Police and the Law

1
Police and the Law

• Introduction to Procedural Law
• The Basis of Procedural Law is found in
  democratic civil rights. In particular,
• the right to privacy
• the presumption of innocence
• However, these values are balanced against State
  (police) interests in public safety and crime
  control. No other crime issue has influenced
  procedural law like the War on Drugs

2
Police and the Law

• What are the standards that theoretically guide
  police intrusion on citizen rights to privacy?
• Reasonable Suspicion Probable Cause
• Reasonable Suspicion
• Based upon objective facts logical
  conclusions
• Tied to the circumstances or context of the
  encounter
• Lower legal standard
• May be developed from information that is not
  reliable (hearsay)
• The basis for Stops (as well as Frisks)

3
Police and the Law

• What are the standards that theoretically guide
  police intrusion on citizen rights to privacy?
• Probable Cause
• Higher legal standard to meet
• Necessary to execute arrests
• Better than 50 chance

4
Police Accountability through the Judiciary

• 4th Amendment The right of the people to be
  secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
  effects, against unreasonable searches and
  seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants
  shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
  by oath or affirmation, and particularly
  describing the place to be searched, and the
  persons or things to be seized.
• PROBABLE CAUSE lays the groundwork for a
  reasonable search.
• What is probable cause?
• Brinegar v. US (1949)
• the facts and circumstances within the officers
  knowledge and of which they had reasonably
  trustworthy information are sufficient in
  themselves to warrant a belief that an offense
  has been or is being committed.

5
Police Accountability through the Judiciary

• Thus PROBABLE CAUSE is SUBJECTIVE. It is open to
  interpretation.
• Absent a Search/Arrest Warrant, officers can
• Articulate reasonable trustworthy information
• Role of informants is increased in investigations
• 2 pronged test to evaluating the credibility of
• 1) information 2) source of info (informant)
• Gates v. Illinois (1983) loosened this standard.
  
• Anonymous informants okay. Courts establish the
  Totality of Circumstances approach. More
  subjective standard
• US v. Sokolow (1989)established legal basis for
  the use of a profile in establishing probable
  cause based on
• Totality of Circumstances standard.
• Airport Passenger paid cash, acted nervous, did
  not check baggage
• Racial discrimination is not legal, but race in
  combination with other unlawful acts (traffic
  violations) may be enough to meet this totality
  standard should this be legal?

6
Police Accountability through the Judiciary

• EXCLUSIONARY RULE
• Weeks v. US (1913) federal
• Mapp. V. Ohio (1961) extended to states
• Facts of the case Mapp refused police entry to
  her home. Police entered anyway and found
  obscene materials in a search for a wanted
  person.
• Establishes that fruit of a poisonous tree is
  inadmissible at trial.
• Real concern that Mapp would deter police from
  aggressive investigation.
• Data suggests Mapp has NOT had any real affect on
  police work. Is a much larger cultural issue
  contributes to publics cynicism about law and
  the CJS
• Empirical findings (of a lack of impact on
  police) may result from the limits on scope of
  the Exclusionary Rule
• Nix v. Williams (1984) establishes inevitable
  discovery exception

7
Police Accountability through the Judiciary

• STOP FRISK
• Terry v. Ohio (1968)
• Police possess legal power to detain question
  even without probable cause. All that is
  necessary is an
• Articulable Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Act.
  Frisk (limited person search) is permissible in
  these circumstances
• Does not constitute an arrest
• How long the stop takes is an evolving issue
• KNOCK ANNOUNCE Context of War on Drugs -
  Wilson v. Arkansas (1995)

8
Police Accountability through the Judiciary

• ARREST
• Depriving one of their liberty by legal authority
  for the purposes of interrogation or criminal
  prosecution.
• At what point are you arrested?

9
Police Accountability through the Judiciary

• Search Seizure of Property
• Search Warrant required
• Written order, issued by a magistrate,
  instructing police t search for property
  connected to a crime and bring it before a
  court.
• Must demonstrate probable cause of crime in a
  specific place (limiting the possibility of a
  general warrant) including description of what is
  to be seized

10
Police Accountability through the Judiciary

• Search Seizure of Property
• Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement
• gtPlain View Doctrine
• 2 features 1) officer has legal right to be
  where contraband is visible 2) contraband is
  recognizable
• gtVehicles
• Carroll v. US (1925) Prohibition Era Ruling
• Establishes warrantless search standard to
  vehicles as long as PC exists that the vehicle
  contains items subject to seizure
• Delaware v. Prouse (1979) Must be PC for a
  vehicle stop (based on totality of circumstances)
• Officers not required to tell motorists they are
  free to go before a consent search (Ohio v.
  Robinette)

11
Police Accountability through the Judiciary

• Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• a. guaranteed fifth Amendment protection against
  self-incrimination
• b. police must advise suspect of his/her rights
• c. Miranda warning (right to remain silent, right
  to have an attorney, if cannot afford one, right
  to court-appointed attorney)
• d. Court found that police used coercive
  techniques (3rd Degree)
• i. environment in police station is inherently
  coercive
• ii. likely to induce suspects to waive their
  rights
• Little substantive impact on ability of police to
  make arrests/secure confessions. But did reduce
  coercive behaviors.

12
The impact of Supreme Court decisions

• Political and legal controversy
• a. police argued they were handcuffed in their
  crime control effort
• b. studies on the exclusionary rule
• - Empirical evidence suggests that the
  Exclusionary rule does not limit crime-fighting
  capacity of the police
• ii. rule largely confined to cases on how
  police obtained evidence (EX drug, gambling,
  weapons cases)
• iii. few motions to suppress evidence are
  raised even fewer are granted
• Good faith exemption police have acted in
  accordance with the constitution if they act
  honestly. In US v. Leon basis for decision
  when police have acted honestly.
• Rehnquist courtsometimes called a
  counter-revolution to the Warren (1960s era)
  court. Rehnquist (current Supreme Court Chief
  Justice) court focuses on speed, finality, and
  efficiency. Tends to value crime control needs
  over civil protections

13
The impact of Supreme Court decisions

• Positive effects of Supreme Court decisions
• a. defined basic principles of due process
• b. created penalties for police
  misconduct--basic mechanism of accountability
• c. stimulated police reform--improvements in
  recruitment, training, supervision
• d. increased public awareness about details of
  police procedure
• e. helped maintain high standards of police
  professionalism
• Limitations
• a. Court cannot supervise day-to-day operations,
  
• b. Most police work does not involve an arrest
  or reach court,
• c. Police may not be informed about current
  court decisions,
• d. Encourages evasion or lying by police
  officers,
• e. Exercise of rights may become an empty
  formality