Chapter 8 Notes: Police and the Rule of Law - Study Notes

Icebreaker

  • Do you think a search is reasonable if it is not authorized by a warrant? Under what conditions?
  • Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your cell phone records? Should police officers have a warrant before searching cell phones or accessing cell phone records?

Learning Objectives

  • 8.1 Define search and arrest.
  • 8.2 Distinguish between search warrants and arrest warrants.
  • 8.3 Explain when warrants are required.
  • 8.4 Recognize that there are three requirements that must be met before a warrant can be secured.
  • 8.5 Explain the rules for serving warrants.
  • 8.6 Discuss several types of warrantless searches and arrests.
  • 8.7 Explain the Miranda v. Arizona decision.
  • 8.8 Identify what purpose a lineup serves.
  • 8.9 Discuss the exclusionary rule, including its extensions and exceptions.

Fourth Amendment: Overview

  • The Fourth Amendment controls searches and seizures.
  • Contains two parts:
    • \text{Reasonableness clause}
    • \text{Warrants clause}
  • Defining a search:
    • What is not a "search" according to the Fourth Amendment?
    • Abandoned property
    • Open fields
    • Flyovers
    • These are examples where constitutional protection may be limited or not triggered in the same way.

Defining a Search and an Arrest

  • Arrest is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
    • An arrest occurs when a police officer takes a person into custody or deprives a person of freedom for having allegedly committed a criminal offense.

Search and Seizure (3 of 3): Warrants and Arrests

  • Search warrant: An order issued by a judge directing officers to conduct a search of specified premises for specified objects.
  • Arrest warrant: An order issued by a judge directing officers to arrest a particular individual.

Warrant Requirements (1 of 4)

  • Warrants are required in two key situations:
    • Arrests and searches in private homes or on specific types of private property.
    • Arrests for minor offenses committed out of view of the arresting officer.
  • Three requirements must be met before a warrant can be secured:
    • \text{Probable cause}
    • \text{Neutral and detached magistrate}
    • \text{Particularity}

Probable Cause (2 of 4)

  • Probable cause – usually defined as a reasonable belief, based on fact, that a crime has been committed and that the person, place, or object to be searched and/or seized is linked to the crime with a reasonable degree of certainty.
  • Sources of information for probable cause:
    • Firsthand knowledge
    • Informants
    • Anonymous tips
    • Telephone tips
  • Judges are considered to be neutral and detached.

Warrant Requirements (3 of 4)

  • Neutral and detached magistrate:
    • Any judge is considered a neutral and detached magistrate.
    • A judge’s signature serves as a check on the police officers’ decisions concerning who should be arrested and/or searched.
    • Before a warrant will be issued, a police officer must offer sworn testimony that the facts on which the request for the search warrant is made are trustworthy and true.

Warrant Requirements (4 of 4)

  • Particularity – Concerned with specifically naming the items to be seized pursuant to a search or specifically naming the individual to be arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant.

Serving the Warrant

  • Procedural steps:
    • Knock and announce.
    • Keep property damage to a minimum.
    • Use appropriate force.
    • Pay attention to time constraints with search warrants.
    • Limit scope and manner of searches.
    • No reporters allowed.

Discussion Activity 1

  • The procedural steps for serving a warrant are provided in the previous slide.
  • Thinking about representations in crime television shows, are the procedural steps for serving a warrant accurately represented? Which, if any, steps are missing?
  • What impact does this have on public perception?
  • What impact might this have on a jury?

Discussion Activity 1 Debrief

  • Do you think television has influenced the public in police procedure, or has it led them into false beliefs?
  • Do you think the public believes criminal investigations should be handled the way they are handled on TV?
  • Does this help or hurt the criminal justice system?

Warrantless Searches and Arrests (1 of 2)

  • The Supreme Court has carved out some significant exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, including:
    • Exigent circumstances
    • Stop-and-frisk procedure
    • Searches incident to lawful arrest
    • Automobile searches
    • Consent searches
    • Searches based on plain view
    • Crimes committed in an officer’s presence

Stop and Frisk

  • Stop and frisk are two separate acts.
    • Each requires that an officer have reasonable suspicion.
  • Key cases:
    • \text{Terry v. Ohio}
    • \text{Arizona v. Johnson}

Warrantless Searches Incident to Arrests

  • Searches incident to a lawful arrest must be conducted at the time of or immediately following the arrest.
  • The police may search only the suspect and the area within the suspect’s immediate control.

Warrantless Searches of Automobiles

  • Automobiles can be searched without a warrant, so long as there is probable cause to search.
  • Key case: \text{Carroll v. United States}$$
  • Topics covered under Carroll v. United States:
    • The evolution of Carroll v. United States
    • Scope of the automobile search
    • Searching drivers and passengers
    • Pretext stops
    • Roadblock searches

Discussion Activity 2

  • An automobile search can occur if probable cause exists. A full search of the car can include the driver, passengers, and closed containers found in the trunk. The search must be reasonable.
  • Do you agree with all aspects of this warrantless search? Why or why not?
  • What are some of the reasons behind this warrantless search?

Discussion Activity 2 Debrief

  • Do you think passengers in a vehicle should be subject to the same search criteria as the driver? Why or why not?
  • When a person is driving a friend’s car and is legally stopped by police and drugs are found in the car pursuant to a legal search, the person is charged with drug possession even if they did not know the drugs were there. Do you think this is justified?

Consent Searches

  • Consent searches: Do not require warrants or probable cause because the consenting party effectively waives his or her Fourth Amendment rights.
  • Key concepts:
    • Voluntariness
    • Third-party consent
    • Bus sweeps
    • “Free to go”

Warrantless Searches and Arrests (2 of 2)

  • The plain view doctrine:
    • The principle that evidence in plain view of police officers may be seized without a search warrant.
    • If an officer is engaged in a lawful search and has probable cause that an item in plain view is subject to seizure, the item can be seized.
    • If a person commits a crime in an officer’s presence, no warrant is necessary before an arrest.

Electronic Surveillance

  • Katz v. United States – the key Supreme Court case dealing with electronic surveillance.
  • Important federal legislation governing interception of communication includes:
    • The Federal Wiretap Act
    • The Patriot Act
    • The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
  • Recent electronic surveillance technologies that have benefited local law enforcement include surveillance cameras and GPS tracking devices.

Interrogation (1 of 3)

  • Miranda v. Arizona:
    • Requires that police officers advise people who are both in custody and interrogated of the constitutional right (from the Fifth Amendment) not to incriminate themselves.
    • Typically called the Miranda warning.

Discussion Activity 3

  • Many of us know the Miranda warning from watching law/criminal justice television shows.
    • Can you recite the Miranda warning verbatim?
    • How much of the interrogation process that you see on television do you believe is representative of what actually occurs in real-life interrogations?

Interrogation (2 of 3)

  • Suspects who are advised of their Miranda rights are told:
    • They have the right to remain silent.
    • If they decide to make a statement, the statement can and will be used against them in a court of law.
    • They have the right to have an attorney present at the time of the interrogation, or they will have an opportunity to consult with an attorney.
    • If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them by the state.

Interrogation (3 of 3)

  • The Supreme Court has modified the Miranda rule to some extent over the years.
  • Mostly, its decisions have relaxed the rule.
  • The impact of Miranda on law enforcement, such as through lost convictions, is fairly minimal.

Written Activity

  • What is the purpose of the Miranda warning?
  • Do you believe the Miranda warning is still necessary? Why or why not?
  • What are the potential impacts of eliminating the Miranda warning? Explain your answers.

Pretrial Identification (1 of 2)

  • Booking is the administrative record of an arrest.
    • Lists the offender’s name, address, physical description, date of birth, employer, time of arrest, offense, and name of arresting officer.

Pretrial Identification (2 of 2)

  • In a lineup, a suspect is placed in a group for the purpose of being viewed and identified by a witness.
    • Lineups are one of the primary means that the police have of identifying suspects.
    • One of the most difficult legal issues is determining whether the identification procedure is suggestive and consequently in violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Exclusionary Rule (1 of 2)

  • The exclusionary rule provides that all evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures is inadmissible in criminal trials.
  • Has been extended to include “fruit of the poisonous tree,” or indirect evidence.

The Exclusionary Rule (2 of 2)

  • Three major exceptions:
    • Independent source
    • Good faith
    • Inevitable discovery
  • The future of the exclusionary rule

Think-Pair-Share Activity 2

  • Divide the class into small breakout groups to discuss:
    • Have criminals been given too many rights?
    • Should courts be more concerned with the rights of victims or the rights of offenders?

Self-Assessment

  • What concepts in this chapter did you find difficult and thus need to review?
  • As a criminal justice professional in the future, what concepts would you find most valuable or beneficial, and how would you implement them?

Summary (1 of 2)

  • Now that the lesson has ended, you should have learned how to:
    • Define search and arrest.
    • Distinguish between search warrants and arrest warrants.
    • Explain when warrants are required.
    • Recognize that there are three requirements that must be met before a warrant can be secured.

Summary (2 of 2)

  • Now that the lesson has ended, you should have learned how to:
    • Explain the rules for serving warrants.
    • Discuss several types of warrantless searches and arrests.
    • Explain the Miranda v. Arizona decision.
    • Identify what purpose a lineup serves.
    • Discuss the exclusionary rule, including its extensions and exceptions.