Into to Criminology Exam 2 Monday 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 Interrogation Search 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 Illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial Weeks v U S 1914 established the exclusionary rule 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 2013 Look 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 escaping Good 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 The exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct not clerical Police officers cannot be held responsible for a clerical error 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 emergency 1 Clear dangers to life 2 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 warrant probable cause or even reasonable suspicion Free to Leave Test U S v Mendenhall 1980 U S Supreme Court said A person being seized within the meaning of the 4th amendment only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave If you are free to
View Full Document
Unlocking...