Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction Twelfth Edition Chapt

Criminal Justice A Brief Introduction Twelfth Edition Chapter 5 Policing

Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction Twelfth Edition Chapter 5 Policing: Legal Aspects The Abuse of Police Power Police involvement in the deaths of Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown are examples of abuse of police power The beating of Rodney King by LAPD officers was the most widely discussed abuse of police power prior to these events No one is above the law, not even the police A Changing Legal Climate The Bill of Rights is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power In the 1960s, the Warren Court focused on guaranteeing individual rights during criminal prosecution More recently, a new conservative Court philosophy has reversed some Warren-era advances.Table 5–1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice (1 of 2) This Right Is Guaranteed By This Amendment The right against unreasonable searches and seizures Fourth The right against arrest without probable cause Fourth The right against self-incrimination Fifth The right against “double jeopardy†Fifth The right to due process of law Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth The right to a speedy trial Sixth The right to a jury trial Sixth The right to know the charges Sixth The right to cross-examine witnesses Sixth The right to a lawyer Sixth Note: The Fourteenth Amendment is not a part of the Bill of Rights. Source: Frank Schmalleger, Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 12e, © 2018. Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY. 4 Table 5–1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice (2 of 2) This Right Is Guaranteed By This Amendment The right to compel witnesses on one’s behalf Sixth The right to reasonable bail Eighth The right against excessive fines Eighth The right against cruel and unusual punishments Eighth The applicability of constitutional rights to all citizens, regardless of state law or procedure Fourteenth Note: The Fourteenth Amendment is not a part of the Bill of Rights. Source: Frank Schmalleger, Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 12e, © 2018.Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY. 5 Checks and Balances The Constitution provides for checks and balances among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches One branch always held accountable to other branches Ensures no individual or agency can become too powerful People who feel their rights were violated can appeal to courts for redress Due-Process Requirements Due process required by 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments Areas relevant to police: Evidence/investigation (search and seizure) Arrest Interrogation Landmark cases produce major changes in justice system operations Search and Seizure (1 of 2) Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures Exclusionary Rule Evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used in a trial Acts as a control over police behavior Weeks v. U.S. only applied exclusionary rule to federal officers Search and Seizure (2 of 2) Writ of Certiorari A writ issued from an appellate court for the purpose of obtaining the lower court's records of a particular case A mechanism for discretionary review Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine Evidence developed as a result of illegal search and seizure is excluded from trial Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920) Searches Incident to Arrest (1 of 2) Chimel v. California (1969) Search limited to area in suspect's immediate control Minnesota v. Olson (1990) Extended protection against warrantless searches to overnight guests in the name of another Searches Incident to Arrest (2 of 2) Minnesota v. Carter (1998) Reasonable expectation of privacy Georgia v. Randolph (2006) Officers may not conduct a warrantless search if one resident gives permission, but the other refuses Bailey v. U.S. (2013) Limited the power of the police to detain people who are away from home while police search their residence The Warren Court () Before the 1960s, the U. S. Supreme Court rarely intruded into the overall operations of the criminal justice system Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Applied exclusionary rule to the states Started the Warren Court on a course that would guarantee recognition of individual rights.The Burger Court () Court distanced itself from earlier decisions of Warren Court Decisions supportive of a "greater good era" – emphasis on social order and communal safety Criminal defendants had most of the responsibility of demonstrating that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties The Rehnquist Court () Strong swing toward conservatism Renewed concern with protecting the interests of those living within the law Court invoked a characteristically conservative approach to important criminal justice issues Broadened police powers Limited opportunities for appeals by offenders The Roberts Court (2005-Today) Court known for conservative nature, although many opinions closely divided Court has been eroding the exclusionary rule Herring v.U.S. (2009): Exclusionary rule may only be used if there is an intentional or reckless violation of Fourth Amendment rights or systematic police violations with regard to searches and seizures Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Good-faith exception U.S. v. Leon, Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984) Evidence seized on the basis of good faith, but later shown to be a mistake, may still use the seized evidence in court Probable cause A set of facts that would induce a reason person to believe that a crime was committed The Plain View Doctrine Officers may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant Key cases Harris v. U.S. (1968) U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Horton v. California (1990) Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry (1 of 2) Warrantless searches are justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless action Clear danger to life Clear danger of escape Clear danger of the removal or destruction of evidence Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry (2 of 2) Key cases Warden v. Hayden (1967) Maryland v. Buie (1990) Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) Richards v.Wisconsin (1997) Illinois v. McArthur (2001) Hudson v. Michigan (2006) Kentucky v. King (2011) Anticipatory Warrants Anticipatory warrant Search warrant issued on the basis or probable cause to believe that evidence, while not currently at the place described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed U.S. v. Grubbs (2006) affirmed the constitutionality of anticipatory warrants Detention and Arrest Arrest occurs when a law enforcement officer restricts a person's freedom to leave Cases U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) Stansbury v. California (1994) Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) Muehler v. Mena (2005) Rodriguez v. U.S. (2015) Searches Incident to Arrest (1 of 2) A warrantless search of an arrested individual to ensure the safety of the officer Cases U.S. v. Robinson (1973) Terry v. Ohio (1968) Searches Incident to Arrest (2 of 2) Reasonable Suspicion Would justify an officer in making further inquiry or in conducting further investigation Searches Incident to Arrest - Cases U.S. v. Sokolow (1989) U.S. v. Arvizu (2002) Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) Brown v.Texas (1979) Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) Smith v. Ohio (1990) California v. Hodari D. (1991) Emergency Searches of Persons FBI guidelines for conducting searches Probable cause at the time of the search to believe that evidence was concealed. Probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed. No prior opportunity to obtain a warrant. Action was no greater than necessary. Emergency Searches of Persons - Cases Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) U.S. v. Borchardt (1987) Vehicle Searches - Cases Carroll v. U.S. (1925) Preston v. U.S. (1964) Arizona v. Gant (2009) South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) Colorado v. Bertine (1987) Florida v. Wells (1990) Ornelas v. U.S. (1996) Vehicle Searches Fleeting-targets exception Exception to the exclusionary rule that permits police to search a motor vehicle based on probable cause but without a warrant Justified by the fact that vehicles are highly mobile and can leave police jurisdiction quickly Roadblocks and Motor Vehicle Checkpoints Community interests may require a temporary suspension of personal liberty even if probable cause is lacking Highway sobriety check points legal if essential to community welfare Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990) Information-seeking highway roadblocks permissible Illinois v. Lidster (2004) Watercraft and Motor Homes U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez (1983) Police may conduct warrantless searches of watercraft California v. Carney (1985) Police may conduct warrantless searches of motor homes U.S. v. Hill (1988) Police may conduct warrantless searches of houseboats Suspicionless Searches The need to ensure public safety may provide compelling interest to justify limiting the right to privacy Suspicionless search A warrantless search conducted when a person is not suspected of a crime High-Technology Searches Use of high technology to discover and investigate crimes is forcing courts to evaluate applicability of constitutional protections to high-tech searches and seizures Court generally holds that high-tech searches may violate reasonable expectations of privacy Informants The use of informant information to establish probable cause Aguilar v.Texas (1964) – two pronged test Illinois v. Gates (1983) – totality of the circumstances approach Police Interrogation (1 of 2) Interrogation The information-gathering activity of police that involves direct questioning of suspects Not limited to verbal questioning Physical abuse Brown v. Mississippi (1936): Physical abuse cannot be used during interrogation Police Interrogation (2 of 2) Inherent coercion Tactics used by police interviewers that fall short of physical abuse but pressure the suspect to talk Non-physical coercion, hostility, pressure to force a confession Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944): Interrogation involving inherent coercion is not acceptable Psychological Manipulation Psychological Manipulation Manipulative actions by police interviewers, designed to pressure suspects to divulge information, that are based on subtle forms of intimidation and control Arizona v. Fulminante (1991): Interrogation may not involve sophisticated trickery or manipulation The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation – Cases Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Edwards v. Arizona (1981) Michigan v. Jackson (1986) Minnick v. Mississippi (1990) Arizona v. Roberson (1988) Davis v. U.S. (1994) Montejo v. Louisiana (2009) Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Suspects must be advised of their rights prior to any questioning Miranda warnings Rights extended to illegal immigrants living in the U.S. Waiver of Miranda Rights by Suspects Suspects may waive their Miranda rights through a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver Knowing waiver Suspect must be advised of rights, must be in a condition to understand them Intelligent waiver Suspect must understand the consequences of not invoking rights Inevitable-Discovery Exception to Miranda Evidence gathered inappropriately can be used in court if it would invariably turned up in the normal course of events Brewer v. Williams (1977) Nix v. Williams (1984) Public-Safety Exception to Miranda Considerations of public safety override Miranda requirement in order to prevent further harm New York v. Quarles (1984) Miranda and the Meaning of Interrogation Interrogation within the meaning of Miranda does not begin until the individual is not in custody and probable cause is lacking in the investigator's mind Rock v. Zimmerman (1982) Miranda Triggers The dual principles of custody and interrogation Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence (1 of 2) Nontestimonial evidence Generally physical evidence Special category includes personal items within or part of a person's body Gathering of very personal nontestimonial evidence complicates the issue of constitutional protections Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence (2 of 2) Right to privacy The courts have placed limits on seizures of personal nontestimonial evidence Hayes v. Florida, Winston v. Lee (1985) Body-cavity searches Very problematic for police U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) Electronic Eavesdropping Warrant required to unveil what a person is trying to keep private, even in a public place (phone booth, etc.) Minimization requirement for electronic surveillance Officers must make all reasonable efforts to monitor only those conversations specifically related to the criminal activity under investigation The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 Established the due-process requirements police must meet to legally intercept wire communications Wiretaps and bugs Pen registers recording numbers dialed from a telephone Tracing devices that determine the number from which a call emanates The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Title V made it a federal offense for anyone engaged in interstate or international communications to engage in communications that are obscene, lewd, indecent, etc. with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person Communications Decency Act The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 Made it easier for police to intercept many forms of electronic communications PATRIOT II extended or made permanent a number of provisions, including roving wiretap provision President Obama extended several provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that would have otherwise expired. Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) Designed to improve cybersecurity in the U.S. by facilitating information sharing about cybersecurity threats Allows for easy sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies Critics say it facilitates mass surveillance of private communications Electronic and Latent Evidence Special characteristics of electronic evidence Latent Transcends national/state borders Fragile Time-sensitive Police must take special precautions when documenting, collecting, preserving electronic evidence

Paper For Above instruction

The legal framework surrounding policing is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, emphasizing protections against abuses of power and safeguarding citizen rights. Over the past decades, shifts in judicial perspectives—highlighted through landmark Supreme Court cases—and constitutional amendments have shaped the operational boundaries and accountability measures for law enforcement agencies. This essay explores the evolution of police legal accountability, key constitutional protections, transformative court rulings, and contemporary challenges in investigating and intercepting electronic evidence.

Historically, police power has been a contentious issue, exemplified by tragic incidents such as the deaths of Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown. Such cases underscore the importance of legal safeguards against the abusive use of authority. The Bill of Rights, particularly the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, plays a critical role in constraining intrusive policing practices. These amendments guarantee rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, self-incrimination, speedy and public trials, and equal application of constitutional protections to all citizens regardless of state laws.

The U.S. Constitution’s system of checks and balances ensures that no single branch or agency becomes excessively powerful, and that individuals can seek legal redress if rights are violated. These protections are particularly relevant in the areas of evidence collection, arrest procedures, and interrogation. Landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio, established the exclusionary rule, preventing illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, thus reinforcing the legal accountability of law enforcement. Subsequent rulings, including Arizona v. Hicks and Maryland v. Buie, further refined rules governing searches, warrants, and exigent circumstances.

Throughout history, various courts have shifted their emphasis on individual rights and social order. The Warren Court of the 1960s prioritized civil liberties, expanding protections like the exclusionary rule and the rights of suspects under Miranda v. Arizona. Conversely, the Rehnquist Court and the Roberts Court have adopted more conservative stances, often curbing some rights and expanding police powers—for instance, emphasizing the good-faith exception and broadening warrantless search doctrines. These judicial philosophies reflect ongoing debates about balancing effective policing with constitutional protections.

The legal procedures governing police actions include warrant requirements under the Fourth Amendment, guidance on searches incident to arrest, and criteria for exigent and emergency searches. Warrantless searches, justified by imminent threats to life or evidence preservation, are subject to strict scrutiny and case-specific rulings. For example, the Caroll doctrine permits vehicle searches with probable cause, while sobriety checkpoints are upheld if they serve public safety interests. Similarly, electronic searches via wiretaps, body-cavity searches, and high-tech surveillance are governed by complex statutory frameworks like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Interrogation practices have also undergone significant legal constraints. Police must inform suspects of their Miranda rights, and any waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Court rulings have prohibited physical abuse and involuntary confessions and introduced exceptions like the public-safety doctrine, enabling law enforcement to question suspects without Miranda warnings when public safety is at risk. The Supreme Court continues to evaluate the limits of police coercion, especially with advances in technology and investigative methods, including electronic eavesdropping and data collection.

The development of electronic and latent evidence has introduced complexities related to privacy and cross-border data transmission. Courts recognize that electronic evidence is often fragile, time-sensitive, and capable of transcending borders, which underscores the need for rigorous protocols in documentation, collection, and preservation. Laws such as the Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act exemplify efforts to adapt legal protections to modern digital crimes and surveillance. Nonetheless, critics argue that some measures threaten civil liberties through mass surveillance.

In conclusion, the legal aspects of policing are characterized by a dynamic tension between law enforcement authority and individual rights. Court rulings and constitutional safeguards continually evolve to address emerging technological challenges and societal concerns, reflecting the necessity of maintaining a balance that upholds the rule of law, ensures accountability, and protects the fundamental rights of citizens in a rapidly changing digital landscape.

References

• Alpert, G. P., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). On the limits of police discretion: The case of use of force. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(6), 529-537.
• Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law and Practice. Juris Publishing.
• Friedman, L. M. (2014). A History of American Law (4th ed.). Simon & Schuster.
• Gaines, L. K., & Miller,