planet and bring
them into policethem into police
service. They areservice. They are
products of society.”products of society.”
-Daryl Gates, former Los-Daryl Gates, former Los
Angeles Police ChiefAngeles Police Chief

12. Search And SeizureSearch And Seizure
 The 4The 4thth
Amendment declaresAmendment declares
“the right of the people to be“the right of the people to be
secure in their persons,secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects,houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonableagainst unreasonable
searches and seizures, shallsearches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and nonot be violated, and no
Warrants shall be issue, butWarrants shall be issue, but
upon probable cause,upon probable cause,
supported by Oath orsupported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularlyaffirmation, and particularly
describing the place to bedescribing the place to be
searched, and the persons orsearched, and the persons or
things to be seized.things to be seized.
 A warrant in criminalA warrant in criminal
proceedings, a writ issued by aproceedings, a writ issued by a
judicial officer directing a lawjudicial officer directing a law
enforcement officer to performenforcement officer to perform
a specified act and affordinga specified act and affording
the officer protection fromthe officer protection from
damages if he or she performsdamages if he or she performs
it.it.

13. Exclusionary RuleExclusionary Rule
 TheThe Weeks v. U.SWeeks v. U.S . (1914). (1914)
forms the basis of what is nowforms the basis of what is now
called thecalled the “exclusionary rule”“exclusionary rule” ,,
which holds that evidencewhich holds that evidence
illegally seized by the policeillegally seized by the police
cannot be used in a trial. 129cannot be used in a trial. 129
 The decision of the SupremeThe decision of the Supreme
Court in the Weeks case wasCourt in the Weeks case was
binding, at the time, only onbinding, at the time, only on
federal officers because onlyfederal officers because only
federal agents were involved infederal agents were involved in
the illegal seizure.the illegal seizure.
 It applied to the state level inIt applied to the state level in
Mapp v. Ohio (1961).Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
 The understanding, basedThe understanding, based
on U.S. Supreme Courton U.S. Supreme Court
precedent, that incriminatingprecedent, that incriminating
information must be seizedinformation must be seized
according to constitutionalaccording to constitutional
specifications of duespecifications of due
process or it will not beprocess or it will not be
allowed as evidence in aallowed as evidence in a
criminal trial.criminal trial.

14. Mapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio
 On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland,On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland,
Ohio suburb received information that a suspect inOhio suburb received information that a suspect in
a bombing case, as well as some illegal bettinga bombing case, as well as some illegal betting
equipment, might be found in the home of Dollreeequipment, might be found in the home of Dollree
Mapp. Three officers went to the home and askedMapp. Three officers went to the home and asked
for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admitfor permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit
them without a search warrant. Two officers left,them without a search warrant. Two officers left,
and one remained. Three hours later, the twoand one remained. Three hours later, the two
returned with several other officers. Brandishing areturned with several other officers. Brandishing a
piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp askedpiece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked
to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer,to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer,
putting it in her dress. The officers struggled withputting it in her dress. The officers struggled with
Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her.Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her.
They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”
 Police found neither the bombing suspect nor thePolice found neither the bombing suspect nor the
betting equipment during their search, but they didbetting equipment during their search, but they did
discover some pornographic material in a suitcasediscover some pornographic material in a suitcase
by Mapp's bed. Mapp said that she had loaned theby Mapp's bed. Mapp said that she had loaned the
suitcase to a boarder at one time and that thesuitcase to a boarder at one time and that the
contents were not her property. She was arrested,contents were not her property. She was arrested,
prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced forprosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced for
possession of pornographic material. No searchpossession of pornographic material. No search
warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial.warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial.

Read more:Read more: Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html#ixzz1jqwS328qhttp://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html#ixzz1jqwS328q

15. Fruits of the Poisonous Tree DoctrineFruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
 The Silverthorne case articulated a newThe Silverthorne case articulated a new
principle of due process that today weprinciple of due process that today we
call thecall the “fruit of the poisonous tree“fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine”.doctrine”. This is an extension of theThis is an extension of the
Exclusionary Rule.Exclusionary Rule.
 Complex cases developed after years ofComplex cases developed after years of
police investigative effort may be ruinedpolice investigative effort may be ruined
if defense attorneys are able toif defense attorneys are able to
demonstrate that the prosecution’s casedemonstrate that the prosecution’s case
was originally based on a search orwas originally based on a search or
seizure that violated due process.seizure that violated due process.
 This doctrine excludes from introductionThis doctrine excludes from introduction
at trial any evidence later developed as aat trial any evidence later developed as a
result of an illegal search or seizure.result of an illegal search or seizure.

16. The Warren CourtThe Warren Court
(1953-1969)(1953-1969)
Searches Incident toSearches Incident to
ArrestArrest

17. Chimel v.Chimel v.
CaliforniaCalifornia
 Defined what officers mayDefined what officers may
search, when they maysearch, when they may
search, and why they maysearch, and why they may
search an arrestee within thesearch an arrestee within the
home.home.
 The thrust of the Court’sThe thrust of the Court’s
decision was that searchesdecision was that searches
during arrest can be made toduring arrest can be made to
protect arresting officers butprotect arresting officers but
that without a search warrant,that without a search warrant,
their scope must be in thetheir scope must be in the
suspect’s “immediate control”.suspect’s “immediate control”.
 Officers may search: theOfficers may search: the
defendant and the physical areadefendant and the physical area
within easy reach of thewithin easy reach of the
defendant.defendant.
 Officers can conduct the search toOfficers can conduct the search to
protect themselves, preventprotect themselves, prevent
evidence from being destroyed,evidence from being destroyed,
and to keep the defendant fromand to keep the defendant from
escaping. 131escaping. 131

18. Expectation of PrivacyExpectation of Privacy
 Apartments, duplex dwellings,Apartments, duplex dwellings,
motel rooms, even the cardboardmotel rooms, even the cardboard
boxes or makeshift tents of theboxes or makeshift tents of the
homeless can all becomehomeless can all become
protected places under the 4protected places under the 4thth
Amendment. 131Amendment. 131
 The capacity to claim theThe capacity to claim the
protection depends on whetherprotection depends on whether
the person who makes the claimthe person who makes the claim
has a legitimate expectation ofhas a legitimate expectation of
privacy in the place to beprivacy in the place to be
searched. Minnesota v. Olsonsearched. Minnesota v. Olson
(1990)(1990)

19. The Burger Court (1969-1986) andThe Burger Court (1969-1986) and
the Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)the Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)
 The Reagan-Bush years, andThe Reagan-Bush years, and
the popularity of the twothe popularity of the two
presidents who many thoughtpresidents who many thought
embodied “old-fashioned”embodied “old-fashioned”
values, reflected the tenor ofvalues, reflected the tenor of
a nation seeking a return toa nation seeking a return to
“simpler,” less volatile times.“simpler,” less volatile times.
 The new Court adhered toThe new Court adhered to
the principle that criminalthe principle that criminal
defendants who claimeddefendants who claimed
violations needed to bearviolations needed to bear
more of responsibility ofmore of responsibility of
showing police went beyondshowing police went beyond
the law. 132the law. 132
 Good-faith exceptionGood-faith exception to theto the
exclusionary rule (U.S. v. Leon) isexclusionary rule (U.S. v. Leon) is
when law enforcement officerswhen law enforcement officers
who conduct a search or whowho conduct a search or who
have seize evidence on the basishave seize evidence on the basis
of good faith and who laterof good faith and who later
discover that a mistake wasdiscover that a mistake was
made may still used seizedmade may still used seized
evidence in court. 133evidence in court. 133

20. What is Probable Cause?What is Probable Cause?
 Probable Cause (pc) is a set ofProbable Cause (pc) is a set of
facts and circumstances thatfacts and circumstances that
would induce a reasonablewould induce a reasonable
intelligent and prudent personintelligent and prudent person
to believe that a particularto believe that a particular
other person has committed aother person has committed a
specific crime.specific crime.
 Before a warrant can beBefore a warrant can be
issued, police officers mustissued, police officers must
satisfactorily demonstratesatisfactorily demonstrate
probable cause (pc) in aprobable cause (pc) in a
written affidavit to awritten affidavit to a
judge/magistrate. 133judge/magistrate. 133

21. Plain ViewPlain View
DoctrineDoctrine
 Plain View is the readyPlain View is the ready
visibility of objects that mightvisibility of objects that might
be seized as evidence during abe seized as evidence during a
search by police in thesearch by police in the
absence of a search warrantabsence of a search warrant
specifying the seizure of thosespecifying the seizure of those
objects.objects.
 To lawfully seize evidence inTo lawfully seize evidence in
plain view, officers must haveplain view, officers must have
a legal right to be in thea legal right to be in the
viewing area and must haveviewing area and must have
cause to believe that thecause to believe that the
evidence is somehowevidence is somehow
associated with the criminalassociated with the criminal
activity. 134activity. 134
 Plain View Cases:Plain View Cases:
(1968) Harris v. U.S(1968) Harris v. U.S
(1982) U.S. v. Irizarry –(1982) U.S. v. Irizarry –
cannot move objects tocannot move objects to
gain a view.gain a view.
(1995)(1995) AZ v. Evans –AZ v. Evans –
“computer errors“computer errors
exception”exception”

22. Norwalk-Plain View CaseNorwalk-Plain View Case The Norwalk Daily News, 20 Jan. 2012The Norwalk Daily News, 20 Jan. 2012
 NORWALK, Conn. – A city youth was arrested Wednesday morningNORWALK, Conn. – A city youth was arrested Wednesday morning
after Norwalk Police found a loaded machine pistol at his home,after Norwalk Police found a loaded machine pistol at his home,
police say. The search for another suspect in the case resulted in thepolice say. The search for another suspect in the case resulted in the
arrest of a middle-aged woman, who attempted to hide a "significant"arrest of a middle-aged woman, who attempted to hide a "significant"
amount of marijuana in her home, Sgt. Dave O'Connor said.amount of marijuana in her home, Sgt. Dave O'Connor said.
 The case began at 10:51 a.m. on Academy Street, where a manThe case began at 10:51 a.m. on Academy Street, where a man
reported seeing someone with a gun, O'Connor said. The man did notreported seeing someone with a gun, O'Connor said. The man did not
actually see the gun, but thought it was visible under a young man'sactually see the gun, but thought it was visible under a young man's
shirt. He said there were two men who left the area in a green Minishirt. He said there were two men who left the area in a green Mini
Cooper with a convertible rag top.Cooper with a convertible rag top.
 Police heading to Academy Street spotted the Cooper on MaplePolice heading to Academy Street spotted the Cooper on Maple
Street near West Avenue. They lost the car after it drove over aStreet near West Avenue. They lost the car after it drove over a
sidewalk and through a red light, but found it unoccupied five minutessidewalk and through a red light, but found it unoccupied five minutes
later, parked on Magnolia Avenue, O'Connor said.later, parked on Magnolia Avenue, O'Connor said.
 Nearby they encountered a youth – Ramsey Gomez, 18, of 21Nearby they encountered a youth – Ramsey Gomez, 18, of 21
Coldspring St., who O'Connor said was dressed inappropriately for theColdspring St., who O'Connor said was dressed inappropriately for the
weather. He was out of breath, as if he had been running, and wasweather. He was out of breath, as if he had been running, and was
very nervous. Police subsequently looked for the reported weapon atvery nervous. Police subsequently looked for the reported weapon at
Gomez' home and found a MAC-11 9 mm machine pistol buried in theGomez' home and found a MAC-11 9 mm machine pistol buried in the
leaves out front, O'Connor said.leaves out front, O'Connor said.
 It had a round in chamber and was loaded with 30 rounds ofIt had a round in chamber and was loaded with 30 rounds of
ammunition, he said. ammunition, he said.
 Police were led to believe that the other person who had been in thePolice were led to believe that the other person who had been in the
car had gone to 45 Grandview Ave. to change and might still be in thecar had gone to 45 Grandview Ave. to change and might still be in the
home, O'Connor said, adding that police have been to the homehome, O'Connor said, adding that police have been to the home
before, both to arrest people and to investigate crimes.before, both to arrest people and to investigate crimes.

23. Norwalk Plain View CaseNorwalk Plain View Case
 The door was wide open when police arrived to look for the suspect, andThe door was wide open when police arrived to look for the suspect, and
police went inside and searched the home. They did not find their man but didpolice went inside and searched the home. They did not find their man but did
see a large bag on a bed, containing two smaller bags of marijuana, O'Connersee a large bag on a bed, containing two smaller bags of marijuana, O'Conner
said.said.
 "We left it there and got a search warrant," O'Connor said. "We could have"We left it there and got a search warrant," O'Connor said. "We could have
taken it because it was in plain view but that was not our mission."taken it because it was in plain view but that was not our mission."
 While they were waiting, a 45-year-old resident of the home, Migdalia Crespo,While they were waiting, a 45-year-old resident of the home, Migdalia Crespo,
arrived. Police told her she could not go in but she said she was freezing asarrived. Police told her she could not go in but she said she was freezing as
she was underdressed for the cold weather. She was allowed to go in,she was underdressed for the cold weather. She was allowed to go in,
disappeared for about 15 seconds and then, the bags of marijuana were gone,disappeared for about 15 seconds and then, the bags of marijuana were gone,
O'Connor said. O'Connor said.
 "She is brought into headquarters and placed under arrest immediately,""She is brought into headquarters and placed under arrest immediately,"
O'Connor said. "She is searched for missing narcotics which are not found onO'Connor said. "She is searched for missing narcotics which are not found on
her."her."
 Police got a warrant and found the marijuana in the dishwasher. He did notPolice got a warrant and found the marijuana in the dishwasher. He did not
know how much the marijuana weighed but said there were 22 nickel-sizedknow how much the marijuana weighed but said there were 22 nickel-sized
bags in the two larger bags. "As a result of being able to show that she wasbags in the two larger bags. "As a result of being able to show that she was
the only person in this house, that she actually picked it up and moved itthe only person in this house, that she actually picked it up and moved it
somewhere else she is now charged with narcotics charges," O'Connor said.somewhere else she is now charged with narcotics charges," O'Connor said.
 Gomez was charged with two counts of weapons in a motor vehicle, twoGomez was charged with two counts of weapons in a motor vehicle, two
counts of altering IDs on guns, two counts of carrying a gun without a permitcounts of altering IDs on guns, two counts of carrying a gun without a permit
and two counts of machine guns. Bond was $250,000.and two counts of machine guns. Bond was $250,000.
 The investigation is ongoing and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and FirearmsThe investigation is ongoing and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
is involved because the pistol is a banned weapon, police said. The machineis involved because the pistol is a banned weapon, police said. The machine
pistol will fire three rounds at a time, O'Connor added.pistol will fire three rounds at a time, O'Connor added.
 Crespo was charged with possession with intent to sell, illegal possessionCrespo was charged with possession with intent to sell, illegal possession
near a school, possession of more than four ounces of marijuana, tamperingnear a school, possession of more than four ounces of marijuana, tampering
with a search warrant or fabricating evidence and interfering with an officer.with a search warrant or fabricating evidence and interfering with an officer.
Bond was $150,000. O'Connor said she made the bond and was released.Bond was $150,000. O'Connor said she made the bond and was released.

24. Emergency Searches of PropertyEmergency Searches of Property
and Emergency Entryand Emergency Entry
 In Brigham City v. Stuart, the Court recognizedIn Brigham City v. Stuart, the Court recognized
the need for emergency warrantless entriesthe need for emergency warrantless entries
under certain circumstances when it when itunder certain circumstances when it when it
ruled officers “may enter a home without aruled officers “may enter a home without a
warrant when they have an objectivelywarrant when they have an objectively
reasonable basis for believing that anreasonable basis for believing that an
occupant is seriously injured or imminentlyoccupant is seriously injured or imminently
threatened with such injury.threatened with such injury.
 Exigent circumstances are when anExigent circumstances are when an
emergency necessitate a quick search of theemergency necessitate a quick search of the
premisespremises, however, law enforcement, however, law enforcement
officers must demonstrate that a direofficers must demonstrate that a dire
situation existed to justified their actions.situation existed to justified their actions.
136136

25. Emergency Searches
 Police officers generally must knock and
announce their identity before entering a
dwelling, even with a search warrant.
Under certain emergency circumstances
exceptions can be made.
 Officers need not announce when
suspects may be in the process of
destroying evidence, pursuing an escaped
arrestee, or officers’ lives maybe be
endangered by such announcement.
 That police officers with probable cause to
believe that a home contains contraband
or evidence of criminal activity may
reasonably prevent a suspect found
outside the home from reentering it while
they apply for a search warrant.

26. Justification for EmergencyJustification for Emergency
Warrantless ActionWarrantless Action
 1) For life,1) For life,
 2) escape, and2) escape, and
 3) of the removal or3) of the removal or
destruction of evidence.destruction of evidence.
 Any one of theseAny one of these
situations may create ansituations may create an
exception to the 4exception to the 4thth
Amendment’s requirementAmendment’s requirement
of a search warrant. 137of a search warrant. 137

27. Wilson v. ArkansasWilson v. Arkansas
 The U.S. SupremeThe U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that policeCourt ruled that police
officers generallyofficers generally
must knock and theirmust knock and their
identity beforeidentity before
entering a dwelling orentering a dwelling or
other premises, evenother premises, even
when armed with awhen armed with a
search warrant. 137search warrant. 137

28. Wilson v. ArkansasWilson v. Arkansas
 Officers need notOfficers need not
announce themselvesannounce themselves
when suspects may be inwhen suspects may be in
the process of destroyingthe process of destroying
evidence, officers areevidence, officers are
pursuing a recentlypursuing a recently
escaped arrestee, orescaped arrestee, or
officers’ lives may beofficers’ lives may be
endangered by suchendangered by such
announcement. 137announcement. 137

29. Arrest
 Officers conducting a lawful search
under the authority of a warrant may
detain individuals found occupying the
premise being searched in order to
prevent flights in event incriminating
evidence is found, to minimize the risk
of harm to the officers, and simply to
facilitate the search itself. 140
 In a case involving drug possession, a
15 to 20 second wait after the officers
knocked, announced themselves, and
requested entry is sufficient to satisfy 4th
Amendment requirements. 138

30. Searches Incident to an Arrest
 In regards to a search
incident to an arrest, an
officer has the right to
conduct a search without
a warrant for purposes of
personal protection and to
use the fruits of the
search when it turns up
contraband.

31. Searches Incident to ArrestSearches Incident to Arrest
 The U.S. Supreme CourtThe U.S. Supreme Court
has established a clear rulehas established a clear rule
that police officers have thethat police officers have the
right to conduct a search ofright to conduct a search of
a PERSON being arrested ,a PERSON being arrested ,
regardless of gender, andregardless of gender, and
to search the area underto search the area under
the immediate control tothe immediate control to
protect themselves fromprotect themselves from
attack. 142attack. 142

32. ArrestArrest
 The act of taking an adult or juvenile intoThe act of taking an adult or juvenile into
physical custody by authority of law for thephysical custody by authority of law for the
purpose of charging the person with apurpose of charging the person with a
criminal offense, a delinquent act, or acriminal offense, a delinquent act, or a
status offense, terminating with thestatus offense, terminating with the
recording of a specific offense. 139recording of a specific offense. 139

33. Exceptions to Searches Without a Warrant
 Search Incident to a Arrest
 Stop and Frisk (“Terry Stop”)
 Consent
 Plain View
 Inventory/Caretaker Role
 Vehicle Searches (Carroll Doctrine)
 Emergency/Exigent Situations/Hot Pursuit
 Border/Airport Searches/Prisons
 Abandoned Property
 Open Fields
 A consent search can be revoked at any time with the exception of
airport searches and prison visitation.

34. Motor Vehicle Searches
 When the search of a vehicle
occurs after it has impounded that
search may be legitimate if it is
undertaken for routine and
reasonable purposes.
 Standardized criteria might take
the form of department policies,
written general orders, or
established routines.
 Motorists and their passengers
may be ordered out of stopped
vehicles in the interest of officer
safety, and evidence developed as
a result of such procedure may be
used in court.

35. Dog Sniff
 In 2005, in the case of Illinois
v. Caballes, the Court held that
the use of a drug sniffing dog
during a routine and lawful
traffic stop is permissible and
may not even be a search
within the meaning of the 4th
Amendment but not of the front
door of a home. (Florida v.
Jardines) 147

36. Watercraft & Motor Homes
 A warrantless search can be of
a watercraft, just as a car or
truck can.
 A warrantless search can be
made of most readily motor
homes but not parked motor
homes elevated on blocks.
 Is the motor home is licensed,
and if it is connected to utilities
determine if the motor vehicle
exception applies in this case.
 House boats and trailers pulled
by trucks can be searched
without a warrant. 148

37. Compelling InterestCompelling Interest
 Compelling interest is a legal concept
that holds that public safety may
sometimes provide a sufficiently
compelling interest to justify limiting an
individual's right to privacy.
 There may be instances when the
need to ensure public safety provides
a “compelling interest” that
negates the right to individual privacy,
permitting “suspicionless
searches”, those that occur when a
person is not suspected of a crime.
148

38. Suspicionless SearchSuspicionless Search
 Suspicionless Search
is a search conducted
by law enforcement
without a warrant and
without suspicion.
They are permissible
only if based on an
overriding concern for
public safety. 149

39. Florida v. Bostick (1991)
 The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that warrantless,
suspicionless “sweeps” of buses, “trains, planes, and city
streets” are permissible as long as officers:
 (1) ask individual passengers for permission before
searching their possessions,
 (2) do not coerce passengers to consent to a search,
and
 (3) do not convey the message that citizen
compliance with the search request is mandatory.
Passenger compliance with police searches must be
voluntary for the search to be legal.

40. Suspicionless searches ofSuspicionless searches of
vehicles at bordersvehicles at borders
 U.S. Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme Court
ruled thatruled that
suspicionlesssuspicionless
searches of vehiclessearches of vehicles
at our nation’s borderat our nation’s border
are permitted, evenare permitted, even
when the searcheswhen the searches
are extensive. 150are extensive. 150

41. High Technology SearchesHigh Technology Searches
 The U.S. Court has ruled that
the a warrantless scan of a
private dwelling with a thermal-
imaging device constitutes an
unreasonable search within
the meaning of the 4th
Amendment. (Kyllo v. U.S.)
 Such thermal-imaging devices
are called “forward-looking
infrared (FLIR) systems. The
heat picture that a thermal
imager produces can be used
to reveal warm areas of the
home. 150

42. Carbon Motors/Ford Motors Police Vehicle

43. Informants
 The U.S. Supreme ruled that
informant information could establish
probable cause if both of the following
criteria are met:
(1) The source of the informant’s
information is made clear.
(2) The police officer has a
reasonable belief that the information
is reliable. (In addition the police
officer should have corroborating
information about the suspect.)
This is known as the “two-pronged test”
established in Aguilar v. Texas.

44. Anonymous TipAnonymous Tip
 U.S. Supreme Court held thatU.S. Supreme Court held that
an anonymous tip that aan anonymous tip that a
person is carrying a gun doesperson is carrying a gun does
not,not, without morewithout more, justify a, justify a
police officer’s stop and frisk ofpolice officer’s stop and frisk of
that person. 151that person. 151

45. Police
Interrogation
 Interrogation is the information
gathering activity of police
officers that involves the direct
questioning of suspects.
 Once police officers make
inquiries intended to elicit
information about the crime in
question, however, interrogation
has begun.
 The interrogation of suspects, like
other areas of police activity, is
subject to constitutional limits as
interpreted by the courts.
 No Physical Abuse
 No Inherent Coercion
 No Psychological
Manipulation

46. Physical AbusePhysical Abuse
 Physical abusePhysical abuse
cannot be usedcannot be used
to obtain ato obtain a
confession orconfession or
information. 152information. 152
 Brown v.Brown v.
MississippiMississippi

47. The Right to a Lawyer
at Interrogation
 The right to have legal counsel
present during police interrogation
was formally recognized.
(Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964)
 In 1990 the Court held that after a
suspect has had an opportunity to
consult his/her lawyer,
interrogation may not resume
unless the lawyer is present.
 Similarly, the police may not avoid
the suspect’s request for a lawyer
by beginning a new line of
questioning, even if it is about an
unrelated offense.

48. Maryland v. ShatzerMaryland v. Shatzer
 U.S. Supreme Court heldU.S. Supreme Court held
that the police could reopenthat the police could reopen
the interrogation of athe interrogation of a
suspect who has invokedsuspect who has invoked
his right to counselhis right to counsel
following a 14 day or longerfollowing a 14 day or longer
break in questioning. 155break in questioning. 155

50. Exceptions to Miranda
 Inevitable Discovery Exception to
Miranda requirements means that
evidence, even if it was otherwise
gathered inappropriately, can be
used in a court if it would have
been invariably turned up in the
normal course of events.
 Public Safety Exception
 As long as the individual
questioned is not yet in custody
and as long as probable cause is
lacking a police officer can
proceed with questioning without
Miranda warnings.

51. Miranda and the Meaning of InterrogationMiranda and the Meaning of Interrogation
 It is important to note that officers areIt is important to note that officers are
only required to give Mirandaonly required to give Miranda
warnings only in those situationswarnings only in those situations
involving both arrest and custodialinvolving both arrest and custodial
interrogation, what some call theinterrogation, what some call the
“Miranda triggers”.“Miranda triggers”.
 Officers may ask questions withoutOfficers may ask questions without
providing a Miranda warning, even inproviding a Miranda warning, even in
the confines of a police station, asthe confines of a police station, as
long the person questioned is not along the person questioned is not a
suspect.suspect.
 Warnings are only required whenWarnings are only required when
officers begin to actively andofficers begin to actively and
deliberately elicit responses from adeliberately elicit responses from a
suspect or who is in custody.suspect or who is in custody.

52. USA Patriot Act of
2001
 The law officially titled the
Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act, substantially
broadened the investigative
authority of law enforcement
agencies throughout America
and is applicable to many
crimes other than terrorism.
The law was slightly revised
and reauthorized by Congress
in 2006.