New version page

FSU CCJ 2020 - Into to Criminology Exam 2

Upgrade to remove ads

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5 out of 15 pages.

Save
View Full Document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 15 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Upgrade to remove ads
Unformatted text preview:

Into to Criminology Exam 2Monday February 18th, 2013 Chapter 7 Policing: Legal Aspects (read &outline chapter, it is essential to material)Changing Legal Climate: The Warren Court (1953-1969)- The U.S. Supreme Court in 1960’s, under the direction of Chief Justice Earl Warren: (this court has done more in history than any other court) (at this time supreme court took about 500 cases a year now they take about 200 cases a year)- Accelerate the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.- Bound police to strict procedural requirements. Changing Legal Climate: Post Warren Court- In the decades since the Warren Court, a more conservative court philosophy:- “Reversed” some of the Warren-era decisions.- Created exceptions to some of the rules and restraints.Due Process Requirements- Most due process requirements relevant to the police involve:- Evidence and interrogation (search and seizure) - Arrest- InterrogationSearch and Seizure- The 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.)- You need “reasonable suspension” to search but u need probable cause to arrest.The Exclusionary Rule- Weeks v. U.S. (1914) established the exclusionary rule.- Illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial. - This rule acts as a control over police behavior. - This decision was only binding to federal officers. Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine- Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920)- Because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure. Exclusionary Rule Applied to the States- Mapp v Ohio (1961)The 14th amendment due process applies to local police, not just federal officers. - Wolf v. Colorado (1949)Officers believed exclusionary did not apply to state and local law enforcement• all of these cases precede each other, know that it will be on exam 2. (Example. weeks precedes Silverthorne and map precedes that and wolf precedes that)Search Incident to Arrest- U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)- The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but it protects people, not places.- A limited area search following arrest may be acceptable. Wednesday February 20th we worked on two cases… Friday February 22nd (watched a documentary about water) Monday February 25th, 2013Look out for an email from a classmate, her case will be on test.- ANOTHER CASE: ny times v. Sullivan- Ny times ran an ad about the city and police department of Alabama. It never mentioned his name, but he thought they were talking bad about him,so he sued them and then ny time took him to the supreme court, the supreme court reversed it because he could not prove malice. - ANOTHER CASE: Mapp v Ohio. - Already have notes on this. Class Lecture:Search Incident to Arrest Chimel v. U.S. (1969) Clarified the scope fo a search incident to an arrest.- Officers may search:• The arrested person• The area under the arrested person’s “immediate control”• Officers can search for following reasons:- To protect themselves- To prevent destruction of evidence- To keep defendant from escapingGood Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule U.S. v. Leon (1984)- When law enforcement officers have acted in good faith, the evidence they collect should be admissible even if later it is found that the warrant they used was invalid.- (The warrant is real but in error and the officer did this in good faith and they found something, then the warrant stands) Illinois v. Rodrigues (1990)- Good faith can be established if the police reasonably believe they are performing their job in accordance with the law.  Arizona v. Evans (1995)- The computer errors exception to the exclusionary rule.- Police officers cannot be held responsible for a clerical error.- The exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not clerical mistakes made by court employees.  Herring v. U.S. (2009)- U.S. Supreme Court reinforced its ruling in Evans- When police mistakes are the result of isolated negligence, the exclusionary rule does not apply. Plain View Doctrine Harris v. U.S. (1968) Objects falling in “plain view’ of an officer, who has the right to be in the position to have the view, are subject too seizure and may be introduced as evidence.  U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) Arizona v. Hicks (1987)- Restricted the plain view doctrine.- Officers cannot move objects to gain a view of evidence otherwise hidden from view.- Officers cannot move or dislodge objects to create “plain view.”Wednesday February 27th, 2013 Exam 2 is march 22nd we will be able to use books and 3X5 notecard with writing on both sides.!!! Emergency Searches  Brigham City v. Stuart (2006)- Police Officers “may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing than an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such an injury.”Emergency Searches of Property Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless searches (searching during exigent circumstances) *exigent=emergency1. Clear dangers to life2. Clear dangers of escape (if an offender if running away from you and he runs into a house, cops can go into that house to arrest him, to protect PUBLIC SAFETY)3. Clear dangers of removal or destruction of evidence. ( you get a call that a house has been known to deal drugs, cop goes to house and listens and all the cop hears is a toilet flushing *drugs going down the toilet*) Then cop can come inside. Emergency Searches Warden v. Hayden (1967)- “4th Amendment does not require police to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.” (don’t have to delay search and seizure for a warrant if grave danger is there.-Emergency Searches Maryland v. Buie (1990) Police can search locations in a house where a potentially dangerous person could hide while an arrest warrant is being served. (you can look for a person in a house where a person can hide, cops cannot search underneath couch cushions or in cabinets or things like this.)- Primarily meant to protect officers from danger- Can apply when officers lack a


View Full Document
Download Into to Criminology Exam 2
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 Into to Criminology Exam 2 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 Into to Criminology Exam 2 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?