Legal Update InService 2005

1
Legal UpdateIn-Service 2005

• Prepared by
• Reece Trimmer
• For the
• North Carolina Justice Academy

2

• Using Illinois v. Lidster and State v. Mitchell,
  explain the current legal status of the different
  types of checkpoints.
  
• Discuss the practical implications of U.S. v.
  Banks and State v. Carrillo in writing and
  executing search warrants.
  
• Analyze seven recent appellate cases regarding
  interrogation law and determine the practical
  implications of the courts rulings.
  
• Discuss the totality of the circumstances
  analysis used by the court to determine probable
  cause to arrest in Maryland v. Pringle.

3

• Identify factors the courts used to determine if
  reasonable suspicion existed in State v.
  Blackstock and State v. Edwards.
  
• Discuss the testimony an officer may present on a
  vehicles speed, based on the courts ruling in
  State v. Barnhill.
  
• Explain how the ruling in Thornton v. U.S.
  impacts the search incident to arrest rule for
  vehicle searches.
  
• Analyze relevant statutory changes and the
  practical implications for law enforcement
  officers.

4
(No Transcript)
5

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an information
  checkpoint was constitutional.
  
• Seeking cooperation from the public is an
  important function of law enforcement.

6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10

• The NC Supreme Court ruled that a license
  checkpoint was not required by the federal or
  state constitution to be operated under written
  policy.

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that 15 to 20
  second delay before forcibly entering a home to
  serve a cocaine search warrant complied with the
  Fourth Amendment.

16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18

• The NC Court of Appeals stated that an
  anticipatory search warrant must set out on its
  face the conditions in explicit and clear
  language the triggering events that form the
  basis of probable cause.

19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
The United States Supreme Court has never ruled
age and experience with law enforcement must be
considered in deciding whether a suspect is in
custody during an interview.
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26

• The NC Court of Appeals found that defendant was
  entitled to a Miranda warning because he was in
  custody after he was removed form his car at
  gunpoint, handcuffed, placed in the back seat of
  a patrol car and then interrogated.

27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
The NC Supreme Court stated that Garcia was not
in custody and therefore did not need Miranda
protections. He was left alone while waiting for
transportation to the station he was unescorted
at the station he was told twice that he was not
under arrest. Officers never told him that he
would be arrested on an outstanding warrant if he
tried to leave.
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
  incriminating statements made by Seibert both
  before and after Miranda warnings should be
  suppressed because the question first, then
  warn police tactic was unconstitutional.

37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that officers
violated Fellers Sixth Amendment rights by
engaging him in a discussion of the charges
against him without advising him of his right to
presence of legal counsel when he had been
indicted by a grand jury.
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
admissibility of the pistol into evidence was not
prevented by the officers failure to give
Miranda warnings.
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, based on the
  totality of the circumstances, there was probable
  cause to arrest Pringle (the front seat
  passenger) when a roll of money was found in the
  glove box and drugs were found in the backseat.

52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
Even though the defendant was handcuffed and
sitting on the curb, the NC Court of Appeals
ruled that the officers had reasonable suspicion
to search the car for officer protection based on
the totality of the circumstances.
57
(No Transcript)
58
(No Transcript)
59
The NC Court of Appeals ruled that the officers
estimate of speed justified the vehicle stop even
though the officer was never trained in speed
estimation.
60
(No Transcript)
61
(No Transcript)
62

• The NC Court of Appeals ruled that the officers
  had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant
  based on a list of factors present viewed by an
  experienced officer.

63
(No Transcript)
64
(No Transcript)
65

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the search of
  Thorntons car was a valid search incident to
  arrest even though the officer first initiated
  contact after Thornton was out of his car.

66
(No Transcript)
67
(No Transcript)
68
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Nevada
stop and identify statute did not violate the
federal constitution. The officer had reasonable
suspicion to detain Hiibel and, pursuant to the
statute, Hiibel should have identified himself
when requested by the officer.
69
(No Transcript)
70
(No Transcript)
71
(No Transcript)
72
(No Transcript)
73
(No Transcript)
74

• Effective 10/1/2004
• A judge can order the prosecution give the
  defendant the complete files of all law
  enforcement . . .involved in the investigation.
  The term file includes the . . .investigating
  officers notes.
• 15A-501 makes it an affirmative duty for law
  enforcement to give the state all materials
  acquired in the course of felony investigations
  in a timely manner.

75
(No Transcript)
76

• Effective 12/1/2004
• Speeding combined with two of the following
• Running a red light/stop sign
• Illegal passing
• Failure to yield
• Following too close

77
(No Transcript)
78

• Effective January 1, 2005
• Child less than 8 years old who weighs between 40
  and 80 lbs. must be in an appropriate child
  passenger restraint system (booster seat or
  equivalent device secured by lap and shoulder
  belts in the front or rear of the vehicle.)

79
(No Transcript)
80
New offense if serious injury results from a
failure to yield.
Effective December 1, 2004
81
(No Transcript)
82

• Strangulation Inflicting Physical Injury
• Felon Possession of Any Firearm
• Warrantless Arrest for Violating Certain
  Conditions of Pretrial Release in DV Cases
  
• No Contact Civil Court Orders
• Habitual Misdemeanor Assault

83

• Effective 10/1/2004
• Allows officers with probable cause to seize
  gaming items pursuant to state law.
  
• Officers may not destroy the items until a court
  order is issued.

84

• Effective 12/1/2004
• Class 1 misdemeanor to use a mirror or other
  device to look under the clothing or at the body
  of any person without their consent.

85
Allows qualified officers and certain retired
officers to carry a concealed firearm subject to
restrictions. Qualified retired officers are al
so subject to restrictions. Look for guidance f
rom the AGs office.
86

• Using Illinois v. Lidster and State v. Mitchell,
  explain the current legal status of the different
  types of checkpoints.
  
• Discuss the practical implications of U.S. v.
  Banks and State v. Carrillo in writing and
  executing search warrants.
  
• Analyze seven recent appellate cases regarding
  interrogation law and determine the practical
  implications of the courts rulings.
  
• Discuss the totality of the circumstances
  analysis used by the court to determine probable
  cause to arrest in Maryland v. Pringle.

87

• Identify factors the courts used to determine if
  reasonable suspicion existed in State v.
  Blackstock and State v. Edwards.
  
• Discuss the testimony an officer may present on a
  vehicles speed, based on the courts ruling in
  State v. Barnhill.
  
• Explain how the ruling in Thornton v. U.S.
  impacts the search incident to arrest rule for
  vehicle searches.
  
• Analyze relevant statutory changes and the
  practical implications for law enforcement
  officers.

88
(No Transcript)
89
Legal UpdateIn-Service 2005

• Prepared by
• Reece Trimmer
• For the
• North Carolina Justice Academy