ch 7 crj

Criminal Justice Today: Legal Aspects of Policing

The Abuse of Police Power

  • Police involvement in the deaths of several individuals including:

    • Freddie Gray

    • Walter Scott

    • Eric Garner

    • Michael Brown

    • George Floyd

  • Notable historical incident:

    • Rodney King beating by LAPD, previously most recognized example of police power abuse.

  • Principle established:

    • No individual, including police, is above the law.

  • Legal frameworks:

    • Democratically inspired legal restraints help uphold individual freedoms and deter a police state.

A Changing Legal Climate

  • Constitutional protections:

    • U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights protect citizens from police abuses.

  • Historical context:

    • 1960s Warren Court focused on individual rights during criminal prosecutions, enforcing strict procedural requirements.

    • Recent conservative judicial philosophy has reversed some advancements from the Warren Court era.

Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance

  • Fourth Amendment: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

  • Fifth Amendment: Provides rights against self-incrimination and double jeopardy; ensures due process.

  • Sixth Amendment: Guarantees rights to a speedy jury trial, knowledge of charges, and legal representation.

  • Eighth Amendment: Protects against excessive bail, fines, and cruel punishments.

  • Fourteenth Amendment: Ensures constitutional rights apply to all citizens, irrespective of state laws.

Individual Rights

  • System of checks and balances:

    • Government branches hold each other accountable, minimizing the risk of power concentration.

    • Citizens can appeal violations of their rights through the court system.

Due Process Requirements

  • Amendments demanding due process in law enforcement:

    • Relevant areas:

    • Evidence and investigation (search and seizure)

    • Detention and arrest

    • Interrogation

  • Impact of landmark cases on justice system operations.

Search and Seizure

  • Fourth Amendment details:

    • Text: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…"

  • Emphasizes the necessity of probable cause for warrants.

The Exclusionary Rule

  • Definition:

    • Prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in trials, safeguarding constitutional rights.

  • Landmark Case:

    • Weeks v. U.S. (1914): Established the exclusionary rule for federal officers.

Problems with Precedent

  • Illustration of judicial impact:

    • The Weeks case redefined federal enforcement activities and reported failure of law due to illegal police actions.

  • Writ of Certiorari defined:

    • A court order for the records of a lower court’s decision.

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

  • Principle:

    • Evidence discovered indirectly due to prior illegal actions is inadmissible.

  • Landmark Case:

    • Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920): Demonstrated far-reaching effects on prosecution due to initial rights violations.

Protective Searches (Warrantless Searches)

  • General context:

    • Most police searches occur without warrants.

  • Landmark Cases:

    • Chimel v. California (1969): Established limits for searches incident to arrests, confined to areas within the immediate control of the suspect.

    • Minnesota v. Olson (1990): Extended rights protecting overnight guests during warrantless searches.

    • Minnesota v. Carter (1998): Emphasized reasonable privacy expectations.

    • Georgia v. Randolph (2006): Affirmed refusal rights of a resident affecting searches.

    • Bailey v. U.S. (2013): Limited police detention powers during home searches.

Implications of Chimel v. California

  • Search parameters:

    • What can be searched?

    • The arrested individual

    • Areas within the individual's reach

  • Valid search reasons:

    • Officer safety, preventing evidence destruction, preventing escape.

  • When searches are deemed illegal:

    • Exceeding limitations on search areas or reasons.

Judicial Philosophy and the U.S. Supreme Court

  • Historical theme of balancing individual rights and public safety through rulings.

  • Overview of Court eras:

    • Named after chief justices to contextualize decision-making influences.

The Warren Court (1953–1969)

  • Context:

    • Rare intervention in criminal justice operations prior to the 1960s.

  • Landmark Case:

    • Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Extended the exclusionary rule to state-level prosecutions, marking a liberal shift towards individual rights.

The Burger Court (1969–1986)

  • Shift in philosophy:

    • Distancing from Warren Court precedents with a focus on societal order over individual freedoms.

  • Highlighted Factor:

    • Criminal defendants took on more responsibility to prove unlawful police conduct.

The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005)

  • Notable Trends:

    • Conservative movements gaining traction, protecting law-abiding citizens' interests.

    • The exclusionary rule was limited, and police powers expanded.

The Roberts Court (2005–present)

  • Court Characteristics:

    • Marked by conservative judgments but closely divided opinions.

    • A willingness to overturn precedent in favor of new interpretations.

    • Erosion of the exclusionary rule witnessed in:

    • Herring v. U.S. (2009): Allowed usage of evidence from unintentional Fourth Amendment violations under specific circumstances.

Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

  • Definition:

    • Allows the use of evidence obtained in good faith despite subsequent rulings on illegality.

  • Landmark Cases:

    • U.S. v. Leon (1984)

    • Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984)

    • Additional cases:

    • Illinois v. Krull (1987)

    • Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

    • Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

    • Arizona v. Evans (1995)

    • Herring v. U.S. (2009).

The Plain-View Doctrine

  • Definition:

    • Officers can seize evidence without a warrant if it is in plain sight during lawful presence.

  • Legal barriers:

    • Police actions must not create the plain-view scenario.

  • Key Cases:

    • Harris v. U.S. (1968)

    • U.S. v. Irizarry (1982)

    • Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

    • Horton v. California (1990).

  • Special challenges posed by electronic evidence.

Emergency Searches and Entries

  • Justifications for warrantless searches include:

    • Clear danger to life

    • Risks of suspect escape

    • Threat of evidence destruction.

  • Legal Term:

    • Exigent circumstances describe such emergency situations.

  • Landmark Cases:

    • Warden v. Hayden (1967)

    • Maryland v. Buie (1990).

No-Knock Searches

  • Definition:

    • A search warrant allowing entry without prior announcement.

  • Landmark Cases:

    • Wilson v. Arkansas (1995)

    • Richards v. Wisconsin (1997)

    • Illinois v. McArthur (2001)

    • Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

    • Kentucky v. King (2011).

Anticipatory Warrants

  • Definition:

    • A warrant issued based on probable belief that evidence will be present upon execution.

  • Constitutionality affirmed:

    • U.S. v. Grubbs (2006).

Detention and Arrest

  • Definitions:

    • Arrest: Taking an individual into custody to face charges, which constitutes a form of seizure.

    • Investigative detention: Temporary holding based on reasonable suspicion.

  • Common practices surrounding arrests.

  • Landmark Cases:

    • U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)

    • Stansbury v. California (1994)

    • Others listed through various contexts.

Searches Incident to Arrest

  • Definition:

    • Warrantless searches of arrested individuals and surrounding areas to ensure safety.

  • Terry-type stops: Short detentions based on reasonable suspicion.

  • Key Cases:

    • U.S. v. Robinson (1973)

    • Terry v. Ohio (1968) and others.

Emergency Searches of Persons

  • Fall under exigent circumstances rule with necessities to:

    • Prevent life-threatening situations or evidence destruction.

  • Probable cause conditions outlined for searches.

  • Key Cases:

    • Arkansas v. Sanders (1979)

    • U.S. v. Borchardt (1987)

    • Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019).

Vehicle Searches

  • Motor vehicles uniquely challenge law enforcement due to mobility.

  • Fleeting-targets exception: Allows searches based on probable cause despite lacking a warrant.

  • Key Cases:

    • Carroll v. U.S. (1925) to Arizona v. Gant (2009), highlighting various precedential rulings about vehicle searches.

Roadblocks and Checkpoints

  • Legal status of roadblocks based on community welfare interests, allowing temporary freedom suspensions.

  • Key Cases:

    • Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)

    • U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) and others.

Watercraft and Motor Homes

  • Landmark Cases addressing law enforcement practices:

    • U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez (1983) for watercraft

    • California v. Carney (1985) for motor homes

    • U.S. v. Hill (1988) for houseboats.

Suspicionless Searches

  • Justifications for searches without suspicion, particularly at U.S. borders.

  • Key Cases:

    • National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989) and others.

High-Technology Searches

  • Courts evaluate the impact of high-tech searches concerning privacy rights.

  • Key Cases:

    • People v. Deutsch (1996) and Kyllo v. U.S. (2001).

The Intelligence Function

  • Intelligence Definition: Useful information gathered for operational purposes in policing.

  • Importance of data collection as an integral part of law enforcement work.

Informants

  • Ethical dilemmas concerning informants in law enforcement particularly paid informants.

  • Two-pronged test for warrant requests based on informant reliability:

    • Clear source of information.

    • Police belief in informant reliability.

  • Key Cases:

    • Established by Aguilar v. Texas (1964), expanded in Illinois v. Gates (1983).

Police Interrogation

  • Definition of interrogation: Significant police questioning leading to incrimination of suspects.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court’s definition: Police behaviors that are likely to elicit incriminating responses.

  • Key aspects of interrogation:

    • Prohibitions against physical abuse (e.g., Brown v. Mississippi (1936))

    • Prohibitions against inherent coercion and psychological manipulation.

Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision

  • Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Major impacts requiring suspects to be informed of rights.

  • Noncompliance renders evidence inadmissible.

  • Waiver protocols: Suspects can waive rights, which must be voluntary and intelligent.

  • Key cases emanating from Miranda precedents:

    • U.S. v. Dickerson (1999) and U.S. v. Patane (2004).

Inevitable-Discovery Exception and Public-Safety Exception to Miranda

  • Inevitable-Discovery: Evidence admissible even if discovered unlawfully if it would have surfaced anyway.

  • Public-Safety: Circumstances allowing questioning without rights advising when public danger exists.

  • Key cases for both:

    • Brewer v. Williams (1977) and New York v. Quarles (1984).

Gathering Nontestimonial Evidence

  • Challenges regarding personal nontestimonial evidence during searches involve:

    • Collection of bodily fluids, personal data (DNA, fingerprints).

  • Courts drawing restrictions around these searches:

    • Key cases such as Hayes v. Florida (1985) and Schmerber v. California (1966).

Body-Cavity Searches and Electronic Eavesdropping

  • Body-cavity searches typically allowed under specific conditions (e.g., U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)).

  • Electronic eavesdropping demands warrants; notable cases include:

    • Katz v. U.S. (1967) and others.

Minimization Requirement for Electronic Surveillance

  • Officers' obligations to minimize privacy invasions during eavesdropping efforts.

  • Obligation to stop monitoring innocent conversations.

  • Key Case:

    • U.S. v. Scott (1978).

Legislative Context: Electronic Communications Privacy Act & Others

  • ECPA: Set forth regulations regarding wire communications and surveillance requirements.

  • Other Acts:

    • The Telecommunications Act of 1996, The USA PATRIOT Act, and Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act target various surveillance and communication issues in law enforcement.

Criminal Justice Today: Legal Aspects of Policing Essential Principles

Legal frameworks and constitutional protections, including the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, safeguard individual freedoms against police power abuses, ensuring no one is above the law. Key amendments include:

  • Fourth Amendment: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring probable cause for warrants.

  • Fifth Amendment: Guarantees rights against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and ensures due process.

  • Sixth Amendment: Ensures rights to a speedy trial, knowledge of charges, and legal representation.

  • Eighth Amendment: Protects against excessive bail, fines, and cruel punishments.

  • Fourteenth Amendment: Applies constitutional rights to all citizens.

Procedural Safeguards and Exceptions

The Exclusionary Rule, established federally by Weeks v. U.S. (1914) and extended to states by Mapp v. Ohio (1961), prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920)) extends this to evidence derived from initial illegal actions. However, exceptions exist:

  • Good-Faith Exception: Allows evidence obtained in good faith despite subsequent illegality (U.S. v. Leon (1984)).

  • Plain-View Doctrine: Permits seizure of evidence in plain sight during lawful presence (Harris v. U.S. (1968)).

  • Emergency Searches/Exigent Circumstances: Justify warrantless searches due to immediate danger, risk of escape, or evidence destruction (Warden v. Hayden (1967)).

  • Searches Incident to Arrest: Limited to the arrested individual and areas within their immediate control, as per Chimel v. California (1969).

  • Fleeting-Targets Exception: Allows warrantless vehicle searches based on probable cause due to mobility (Carroll v. U.S. (1925)).

Judicial Interpretation and Police Practices

U.S. Supreme Court eras, from the rights-focused Warren Court to the more conservative Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts, have continuously balanced individual rights and public safety, progressively limiting the exclusionary rule.

Detention and Arrest involve taking individuals into custody, while investigative detentions are temporary stops based on reasonable suspicion (U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)). Specific rules govern no-knock searches, anticipatory warrants, roadblocks, and suspicionless searches (e.g., at borders).

Interrogation and Nontestimonial Evidence

Police interrogations are defined as questioning likely to elicit incriminating responses, prohibiting physical abuse (Brown v. Mississippi (1936)) and psychological manipulation. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) mandates informing suspects of their rights (to remain silent, an attorney), with non-compliance rendering evidence inadmissible unless waived voluntarily. Exceptions include the Inevitable-Discovery Exception (Brewer v. Williams (1977)) and the Public-Safety Exception (New York v. Quarles (1984)).

Gathering nontestimonial evidence (e.g., bodily fluids, DNA) and conducting body-cavity searches or electronic eavesdropping are subject to strict legal restrictions and warrants, with a minimization requirement for surveillance. Legislative acts like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the USA PATRIOT Act regulate surveillance.