Kelly L. Gould

Policing: Legal Aspects

Changing Legal Climate

The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power.

Changing Legal Climate

1960s

The U.S. Supreme Court clarified individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.

Individual Rights

Due Process

Required by 4th, 5th, 6th, & 14th Constitutional Amendments

Search and Seizure

People are to be secure in their
homes.

People are to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

Weeks was suspected of selling lottery tickets through the mail.

His home was searched.

His personal property was confiscated.

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

Weeks’ attorney asked that personal property be returned.

Federal judge agreed that some of Weeks’ property should be returned.

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

Weeks was convicted on the remaining evidence.

He appealed.

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

Supreme Court Decision:

If some of Weeks’ property had been seized illegally, then the remainder of the property had also been seized illegally.

This case established the exclusionary rule.

Exclusionary Rule

Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial.

This rule acts as a control over police behavior.

Silverthorne Lumber Co.
v. U.S. (1918)

Silverthorne was accused of not paying taxes.

Federal agents wanted the company books.

Silverthorne refused to turn over books.

Silverthorne Lumber Co.
v. U.S. (1918)

Feds seized the books without a warrant.

Silverthorne asked for books to be returned.

The prosecutor returned the books.

Silverthorne Lumber Co.
v. U.S. (1918)

Before the prosecutor returned the papers, he made copies.

Silverthorne was convicted.

Silverthorne Lumber Co.
v. U.S. (1918)

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction.

It ruled that because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure.

Warren Court

Supreme Court aligning Federal and State Government Judicial branches

applied the exclusionary rule to the states through Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Mapp was suspected of hiding a bombing suspect.

Mapp refused police admittance.

Police forced their way in, showing Mapp a paper they said was a search warrant for her house.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Mapp grabbed the "warrant" and placed it inside her blouse.

Police retrieved the "warrant" and searched her house.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Police found pornographic material in the house.

The bombing suspect was not found.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Mapp was convicted of possession of pornographic material.

No search warrant was produced at her trial.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

U.S. Supreme Court decided:

14th Amendment due process applies to local police, not just federal officers.

Evidence against Mapp was illegally obtained.

Overturned conviction based on inadmissibility of the evidence.

Chimel v. California (1969)

Chimel was convicted of burglarizing a coin shop based on evidence gathered at his arrest.

Police had an arrest warrant, but did not have a search warrant.

Police searched his whole house, including the garage, attic, and small workshop.

Chimel v. California (1969)

Police realized the search might be contested.

Police felt they could justify the search as part of the arrest process since searches prior to
arrest are often necessary for
officer protection.

Chimel v. California (1969)

U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and decided that the search became invalid when it went beyond Chimel’s area of "immediate control."

Chimel v. California (1969)

Officers may search:

the arrested person

the area under the arrested person’s "immediate control"

Officers can search for following reasons:

to protect themselves

to prevent destruction of evidence

to keep defendant from escaping

U.S. v. Leon (1984)

Police obtained a search warrant based on their observation of Leon.

U.S. v. Leon (1984)

Leon was convicted of drug trafficking.

U.S. v. Leon (1984)

State appealed to U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. v. Leon (1984)

U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

Plain View Situations

Police can use evidence if they observe it during

emergencies such as:

crimes in progress

fires

accidents

Plain View Situations

The Plain View Doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances.

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

Hicks is arrested when police enter his apartment to check a report of a gun being fired.

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

Officers see two stereo systems that they believe may be stolen.

They write down the serial number of the first stereo because it is plainly visible.

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

Second stereo has to be moved to see serial number.

Both stereos have been reported stolen.

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

Hicks convicted of armed robbery based on the seized stereos.

Hicks appeals his conviction.

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

conviction overturned.

Officer’s behavior became illegal when he moved the stereo to record the serial number.

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

People have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which means that officers lacking a search warrant even when invited into the residence, must act more like guests than inquisitors.

Emergency Searches
of Property

Warden v. Hayden (1967)

There was a report that a robber had fled into a home.

Officers searched the residence without a warrant.

Defendant was found and convicted.

Warden v. Hayden (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

"4th Amendment does not require police to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others."

U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)

"Free-to-Leave" Test

U.S. Supreme Court said:

"A person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, …

Fleeing Felon Doctrine ‘Tennessee v. Garner’

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Stop and Frisk

Terry was believed to be "casing" a store for robbery.

A police veteran of 39 years conducted a "pat-down" search of Terry.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Stop and Frisk

A gun was found on Terry.

The officer testified that the "man did not look right."

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Stop and Frisk

Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.

Terry appealed claiming that the officer had no probable cause to search.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

Reasonable suspicion existed for stop and frisk. The facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Justification:

"We cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest."

Carroll v. U.S. (1925)

The first U.S. Supreme Court case to involve an automobile.

U.S. Supreme Court ruled a warrantless search of an automobile is valid if based on a reasonable belief that contraband is present.

Intelligence Function

Intelligence Function

In the case of informants, there is a two-pronged test that can be used to establish probable cause for search or arrest.

Intelligence Function

The source of the informant’s information is made clear.

The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable.

Self-Incrimination

and the Right to Counsel

Interrogation:

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Danny Escobedo is arrested, without a warrant, for the murder of his brother-in- law.

He makes no statements during an initial interrogation and is released.

A few weeks later, someone identifies him as the murderer.

He is again brought in for questioning.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

He is told they "have him cold."

He asks to see his lawyer and is told he cannot since the interrogation is underway.

His lawyer arrives and asks to see his client but is told he has to wait until questioning is complete.

Escobedo is told that his lawyer does not want to see him.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Escobedo confesses to the crime.

He is convicted and appeals.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

A defendant is entitled to counsel at police interrogations, and counsel should be provided when the defendant so requests.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, and accused of kidnapping and rape.

He was identified by the victim.

He was interrogated for two hours, signed a confession and was convicted.

He appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

U.S. Supreme Court Decision:

" The entire aura and atmosphere of police interrogation, without notification of rights and an offer of assistance of counsel, tends to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner."

Nontestimonial Evidence

Electronic Evidence

Electronic Evidence

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 made it easier for police investigators to intercept many forms of electronic communication.