Unit III pre quiz

What is the exclusionary rule Explain stop and frisk What is the plain view doctrine What did Miranda v Arizona require

police to do What happens at a booking

1

CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIT III

The rule of Law

2

Goals of III Unit

1) Exclusionary rule and the exceptions 2) Importance of Terry v. Ohio 3) Reasonable suspicion/Probable Cause 4) Elements of a search warrant 5) What can be seized with a warrant6) Searches that can be made without a

warrant7) Miranda 8) Search and Seizure

3

Fourth 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

4

Search and Seizure

1) As part of their investigations police must search for evidence and then seize it to be used in a trial

2) The fourth amendment protects suspects from unreasonable searches and seizures

3) To conduct this search a police officer must have a search warrant

5

Search Warrant

1) A search warrant is issued by a judge giving the officers permission to search a particular area looking for specific items

2) A police officer must offer sworn testimony to the judge that facts they are presenting are true

3) A search warrant requires three elements

6

Elements of a search Warrant

1) Reasonableness 1) The area to be searched must be reasonable,

compared to the crime

2) Particularity 1) The warrant must state: where, when, and

items to be seized

3) Probable cause 1) Based on fact the officer must have

reasonable, reliable and objective information that the person to be searched has committed the offense

7

Probable Cause

1) A search warrant cannot be issued without probable cause

2) Probable cause is: Evidence, conditions, and circumstances that leads a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed and the accused is the person who did it

3) Has to pass the “reasonable person” doctrine in that a reasonable person has to believe that a crime has taken place and that person is the one who did it

8

Probable Cause

A police officer must provide factual evidence in the form of a written affidavit that defines and identifies the suspicious activity

Sources Police observation Private citizens observation Police informant Co-conspirator The victim

9

Reasonable Suspicion

1) A police officer can conduct an investigative stop and briefly detain and question a person for investigative purposes when the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by facts.

2) Police do not need probable cause, only belief that a crime may be committed

3) This is a lower standard than probable cause and would not allow a search warrant

10

Terry v Ohio

1) Landmark supreme court case that established the polices ability to stop and frisk

2) The stop allows police to briefly detain a suspicious person

3) The frisk allows the officer to pat down the outer garments in order to check for weapons,

4) They are two separate actions and each require factual basis

11

Searches without a Warrant

1) Most involve exigent circumstances 2) Judges find that officers need probable

cause and exigent circumstances or they must have a warrant

3) Even in exigent circumstances police must use the reasonableness doctrine (prior behavior cannot be involved)

12

Searches without a Warrant (con)

5) Stop and Frisk:

This is two actions that each require their own factual basis

6) Search incident to a lawful arrest:when making an arrest an officer can search the suspect and the area in their immediate control the search must be 1) conducted at the time of the arrest 2) only the suspect and the area they controlled

13

Searches without a Warrant (con)

7) Automobile searches: In supreme court case Carroll v United States (1925) it was determined that a car search is different than a personal or homeSupreme court case Ross v United States (1982) determined that if probable cause exists that an automobile contains criminal evidence police can search the vehicle including the glove box and trunk

14

Searches without a Warrant (con)

7) Searching drivers and passengers Pennsylvania v Mimms the court ruled that drivers can be search Maryland v Wilson determined that the passenger can be searched as long as it was a lawful stop

15

Searches without a Warrant (con)

9) Pretext stopofficers can stop a vehicle for a minor traffic violation and search the car (Whren v United States 1996)

10) Consent searches when a person gives the police consent to search an area they waive their 4th amendment protections

16

Searches without a Warrant (con)

11) Bus Sweeps Florida v Bostick 1991 upheld the police entering a bus and asking for id and tickets then asking for permission to search luggage

12) Plain View if while conducting a lawful investigation an officer sees evidence in plain view they can seize the material and use it in court

17

Searches without a Warrant (con)

13) Curtilage officers can search an open field from legal air space by plane or helicopter, this evidence would be under the plain view doctrine

18

Searches

Electronic Surveillance The use of devices to listen to and

record the conversations of suspects Katz v United States 1967 the FBI used a device to listen to conversations on public phone booths by listening through the walls, the supreme court ruled that they must have a warrant to do this

19

How a case moves to the Supreme Court

Case starts out in a court of “original jurisdiction” this is where the case is heard for the first time

The defendant appeals their conviction to a court of appeals

If the appeal fails, the defendant then requests that their case be heard by the Supreme court of the state

A writ of certiorari is filed with the Federal Supreme court

20

Exclusionary Rule 1) Evidence that is gained illegally cannot be

used in court 2) Weeks v United States 1914

a) Weeks was accused of mail fraud, his home was searched without a warrant, he was convicted. The case went to the supreme court which overturned the lower courts decision based on the 4th amendment

b) This ruling established the Exclusionary rule

3) Mapp v Ohio 1961 a fake warrant was used to gain evidence, the case went to the supreme court and the court decided the exclusionary rule applies to states also 21

Exclusionary Rule (con)

4) Exceptions to the exclusionary rulea) Independent source exception: if an officer makes an arrest, then calls for a warrant to search the warrant is approved but has not arrived yet they can search

5) Good faith exception: if a warrant has a technical fault but is executed in good faith it still is good

6) Inevitable discovery rule: even though the information was obtained in violation of Miranda if it would have been discovered anyway it could still be used

22