Schmalleger ch05 lecture

Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice
A Brief IntroductionA Brief Introduction
CHAPTER
Copyright © 2016, 2014, 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 11e
Frank Schmalleger
ELEVENTH EDITION
Policing: Legal Aspects
5

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
A Changing Legal ClimateA Changing Legal Climate
• After the Warren Court, the Supreme
Court became more conservative.
 Recognized the need to ensure public
safety

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
TABLE 5-1 Constitutional Amendments of Special
Significance to the American System of Justice

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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.

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
• Due Process Requirements
 Evidence and investigation (search and
seizure)
 Arrest
 Interrogation

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
• 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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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.

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
• Minnesota v. Carter (1998)
 Reasonable expectation of privacy
• Georgia v. Randolph (2006)
 One resident gives permission, but the
other says no.

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
The Burger Court (1969-1986) andThe 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.

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
Good-Faith Exceptions to theGood-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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
Good-Faith Exceptions to theGood-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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
Emergency Searches of PropertyEmergency 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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
Emergency Searches of PropertyEmergency 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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
ArrestArrest
• The act of taking an adult or juvenile
into physical custody for the purpose of
charging the person with a criminal
offense

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
ArrestArrest
• Cases
 U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)
 Stansbury v. California (1994)
 Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004)
 Muehler v. Mena (2005)
 Payton v. New York (1980)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
• A warrantless search of an arrested
individual to ensure the safety of the
officer
• Cases
 U.S. v. Robinson (1973)
 Terry v. Ohio (1968)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
• 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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
• 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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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.

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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.

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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.

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
Police InterrogationPolice Interrogation
• Interrogation
 The information-gathering activity of
police that involves direct questioning of
suspects
• Physical abuse
 Brown v. Mississippi (1936)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
The Right to a Lawyer atThe 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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
Suspect Rights: The MirandaSuspect 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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
DecisionDecision
• 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)

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
The Electronic CommunicationsThe 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

All Rights Reserved
Frank Schmalleger
The Electronic CommunicationsThe 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

Schmalleger ch05 lecture

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Schmalleger ch05 lecture

Similar to Schmalleger ch05 lecture (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Schmalleger ch05 lecture