Schmalleger ch05 lecture

Criminal JusticeCriminal JusticeA Brief IntroductionA Brief Introduction

CHAPTER

Copyright © 2016, 2014, 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc.All Rights Reserved

Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 11eFrank Schmalleger

ELEVENTH EDITION

Policing: Legal Aspects

5



A Changing Legal ClimateA Changing Legal Climate

• U.S. Constitution Designed to protect citizens against

abuses of police power

• U.S. Supreme Court 1960s• Accelerated the process of guaranteeing

individual rights• Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

continued on next slide



A Changing Legal ClimateA Changing Legal Climate

• After the Warren Court, the Supreme Court became more conservative. Recognized the need to ensure public

safety



TABLE 5-1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice



Individual RightsIndividual Rights

• Checks and Balances Legislative, judicial, and executive

branches of government No one individual or agency can usurp

the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.





• Due Process Requirements Evidence and investigation (search and

seizure) Arrest Interrogation





• Landmark case A precedent-setting court decision that

produces substantial changes in the understanding of the requirements of due process and the practical day-to-day operations of the system



Search and SeizureSearch and Seizure

• Fourth Amendment Warrant and illegally seized evidence

• Exclusionary Rule Evidence illegally seized by the police

cannot be used in a trial• Acts as a control over police behavior• At the time, only binding on the federal

agents




Search and SeizureSearch and Seizure

• Writ of Certiorari A writ issued from an appellate court for

the purpose of obtaining the lower court's records of a particular case• A mechanism for discretionary review

• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Legal principle that excludes from trial

any evidence later developed as a result of illegal search and seizure



The Warren Court (1953-1969)The Warren Court (1953-1969)

• Before the 1960s, the U. S. Supreme Court did not intrude into the overall operations of the system.

• Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Made the exclusionary rule applicable to

criminal prosecutions at the state level This started the Warren Court on a

course that would guarantee recognition of individual rights.



Searches Incident to ArrestSearches Incident to Arrest

• Chimel v. California (1969) Immediate control

• Minnesota v. Olson (1990) Extended protection against warrantless

searches to overnight guests in the name of another





• Minnesota v. Carter (1998) Reasonable expectation of privacy

• Georgia v. Randolph (2006) One resident gives permission, but the

other says no.



The Burger Court (1969-1986) and The Burger Court (1969-1986) and the Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)the Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)

• A swing toward conservatism• Late 1980s, the Supreme Court

distanced itself from some earlier decisions of the Warren Court.

• Criminal defendants had most of the responsibility of demonstrating that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties.



Good-Faith Exceptions to the Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary RuleExclusionary Rule

• Good-Faith Exception Evidence seized on the basis of good

faith, but later shown to be a mistake, may still use the seized evidence in court

• U.S. v. Leon (1984)




Good-Faith Exceptions to the Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary RuleExclusionary Rule

• Probable cause A set of facts that would induce a reason

person to believe that a crime was committed



The Plain View DoctrineThe Plain View Doctrine

• Plain view Evidence visible to the police may be

seized without a warrant as long as the police have a legal right to be in the viewing area and cause to believe the evidence is somehow associated with criminal activity




The Plain View DoctrineThe Plain View Doctrine

• Cases Harris v. U.S. (1968) U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Horton v. California (1990)



Emergency Searches of Property Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entryand Emergency Entry

• Warrantless search justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need

• Cases Warden v. Hayden (1967) Mincey v. Arizona (1978) Maryland v. Buie (1990)




Emergency Searches of Property Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entryand Emergency Entry

• Cases Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) Illinois v. McArthur (2001) Hudson v. Michigan (2006)



Anticipatory WarrantsAnticipatory Warrants

• Anticipatory warrant Warrant issued on the basis that

evidence, not currently at the place described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed

• U.S. v. Grubbs (2006)



ArrestArrest

• The act of taking an adult or juvenile into physical custody for the purpose of charging the person with a criminal offense




ArrestArrest

• Cases U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) Stansbury v. California (1994) Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) Muehler v. Mena (2005) Payton v. New York (1980)




• A warrantless search of an arrested individual to ensure the safety of the officer

• Cases U.S. v. Robinson (1973) Terry v. Ohio (1968)





• Reasonable Suspicion Would justify an officer in making

further inquiry or in conducting further investigation

• Cases U.S. v. Sokolow (1989) U.S. v. Arvizu (2002)





• Cases Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) Brown v. Texas (1979) Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of

Nevada (2004) Smith v. Ohio (1990) California v. Hodari D. (1991)



Emergency Searches of PersonsEmergency Searches of Persons

• FBI guidelines for conducting searches There was probable cause at the time of

the search to believe that evidence was concealed.

There was probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed.

The officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant.




Emergency Searches of PersonsEmergency Searches of Persons

• FBI guidelines for conducting searches Action was no greater than necessary.

• Cases Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) U.S. v. Borchardt (1987)



Vehicle SearchesVehicle Searches

• Cases Carroll v. U.S. (1925) Preston v. U.S. (1964) South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) Colorado v. Bertine (1987) Florida v. Wells (1990) Ornelas v. U.S. (1996) Arizona v. Gant (2009)




Vehicle SearchesVehicle Searches

• Fleeting-targets exception An exception to the exclusionary rule

that permits law enforcement officers to search a motor vehicle based on probable cause but without a warrant. The fleeting-targets exception is predicated on the fact that vehicles can quickly leave the jurisdiction of a law enforcement agency.



Suspicionless SearchesSuspicionless Searches

• Compelling interest A legal concept that provides a basis for

suspicionless searches when public safety is an issue

• Suspicionless search A search conducted without a warrant

and without suspicion



The Intelligence FunctionThe Intelligence Function

• Informants• Aguilar v. Texas (1964)

The source of the informant's information is made clear.

The officer had reasonable belief that the information is reliable.



Police InterrogationPolice Interrogation

• Interrogation The information-gathering activity of

police that involves direct questioning of suspects

• Physical abuse Brown v. Mississippi (1936)




Police InterrogationPolice Interrogation

• Inherent coercion Tactics used by police interviewers that

fall short of physical abuse but pressure the suspect to talk

Chambers v. Florida (1940) Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944)



Psychological ManipulationPsychological Manipulation

• Psychological Manipulation Manipulative actions by police

interviewers, designed to pressure suspects to divulge information, that are based on subtle forms of intimidation and control



The Right to a Lawyer at The Right to a Lawyer at InterrogationInterrogation

• Cases Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Edwards v. Arizona (1981) Michigan v. Jackson (1986) Minnick v. Mississippi (1990) Arizona v. Roberson (1988) Davis v. U.S. (1994) Montejo v. Louisiana (2009)



Suspect Rights: The Miranda Suspect Rights: The Miranda DecisionDecision

• Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda Warnings• The advisement of rights due criminal

suspects by the police before questioning begins

• Waiver of Miranda rights by suspects Moran v. Burbine (1986)





• Inevitable-Discovery exception to Miranda Brewer v. Williams (1977)

• Evidence can be used in court if it would invariably turned up in the normal course of events.

• Public-Safety exception to Miranda New York v. Quarles (1984)





• Miranda and the meaning of interrogation Rock v. Zimmerman (1982)

• Miranda Triggers The dual principles of custody and

interrogation



The Electronic Communications The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1996Privacy Act of 1996

• A law was passed by Congress establishing the due-process requirements that law enforcement officers must meet in order to legally intercept wire communications Wiretaps and bugs Pen registers recording numbers dialed

from a telephone




The Electronic Communications The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1996Privacy Act of 1996

• A law was passed by Congress establishing the due-process requirements that law enforcement officers must meet in order to legally intercept wire communications Tracing devices that determine the

number from which a call emanate