DOC PREVIEW
UW-Milwaukee CRMJST 271 - Legal Issues (continued)
Type Lecture Note
Pages 2

This preview shows page 1 out of 2 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

CRM JST 271 1st Edition Lecture 6Chapter 3: Legal Issuescon’tI. Arrestsa. Arrests require probable cause that individual committed a crimei. US v Watson (1976) felony arrests in publicii. Payton v New York (1981) warranted needed in private home, unless exigentiii. Chimel v California (1969) lunge areaiv. Maryland v Buie (1990) = protective sweepsII. Searches and Seizures of Propertya. There are further exceptions to the search warrant requirement i. Hot pursuit exceptionii. Consent1. Voluntary and not coercediii. Vehicle searches1. Pretextual stopsa. U/C traffic stop2. Sobriety checkpointsa. Michigan Department of State Police v Sitz (1990)b. There are a host of other important vehicle-specific decisions:i. Indianapolis v Edmond (2000) illegal drug checkpointii. Illinois v Lidster (2004) checkpoint for info on suspect. Lidster OAIiii. Carroll v US (1925) mobility of vehicleiv. US v Ross (1982) entire vehicle searched, including trunk and closed containersv. Wyoming v Houghton (1999) search of passengers belongings with PCc. Bright Line Rule = officers may search passenger compartment if a passenger is under arresti. New York v Belton (1981) passenger compartment can be searched if arrestii. Thorton v US (2004) search of vehicle after exiting and arrestiii. Arizona v Gant (2009) once removed from vehicle not in proximity to vehicle andevidenceIII. Interrogations and Confessionsa. 5th amendmenti. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensationii. Miranda v Arizona (1966)1. What does the Miranda Warning advise?a. Right to remain silentb. Right to have an attorneyc. Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court oflawd. State will provide attorney to you if you cannot afford ite. (in WI) if you choose to answer now, you may stop at any time until you have an attorneyb. Other important 5th amendment decisionsi. Dickerson v US (2000) no laws may supersede Mirandaii. Edwards v Arizona (1981) one day not enough of a break in timeiii. Maryland v Shatzer (2010) significant break in timec. Waiver of rights must be done “knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily” (part of Miranda)d. There are other exceptions to the Miranda Warning requirementi. Public safety exception (New York v Quarles, 1984)1. When there exists a significant, immediate threat to public safetyii. Inevitable discovery1. When police can demonstrate physical evidence would’ve been recovered2. Brewer v Williams (1977) Christian burial3. Nix v Williams (1984) body in woods,


View Full Document
Download Legal Issues (continued)
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Legal Issues (continued) and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Legal Issues (continued) 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?