Policing Legally: Investigative Encounters

1) The 4th Amendment Prohibition Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
- Protects individuals from government intrusion without proper legal grounds.
2) The Exclusionary Rule
- Created by the U.S. Supreme Court to deter unlawful police conduct, prevents evidence obtained via violations of the Fourth Amendment from being used at trial.
3) Legal Standards Set Forth in Terry v. Ohio (1968)
- Established the concept of "stop and frisk" based on reasonable articulable suspicion rather than probable cause.
- Involves circumstances under which officers can seize a person and perform a limited search for weapons.
4) Legal Standards Set Forth in People v. DeBour (1976)
- Introduced a four-tiered analysis for police encounters in New York, expanding on Terry v. Ohio.
5) The Four Levels of Investigative Encounters
- Different standards and authorizations for police interactions based on the level of suspicion.
6) Proper Preparation of a Stop Report
- Importance of thorough documentation of encounters and reasons for police actions.
7) Proper Digital Activity Log Entries for Investigative Encounters
- Documentation of demographics and details of encounters in digital logs.
8) Supervisory Review of Stops
- Ensures compliance and accuracy in documenting encounters.
9) Investigative Encounter Summary Charts
- Visual summaries to facilitate understanding of various levels of encounters and legal standards.

Patrol Guide 212-11: Investigative Encounters, Request for Information, Common Law Right of Inquiry, Level 3 Stops.
Patrol Guide 212-123: Use of Body-Worn Cameras (BWC).

Responsibilities of police officers include enforcing laws, maintaining order, and protecting the constitutional rights of citizens.
Emphasis on the significance of the Fourth Amendment in police work, aiming to balance law enforcement and citizen engagement.
Definition of investigative encounters as police interactions with civilians for law enforcement purposes.
Discussion on how the level of intrusion is determined by the officer's knowledge of the situation and legal standards.

Definition: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures; requires probable cause for warrants.
- U.S. Const. amend. IV states: "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."

Established by the Supreme Court in Weeks v. U.S. (1914) and applied to states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
- Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in court.
Ensures integrity in judicial proceedings and discourages illegal police conduct.
Officers may face disciplinary action, civil, or criminal liability for improper actions.

Background: Landmark case permitting stop and frisk on less than probable cause.
Case Facts: Officer McFadden observed suspicious behavior from individuals possibly casing a store. After reasonable suspicion, he performed a stop and frisk.
- Court's Ruling: The Court ruled that reasonable articulable suspicion allows for brief investigatory stops and limited searches (frisks) for weapons.
- Key Points:
- Stops must be short and based on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
- Officers are responsible for conducting investigations based on personal expertise and observations.

Established a four-tier system to define levels of police encounters:
- Level 1: Request for Information (Objective Credible Reason) - Non-threatening and non-accusatory questioning.
- Level 2: Common Law Right of Inquiry (Founded Suspicion of Criminal Activity) - Pointed questions based on founded suspicion.
- Level 3: Terry Stop (Individualized Reasonable Suspicion of Felony or Penal Law Misdemeanor) - Detaining subjects based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
- Level 4: Arrest (Probable Cause) - Requires a legal basis for taking an individual into custody.

The court emphasized the importance of having at least an objective credible reason before intervening with citizens.
Each level of encounter dictates the officer's authority and actions allowed during interactions with civilians.

Investigatory conduct at every level must correspond with the officer's knowledge and situational awareness.
Level 1: Request for information, no suspicion required, civilian may leave.
Level 2: Request due to founded suspicion; civilians may refuse.
Level 3: Reasonable suspicion allows for detention; civilians are not free to leave.
Level 4: Probable cause allows for arrest.

Officers may ask for information based on an objective credible reason without implying criminality.
Examples and Guidelines:
- Routine inquiries for public assistance or assistance regarding a lost child.
- Non-accusatory questions permitted without detaining the subject.
- Example: Engaging a witness post-incident for information.

Requires founded suspicion; questions may be more direct.
- Officers may inquire further based on observed behavior or circumstantial evidence.
- Examples: Observations of drug sales matching specific descriptions.

Probable cause must be established based on facts suggesting criminal activity.
- Officers must articulate justification for the arrest made.

Defined as initiating police actions based on race or ethnicity. It emphasizes the necessity for unbiased policing.

Provides a defense to merchants detaining individuals suspected of theft under specified criteria.

Officers must document Level 1 and Level 2 encounters including demographic information. Stop Reports must be detailed and specific to the reasoning for Level 3 encounters.

Essential for documenting investigative interactions in accordance with department policy.

Essential review process after completing Level 3 encounters to ensure compliance.

Visual representation of levels and legal standards for facilitating understanding.