Chapter 7:Chapter 7:Police and Constitutional Law Police and Constitutional Law

Chapter 7 Learning ObjectivesChapter 7 Learning Objectives

What authority do police officers possess to stop and What authority do police officers possess to stop and search people and their vehicles?search people and their vehicles?

When and how do police officers seek warrants in order When and how do police officers seek warrants in order to conduct searches and make arrests?to conduct searches and make arrests?

Can police officers look into people’s windows or Can police officers look into people’s windows or backyards to see if evidence of a crime is present?backyards to see if evidence of a crime is present?

In which situations police can officers conduct searches In which situations police can officers conduct searches without obtaining a warrant?without obtaining a warrant?

What is the purpose of the privilege against compelled What is the purpose of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination?self-incrimination?

What is the exclusionary rule?What is the exclusionary rule?

Legal Limitations onLegal Limitations onPolice InvestigationsPolice Investigations

Search and seizure concepts Search and seizure concepts The concept of arrestThe concept of arrest Warrants and probable causeWarrants and probable cause

Search and Seizure ConceptsSearch and Seizure Concepts

The Fourth Amendment prohibits police The Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from undertaking “unreasonable officers from undertaking “unreasonable searches and seizures” searches and seizures”

The Supreme Court defines The Supreme Court defines searchessearches as as actions by law enforcement officials that actions by law enforcement officials that intrude on people’s intrude on people’s reasonable reasonable expectations of privacyexpectations of privacy

Search & Reasonable PrivacySearch & Reasonable Privacy

SearchSearch Government officials’ examination of, and hunt for, Government officials’ examination of, and hunt for,

evidence in or on a person or place in a manner that evidence in or on a person or place in a manner that intrudes on reasonable expectations of privacyintrudes on reasonable expectations of privacy

Reasonable expectation of privacyReasonable expectation of privacy The objective standard developed by courts for The objective standard developed by courts for

determining whether a government intrusion into an determining whether a government intrusion into an individual’s person or property constitutes a search individual’s person or property constitutes a search when it interferes with the individual’s interests that when it interferes with the individual’s interests that are normally protected from government examinationare normally protected from government examination

Stop and Reasonable SuspicionStop and Reasonable Suspicion

StopStop Government officials’ interference with an individual’s Government officials’ interference with an individual’s

freedom of movement for a duration that typically freedom of movement for a duration that typically lasts less than one hour and only rarely extends for as lasts less than one hour and only rarely extends for as long as several hourslong as several hours

Reasonable suspicionReasonable suspicion A police officer’s belief based on articulable facts that A police officer’s belief based on articulable facts that

would be recognized by others in a similar situation as would be recognized by others in a similar situation as indicating that criminal activity is afoot and indicating that criminal activity is afoot and necessitates further investigation that will intrude on necessitates further investigation that will intrude on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacyan individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy

Concept of ArrestConcept of Arrest

Arrest involves a more significant intrusion Arrest involves a more significant intrusion on liberty and requires a higher level of on liberty and requires a higher level of justificationjustification

Unlike stops, which require only Unlike stops, which require only reasonable suspicion, all arrests must be reasonable suspicion, all arrests must be supported by probable causesupported by probable cause

Probable CauseProbable Cause

Sufficient evidence exists to support the Sufficient evidence exists to support the reasonable conclusion that a person has reasonable conclusion that a person has committed a crimecommitted a crime

To obtain an arrest warrant, the police To obtain an arrest warrant, the police must provide a judicial officer with must provide a judicial officer with sufficient evidence to support a finding of sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable causeprobable cause

Supported by oath or affirmationSupported by oath or affirmation

Affidavit and Totality of Affidavit and Totality of CircumstancesCircumstances

A written statement of fact, supported by A written statement of fact, supported by oath or affirmation, submitted to judicial oath or affirmation, submitted to judicial officers to fulfill the requirements of officers to fulfill the requirements of probable cause for obtaining a warrantprobable cause for obtaining a warrant

Totality of CircumstancesTotality of Circumstances Flexible test established by the Supreme Flexible test established by the Supreme

Court for identifying whether probable cause Court for identifying whether probable cause exists to justify a judge’s issuance of a exists to justify a judge’s issuance of a warrantwarrant

Plain View DoctrinePlain View Doctrine

Officers may examine and use as Officers may examine and use as evidence,evidence, without a warrant, contraband or without a warrant, contraband or evidence that is in open view at a location evidence that is in open view at a location where they are legally permitted to bewhere they are legally permitted to be

Open Fields Doctrine Open Fields Doctrine Plain feel and other senses Plain feel and other senses

Open Fields DoctrineOpen Fields Doctrine

First announced by the Supreme Court in First announced by the Supreme Court in Hester v. United StatesHester v. United States (1924), property (1924), property owners have no reasonable expectation of owners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields on and around their privacy in open fields on and around their propertyproperty

If criminal evidence is visible, then If criminal evidence is visible, then probable cause has been established for probable cause has been established for its seizure without a warrant. its seizure without a warrant.

Open Fields DoctrineOpen Fields Doctrine

Supreme Court doctrine under which Supreme Court doctrine under which property owners have no reasonable property owners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields on expectation of privacy in open fields on and around their propertyand around their property

Plain Feel and Other Senses Plain Feel and Other Senses

Law enforcement officers are permitted to Law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a warrantless search under the plain conduct a warrantless search under the plain view doctrineview doctrine

Also, if officers smell the distinctive odor of an Also, if officers smell the distinctive odor of an illegal substance, such as marijuana, they are illegal substance, such as marijuana, they are justified in investigating furtherjustified in investigating further

Police officers cannot aggressively feel and Police officers cannot aggressively feel and manipulate people’s property, such as a duffel manipulate people’s property, such as a duffel bag, in an attempt to detect criminal evidence bag, in an attempt to detect criminal evidence

Warrantless SearchesWarrantless Searches

Special needs beyond the normal Special needs beyond the normal purposes of law enforcementpurposes of law enforcement

Stop and frisk on the streetsStop and frisk on the streets Search incident to a lawful arrest Search incident to a lawful arrest Exigent circumstances Exigent circumstances Consent Consent Automobile searchesAutomobile searches

Terry v. OhioTerry v. Ohio (1968) (1968)

Supreme Court decision endorsing police Supreme Court decision endorsing police officers’ authority to stop and frisk officers’ authority to stop and frisk suspects on the streets when there is suspects on the streets when there is reasonable suspicion that they are armed reasonable suspicion that they are armed and involved in criminal activityand involved in criminal activity

Chimel v. California Chimel v. California (1969)(1969)

Supreme Court decision that endorsed Supreme Court decision that endorsed warrantless searches for weapons and warrantless searches for weapons and evidence in the immediate vicinity of evidence in the immediate vicinity of people who are lawfully arrestedpeople who are lawfully arrested

Questioning SuspectsQuestioning Suspects

Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona (1966) (1966) U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring that U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring that

suspects in custody must be informed of their suspects in custody must be informed of their rights to remain silent and be represented rights to remain silent and be represented during questioningduring questioning

The Consequences of The Consequences of MirandaMiranda Only upon asking questions to a suspectOnly upon asking questions to a suspect

Miranda Rights WarningMiranda Rights Warning

Suspects must be told four things: Suspects must be told four things: 1.1. They have the right to remain silentThey have the right to remain silent

2.2. If they decide to make a statement, it can If they decide to make a statement, it can and will be used against them in courtand will be used against them in court

3.3. They have the right to have an attorney They have the right to have an attorney present during interrogation or to have an present during interrogation or to have an opportunity to consult with an attorneyopportunity to consult with an attorney

4.4. If they cannot afford an attorney, the state If they cannot afford an attorney, the state will provide onewill provide one

Court Cases Linked to MirandaCourt Cases Linked to Miranda

Escobedo v. IllinoisEscobedo v. Illinois The Court made the link between the Fifth The Court made the link between the Fifth

Amendment right against self-incrimination Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel

Massiah v. United StatesMassiah v. United States (1964) (1964) The Supreme Court declared that the The Supreme Court declared that the

questioning of the defendant by a police agent questioning of the defendant by a police agent outside the presence of defense counsel outside the presence of defense counsel violated the defendant’s rightsviolated the defendant’s rights

The Exclusionary RuleThe Exclusionary Rule

The application of the Exclusionary Rule to the The application of the Exclusionary Rule to the StatesStates The principle that illegally obtained evidence must be The principle that illegally obtained evidence must be

excluded from trialexcluded from trial

The exclusionary rule does not necessarily The exclusionary rule does not necessarily require that cases against defendants be require that cases against defendants be dismissed when constitutional rights have been dismissed when constitutional rights have been violated; the prosecution can continue, but it violated; the prosecution can continue, but it may not use improperly obtained evidencemay not use improperly obtained evidence

Court CasesCourt Cases

Wolf v. ColoradoWolf v. Colorado (1949) (1949) The Supreme Court incorporated the Fourth The Supreme Court incorporated the Fourth

AmendmentAmendment

Mapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio (1961) (1961) The Court applied the exclusionary rule to the The Court applied the exclusionary rule to the

statesstates

Exceptions to the Exclusionary RuleExceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

The Supreme Court began creating exceptions The Supreme Court began creating exceptions to the exclusionary rule after Warren Burger to the exclusionary rule after Warren Burger became chief justice in 1969became chief justice in 1969

Good faith exception means that the officers Good faith exception means that the officers acted with the honest belief that they were acted with the honest belief that they were following the proper rules, but the judge issued following the proper rules, but the judge issued the warrant improperly; in addition, the reliance the warrant improperly; in addition, the reliance and honest belief must be reasonableand honest belief must be reasonable

““Good Faith” ExceptionGood Faith” Exception

Exception to the exclusionary rule that Exception to the exclusionary rule that permits the use of improperly obtained permits the use of improperly obtained evidence when police officers acted in evidence when police officers acted in honest reliance on a defective statute, a honest reliance on a defective statute, a warrant was improperly issued by a warrant was improperly issued by a magistrate, or a consent to search was magistrate, or a consent to search was issued by someone who lacked authority issued by someone who lacked authority to give such permissionto give such permission

Inevitable Discovery RuleInevitable Discovery Rule

Nix v. WilliamsNix v. Williams (1984) (1984) The Supreme Court agreed that improperly The Supreme Court agreed that improperly

obtained evidence can be used when it would obtained evidence can be used when it would later have been inevitably discovered anyway later have been inevitably discovered anyway without improper actions by the policewithout improper actions by the police

The Supreme Court has created the The Supreme Court has created the exclusionary rule as a means of insuring exclusionary rule as a means of insuring that Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights that Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights are protected; it has also provided are protected; it has also provided exceptions to this ruleexceptions to this rule

Chapter 7 SummaryChapter 7 Summary

The Supreme Court has defined rules for the The Supreme Court has defined rules for the circumstances and justifications for stops, searches, and circumstances and justifications for stops, searches, and arrests in light of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on arrests in light of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizuresunreasonable searches and seizures

Most stops must be supported by reasonable suspicion; Most stops must be supported by reasonable suspicion; an arrest or a search warrant must be supported by an arrest or a search warrant must be supported by enough information to constitute probable causeenough information to constitute probable cause

The plain view doctrine permits officers to visually The plain view doctrine permits officers to visually examine and use as evidence, without a warrant, any examine and use as evidence, without a warrant, any contraband or criminal evidence that is in open sight contraband or criminal evidence that is in open sight when the officers are in a place where they are legally when the officers are in a place where they are legally permitted to bepermitted to be

Chapter 7 SummaryChapter 7 Summary Searches are considered “reasonable” and may be Searches are considered “reasonable” and may be

conducted without warrants in specific circumstances, conducted without warrants in specific circumstances, such as border checkpoints and airport security, that such as border checkpoints and airport security, that present special needs beyond the normal purposes of law present special needs beyond the normal purposes of law enforcementenforcement

Limited searches may be conducted without warrants Limited searches may be conducted without warrants when officers have reasonable suspicions to justify a stop when officers have reasonable suspicions to justify a stop and frisk for weapons on the streets, when officers make a and frisk for weapons on the streets, when officers make a lawful arrest, when exigent circumstances exist, when lawful arrest, when exigent circumstances exist, when people voluntarily consent to searches of their persons or people voluntarily consent to searches of their persons or property, or in certain situations involving automobilesproperty, or in certain situations involving automobiles

The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination helps protect citizens against violence and incrimination helps protect citizens against violence and coercion by police as well as helping maintain the coercion by police as well as helping maintain the legitimacy and integrity of the legal systemlegitimacy and integrity of the legal system

Chapter 7 SummaryChapter 7 Summary

The Supreme Court’s decision in The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona required officers to inform suspects of specific rights required officers to inform suspects of specific rights before custodial questioning, although officers have before custodial questioning, although officers have adapted their practices to accommodate this rule and adapted their practices to accommodate this rule and several exceptions have been createdseveral exceptions have been created

By barring the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, By barring the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police from the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police from violating citizens’ rights during criminal investigationsviolating citizens’ rights during criminal investigations

The Supreme Court has created several exceptions to The Supreme Court has created several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the inevitable discovery the exclusionary rule, including the inevitable discovery rule and the “good faith” exception in defective warrant rule and the “good faith” exception in defective warrant situationssituations