Chapter 7 Intro I The Abuse of Police Power A A Change of Legal Climate Contagious shooting gunfire that spreads among officers in the adrenaline pumping split second heat of the moment who believe that they are facing a deadly threat The Constitution of the US is designed especially in the Bill of Rights to protect citizen against abuses of police power In practice law enforcement especially in the state and local levels revolved around tried and true methods of search arrest and interrogation that sometimes left little room for recognition of individual rights In the 1960s the US Supreme Court under the direction of Chief Justice Earl Warren accelerated the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution Bound the police to strict procedural requirements in the areas of investigation arrest Also seized the 14th Amend and made it the basis for judicial mandates requiring that both state and federal criminal justice agencies adhere to the Court s interpretation of the Constitution established the requirement of a police rights advisement of suspects In the decades since the Warren Court a new conservative Court philosophy has resulted in the and interrogation 1966 case Miranda v Arizona reversal of the Warren era II Individual Rights The Constitution of the US provides for a system of checks and balances among the legislative judicial and executive branches held accountable Under our system of government courts are the arena for dispute resolution between individuals citizens and the agencies of government Rights are concerned with procedure that is with how police and other actors in the criminal justice system handle each part of the process of dealing with suspects Due Process Requirements The 5th 6th and 14th Amendments require due process which mandates that justice system officials respect the rights of accused individuals throughout the criminal justice process Most due process requirements of relevance to the police pertain to 3 major areas 1 evidence 2 arrest 3 interrogation Landmark cases produce substantial changes both in the understanding of the requirements of the due process and in the day to day operations of the justice system The 4th Amendments of the US declares that people must be secure in their homes and in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures adopted in 1791 Illegally seized evidence evidence seized without regard to the principles of due process as III Search and Seizure described by the Bill of Rights A The Exclusionary Rule The first landmark case concerning search and seizure was Weeks v US Freemont weeks was suspected of using the US mail to sell lottery tickets a federal Was arrested and house was searched Since it wasn t routine to use search warrants agents confiscated incriminating evidence as well as personal belongings Case reached Supreme Court where his lawyer reasoned that some of his belongings were illegally seized Exclusionary rule holds that evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial His conviction was nullified on appeal resulting in neither a conviction nor an acquittal Problems with Precedent The Week s case demonstrates the Supreme Court s power to enforce the rules of the crime game He escaped punishment because of the illegal behavior of the police Our sense of justice is compromised when the guilty go free Analysts of criminal justice system considered three solutions 1 Rules of due process newly articulated by the courts should be applied only to future cases escape punishment 2 Punish police officers who act illegally but not allow guilty defendant to 3 Allow Supreme Court to address theoretical questions involving issues of due the Court orders the record of a lower court case to be process prepared for review Writ of Certiorari The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Silverthorne Lumber Co v US Father and son operated lumber company and were accused of avoiding payment of federal taxes When asked to turn over books they refused claiming the 5th Amend The books were taken without warrant The lawyers asked for the book back but prosecutors took pictures of the books Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine and used it as evidence introduction at trial any evidence later developed as a result of an illegal search or seizure A legal principle that excludes from B The Warren Court In 1961 Chief Justice Earl Warren decided a case that changed the face of American law enforcement forever beginning with Mapp v Ohio The Warren Court charted a course that would guarantee nationwide recognition of individual rights Application of the Exclusionary Rule to the States Mapp v Ohio Made the exclusionary rule applicable to criminal prosecutions at the state level Mapp was suspected of harboring a fugitive police came in illegally force but ended up finding pornographic materials was convicted under state law that made possession of those things illegal Based on prior decisions by Supreme Court officers believed the exclusionary rule did not apply to agents of state and law enforcement Wolf v Colorado Warren Court decided that under the 14th Amend due process guarantee mandates that state and local enforcement officers be held to the same standards of accountability as federal officers Since the materials were illegally obtained they could not be used against her Applied the principles developed in Weeks and Silverthorne trials Searches Incident to Arrest officers his home Chimel v California involved both arrest and search activities by local enforcement Chimel was arrested of stealing from coin shop based on evidence from arrest in Police justified search claiming it was conducted as part of arrest process Decisions stated search was invalid beyond person arrested and their US v Rabinowitz arrested and charged with selling altered postage stamps to defraud immediate control collectors Police had valid arrest warrant arrested him in his office and searched his one room office for the stamps Rabinowitz appeal for unreasonable search was denied because search was followed legally by arrest of subject Some earlier decisions state that the protection of the 4th Amend protect people not places their homes are included as people Minnesota v Olson Supreme Court extended protection against warrantless searches to overnight guests residing in home of another Minnesota v Carter defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched and his
View Full Document
Unlocking...