|
Unit 3 Continued
Police Powers -Investigative -Power to stop -Power to question -Power to frisk -Power to detain Power to order someone out of the car -Arrest -Power to use force -Power to search -Power to exercise seizure and restraint -Constitution places restrictions on the use of these powers
Search and Seizure -An arrest is considered “seizure” -Person suspected of a crime is taken into custody -Arrest warrant -Command by a court to take someone into custody -Based on “probable cause” -What do you do if you get arrested? (p.138) -4th Amendment (no unreasonable s/s) -What is “unreasonable”? -Search for and taking of persons/property as evidence of a crime -Search warrant -Written order issued by a judge -Directed to a law enforcement officer -Commanding the search of a specified area for: -Stolen/unlawful goods -Suspects or fugitives -And bringing of these things before the judge -Probable cause -Warrants can only be issued if there is “probable cause” to do so (reasonableness) -Facts (or perceived facts) that are reliable and generate a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed -Without PC, the validity of a warrant is questionable -PC is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” -Would a reasonably discreet and prudent man be led to believe a crime was committed? -Agular v. Texas (1964) / Spinelli v. US (1969) -Hearsay could not be sole source of evidence -Must have reasonable cause to believe that property might be found with supporting facts -Judges must use a practical, commonsense decision -“Reasonable suspicion” -Stop and question an individual on the street -Stop and frisk -Problem 12. 1, 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 (p.136-141)
Warrantless Searches -There are occasions in which no warrant is necessary for a search -Search incident to arrest -If a lawful arrest is made, search of person and property w/o warrant is usually permissible -If time permits, warrant needed to enter home of the accused -Chimel v. California -Search incident to a lawful arrest in a home must be limited to the area of the suspect -Unlawful arrests has major consequences -Evidence seized as a result is inadmissible -“Fruit of the poisonous tree” -Conviction can be overturned -Civil suit against the officer -An acquittal does not constitute unlawful arrest -Stop and frisk -Police can stop suspicious person and detain them -Can frisk suspect -Terry v. Ohio (1968) -Frisking for weapons is permissible -California v. Hodari (1991) -Chase by a suspect is not “seizure” -Evidence dropped is permissible -Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) -In the course of frisking, police officer recognizes contraband, it is permissible -“Plain feel” doctrine -Automobile searches -Carroll doctrine -Where reasonable suspicion of illegal actions exist, warrantless searches of cars is permissible -When police have probable cause, can search entire vehicle -When search is incident to arrest, no limits on what can be searched -Police cannot randomly stop motorists to check -Sobriety checkpoints is the exception -Fresh pursuit -When police chase an escaping criminal or suspect into a house, the police may search the house and surrounding area -Consent searches -If one consents to search, probable cause, warrant not needed -Police don’t need to tell person why -Other searches -Private searches -Border searches -Public school searches (New Jersey v. TLO) -Reasonable suspicion -Inventory searches (after impounding a car) -Electronic eavesdropping (warrant needed) -Abandoned property -Expectation of privacy -Trash left outside is not property -Open fields
The Exclusionary Rule -Prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court -Weeks v. US -If 4th amendment rights are violated, evidence obtained is inadmissible -Only applied to federal agents in federal case -Silver platter doctrine -Permitted fed’l prosecutors to use evidence obtained illegally by state agencies -Mapp v. Ohio -Evidence obtained illegally is excluded from both state and federal courts -Any evidence obtained in any illegal manner is inadmissible in any courtroom -Eliminated “silver platter” doctrine -Many people disagreed w/ Mapp ruling -1974àIllegally obtained evidence can be used in grand jury proceedings (US v. Calandra) -1976àFederal courts under no obligation to issue writ of habeas corpus to state prisoners convicted w/illegally obtained evidence (Stone v. Powell) -1984àIf police acted in “good faith” despite an invalid search warrant (no probable cause, etc.), evidence is admissible (US v. Leon) -1987àIf police who carry out search under a state law later to be found unconstitutional, evidence is admissible (Illinois v. Krull) -1988àIf police discover evidence during initial warrantless search, evidence is admissible if 2nd search is conducted w/search warrant (and warrant is obtained based on evidence not found during 1st search)
Custodial Interrogation -5th and 6th amendments afford protections when being interrogated -Confessions are admissible only when they are voluntary -Prompt arraignment rule -Police must charge suspect w/crime as soon as practically possible -Escobedo v. Illinois -When police questioning shifts from investigatory to accusatory, the accused has a right to legal counsel -5 to 4 decision (1964) -5 factors in interrogation -No longer general inquiry -Suspect is in policy custody -Interrogation lends itself to incriminating statements -Suspect requested and denied a lawyer -Police have not warned suspect of constitutional rights -Miranda v. Illinois (1966) -Miranda warnings -5 to 4 decision -Erosion of Miranda -If statements made w/o Mirandizing, statements could be used to judge credibility -If suspect asserts his right to remain silent, police can later question suspect for different crime -“Public safety” exception -“Inevitable discovery” exception -Not a violation if police do not notify suspect that his lawyer is attempting to reach him -Lineups -Post-indictment lineups require defendant having counsel -Exemplars -Court has ruled that 5th amendment only applies to self-incrimination of a communicative manner -Blood, urine, handwriting, voice samples are permissible -However, police cannot force suspect to have surgery to remove bullet to be used as evidence
|