The document summarizes some of the key laws and Supreme Court rulings that govern police conduct and procedures during criminal investigations and interrogations. It discusses the 4th and 5th Amendments of the US Constitution, the exclusionary rule, exceptions to warrant requirements for searches and seizures, Miranda warnings, the right to counsel, and exceptions for police deception and line-ups. It also briefly mentions issues around privacy, the Patriot Act, deadly force, and treatment of enemy combatants.

1. Chapter 5
Police 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 Doctrine
Probable 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?