Law Enforcement Procedure and Case Law Flashcards

Preparation for the Oral Resume

When preparing for a professional evaluation, it is highly suggested that individuals practice their oral resume by timing the delivery for at least $5\,\text{minutes}$. While this may appear to be a simple task, it is often more difficult than anticipated. The goal is to deliver the information naturally to ensure you do not sound like a robot or as if you are reading from a rigid script. This practice helps in maintaining a professional yet conversational tone during the actual presentation.

The Miranda Warning and the Fifth Amendment

The fundamental requirement for MIRANDA originates from the $5\text{th}$ Amendment of the United States Constitution. This legal mandate requires law enforcement officials to advise suspects of specific rights during interrogations conducted while the individual is in police custody. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to obtain an attorney. This standard was established following the landmark case MIRANDA V. ARIZONA.

The Shatzer Rule and Miranda Breaks

The SHATZER RULE, derived from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case MARYLAND V. SHATZER, addresses the re-initiation of questioning after a suspect has invoked their right to counsel. Under the previous ruling in EDWARDS V. ARIZONA, police were generally required to end questioning once a suspect requested an attorney. However, the Shatzer Rule holds that law enforcement may re-open questioning if there has been a break in Miranda custody lasting at least $14\,\text{days}$. In the state of Florida, if a suspect invokes their rights during a custodial interrogation and is subsequently released, this $14-\text{day}$ break allows police to re-initiate questioning. During this period, the suspect is legally considered to have invoked their rights to silence and counsel. After the $14\,\text{days}$ have passed, police must provide a brand-new Miranda warning before any new questioning begins.

Pretext Stops and Whren v. United States

A pretext stop is a traffic stop initiated by law enforcement for a minor violation, such as a traffic infraction, with the underlying intent of investigating a separate and unrelated crime. This legal concept is derived from the $1996$ case WHREN V. UNITED STATES. In this ruling, the Supreme Court established an "Objective Standard," stating that a police officer can stop a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred, regardless of the officer's true intent or motivation. The Court determined that the officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment's standard of reasonableness. Furthermore, the Court ruled that pretextual traffic stops do not violate the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, granting officers significant discretion in enforcing traffic laws and other minor violations.

Legal Standards: Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard described as being more than a mere hunch but less than probable cause. This standard allows law enforcement to stop, question, and sometimes search an individual based on a reasonable belief that the person is involved in criminal activity. In contrast, probable cause is a more demanding standard and serves as the legal basis for making arrests, obtaining warrants, and conducting searches. Probable cause requires a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime exists in a specific location, fulfilling a core requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Investigative Techniques for Narcotics

When investigating tips regarding the sale of narcotics from a residence, several tactical steps can be employed: utilizing a Confidential Informant (CI), performing a "Knock and Talk" to speak with residents, conducting a "Trash Pull" to find discarded evidence, setting up surveillance on the location, and interviewing neighbors to gather intelligence.

Rachel’s Law and Confidential Informant Guidelines

Rachel's Law is formally known as Florida Statute Section $914.28$. This legislation was enacted following the murder of Rachel Hoffman, a confidential informant in Tallahassee. The law is designed to protect confidential informants and sets strict guidelines for law enforcement agencies regarding their utilization, aiming to improve informant safety and protection. For the LCPD (local police department), the use of a Juvenile CI is permitted only with the advanced approval of the Chief of Police or a designated authority, along with the consent of the juvenile’s legal guardian. The policy explicitly states that a juvenile CI will never knowingly be placed in a dangerous situation. Their activity must be monitored both visually and electronically, and a supervisor must ensure the juvenile understands their role. Monitoring units must be prepared to intervene immediately if circumstances change or if directions are not followed. Furthermore, if the juvenile is on probation, has pending charges, or is in a diversion program, the police department shall notify the State Attorney’s Office.

Management and Disqualification of Confidential Informants

Investigators must be aware of factors that disqualify an individual from serving as a CI. Disqualifying factors include a history of dishonesty, thefts, or perjury charges. Additionally, a CI may be disqualified if they fail to return calls, miss meetings, fail to assist the State Attorney’s Office or court cases, or receive a new arrest. Informing third parties of their CI status or the ongoing investigation is also grounds for removal. Sex offenders require specific approval from the Chief of Police to be used as informants. CI files are managed by a HIDTA Supervisor who conducts quarterly reviews of the files to ensure requirements are met. At least $2\,\text{investigators}$ must be present when meeting with a CI.

The Process of Obtaining and Executing Warrants

Applying for an arrest or search warrant involves establishing probable cause, completing the warrant documentation, and sending it to the State Attorney’s Office for review. Once reviewed, it is sent back to the officer, and a judge reviews the application, swears the officer to an oath, and signs the document. Officers have $10\,\text{days}$ to serve the warrant from the date of the signature (inclusive of the date received) and $10\,\text{days}$ to return it to the clerk. The lifecycle of a warrant follows five steps: 1. Issuance (a judge reviews the sworn affidavit for probable cause); 2. Execution (law enforcement performs the search and reads the warrant aloud, even if the residence is empty); 3. Return (the warrant is returned to the clerk within $10\,\text{days}$ along with an inventory of seized items and receipts); 4. Filing (the judge forwards all original documents to the Clerk of Courts); and 5. Retention (the Clerk of Courts files the documents once a prosecuting authority notifies them of an arrest or warrant issuance).

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

Common exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement include:

• Consent: Searches conducted with voluntary, non-coerced consent from an individual with authority over the area.
• Search Incident to Arrest / Lawful Arrest: After a lawful arrest, police may search the individual and their immediate area to protect officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.
• Exigent Circumstances: Emergency situations involving threats to public safety, potential destruction of evidence, or the escape of a suspect.
• Plain View: The seizure of evidence that is clearly visible to an officer who is lawfully present in an area.
• Automobile Exception: Police may search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence, as vehicles are mobile and can quickly move out of a jurisdiction.
• Stop and Frisk: Established by TERRY V. OHIO ($1968$), this allows a brief investigatory stop and a pat-down for weapons if there is reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous.
• Border Searches: Warrantless searches performed at international borders to prevent illegal entry or smuggling.
• Administrative Searches: Searches in public schools or government buildings for safety or health reasons.