Admin Of Justice Ch. 5

Front 1

4th Amendment rights

Back 1

-The right against unreasonable searches and seizures
-The right against arrest without probable cause

Front 2

5th Amendment rights

Back 2

-The right against self-incrimination
-The right against “double jeopardy”
-The right to due process of the law

Front 3

6th Amendment Rights

Back 3

-The right to a speedy trial
-The right to a jury trial
-The right to know the charges
-The right to cross-examine witnesses
-The right to a lawyer
-The right to due process of the law

Front 4

8th Amendment Rights

Back 4

-The right to reasonable bail
-The right against excessive fines
-The right against cruel and unusual punishment

Front 5

14th Amendment Rights

Back 5

-The applicability of constitutional rights to all citizens, regardless of state law or procedure
-The right to due process of the law

Front 6

Changing Legal Climate: The Warren Court (1953-1969)

Back 6

The U.S. Supreme Court, under the direction of Chief Justice Earl Warren:
-Accelerated the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution
-Bound police to strict procedural requirements

Front 7

Changing Legal Climate: Post- Warren Court

Back 7

The Post-Warren Supreme Court (Burger Court 1969–1986] and Rehnquist Court [1986–2005]) reflected a more conservative Court philosophy.
-“Reversed” some of the Warren-era decisions
-Created exceptions to some of the rules and restraints

Front 8

Police and Due Process

Back 8

Most due process requirements relevant to the police involve:
Evidence and investigation (search and seizure)
Arrest
Interrogation

Front 9

Landmark Cases

Back 9

Landmark cases clarify the “rules of the game”—the procedural guidelines by which the police and the rest of the justice system must abide.

The Court addresses only real cases and does so on a writ of certiorari.

Front 10

The Exclusionary Rule

Back 10

Weeks v. U.S. (1914) established the exclusionary rule.
Illegally seized evidence by the police cannot be used
in a trial.
This rule acts as a control over police behavior.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states.
The Fourteenth Amendment due process applies to local
police, not just federal officers.

Front 11

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)

Back 11

Because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure.

Front 12

Search Incident to Arrest
Chimel v. U.S. (1969)

Back 12

Clarified the scope of a search incident to an
arrest. Arresting officers may search:
The arrested person
The physical area within “immediate control” (easy reach) of the arrested person

Officers can search for following reasons:
To protect themselves
To prevent destruction of evidence
To keep defendant from escaping

Front 13

Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule

Back 13

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.

Front 14

Plain View Doctrine

Back 14

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 to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.

The Plain View Doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances.

Front 15

Emergency Searches of Property

Back 15

Three threats provide justification
for emergency warrantless searches
(searching during exigent
circumstances).

Clear dangers to life
Clear dangers of escape
Clear dangers of removal or destruction of evidence

Front 16

Anticipatory Warrants

Back 16

U.S. v. Grubbs (2006)
The Court upheld the constitutionality of anticipatory warrants—search warrants issued on the basis of probable cause to
believe that evidence of a crime, while not
currently at the place described, will likely
be there when the warrant is executed.

Front 17

Arrests

Back 17

An arrest occurs when a law enforcement
officer restricts a person’s freedom to
leave. It is:

The act of taking an adult or juvenile into
custody by authority of law for the
purpose of charging the person with a
criminal offense, a delinquent act, or a
status offense, terminating with the
recording of a specific offense.

Front 18

“Free-to-Leave” Test

Back 18

U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)

The U.S. Supreme Court said:
“A person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth 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.”

Front 19

The “Terry” Stop

Back 19

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Reasonable suspicion is needed to “stop and frisk.”
The facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes
may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed.

Justification:
“We cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest.”

Front 20

Reasonable Suspicion Versus Probable Cause

Back 20

Reasonable suspicion is a general and
reasonable belief that a crime is in
progress or has occurred whereas
probable cause is a reasonable belief
that a particular person has committed
a specific crime.

Front 21

FBI Guidelines for Conducting Emergency Warrantless Searches of Persons

Back 21

All of the following conditions must apply.
At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe that evidence was concealed on the person searched.
At the time of the search there was probable cause to believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence existed.
The officer had no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant authorizing the search.
The action was no greater than necessary to eliminate the threat of destruction of evidence.

Front 22

Fleeting Targets: Vehicle Searches

Back 22

Investigatory stops of vehicles required reasonable suspicion.

Warrantless searches of vehicles must be based on probable cause (fleeting-targets exception).
Mobility of vehicles would allow them to
quickly flee.
Warrants are necessary if time and
circumstances permit them.

Front 23

Suspicionless Searches

Back 23

Suspicionless searches may be necessary in
order to ensure public safety. Such searches
must be based on compelling interests.

Suspicionless sweeps of busses, trains, planes,
and city streets are permissible, as long as:
Police ask permission
Police do not coerce people to consent
Police do not convey the message that compliance is necessary

Front 24

Suspicionless Border Searches

Back 24

Suspicionless searches of vehicles at our nation’s borders are permitted, even when searches are extensive.

U.S. v. Flores-Montano (2004)
“The Government’s authority to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle’s fuel tank.”

Front 25

Intelligence Function

Back 25

Police gather information through many sources, including:

Informants

Interrogation

Front 26

Two-Pronged Test for the Use of Informants

Back 26

In the case of informants, a two-pronged test usually satisfies the probable cause
requirement per Aguilar v. Texas (1964).

#1: The source of the informant’s information is made clear.

# 2: The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable.

Front 27

Anonymous Tips

Back 27

Anonymous tips are evaluated on the
basis of the totality of circumstances
approach and are considered in light of
everything already known to the police.

Without other information, anonymous
tips may be used if they accurately
predict future behavior.

Front 28

Police Interrogation

Back 28

An interrogation refers to the information-gathering activity of police officers that involves the direct questioning of suspects.

During an interrogation, there must be no:
Physical abuse
Inherent coercion
Psychological manipulation

Front 29

The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation

Back 29

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

A defendant is entitled to counsel at
police interrogations, and counsel
should be provided when the
defendant so requests.

Front 30

The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation

Back 30

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

“The entire aura and atmosphere of police
interrogation, without notification of rights and
an offer of assistance of counsel, tends to
subjugate the individual to the will of his
examiner.”

Prior to custodial interrogation, a person must
be informed of his or her rights (Miranda
triggers).

Front 31

Nontestimonial Evidence

Back 31

Nontestimonial evidence generally refers to physical evidence, including personal items that may be within or part of a person’s body, such as:
Ingested drugs
DNA
Foreign objects
Blood
Medical implants

Front 32

Nontestimonial Evidence: concerns

Back 32

Concerns over non-testimonial evidence involve:

Right to privacy issues
Body-cavity searches
Electronic eavesdropping
Electronic evidence

Front 33

Right to Privacy

Back 33

Schmerber v. California (1966)

Warrants must be obtained for bodily intrusions unless fast action is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence by natural physiological processes.

Front 34

Electronic Eavesdropping

Back 34

Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 permits officers to
listen to electronic communications when one
of the following conditions is met:

An officer is one of the parties involved in the conversation.
One of the parties is not the officer but willingly decides to share the communications with the officer.
Officers obtain a warrant based on probable cause.

Front 35

Minimization Requirement

Back 35

U.S. v. Scott (1978)

Officers must make every
reasonable effort to monitor only
those conversations that are
specifically related to the criminal
activity under investigation.

Front 36

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986

Back 36

The ECPA held that officers must obtain
wiretap-type court orders to eavesdrop on
ongoing communications.


**In 2004, judges approved 1,710 wiretap requests,
allowing for around 5.2 million intercepted
conversations.

Front 37

The Telecommunications Act of 1996

Back 37

Made it a federal offense to knowingly use
interstate or international telecommunications
device to:
“create, solicit, or initiate the transmission of any
comments, request, suggestion, proposal, image or
other communication, which is obscene, lewd,
lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy,
abuse, threaten, or harass another person.”

This act also included a provision for
harassing and other types of prank phone
calls.

Front 38

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

Back 38

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 made it easier
for police investigators to intercept many forms
of electronic communication. The Act:

Allows for roving, multi-point wiretaps
Broadened “sneak and peek” searches
Updated the pen/trap statue
Eliminated wiretap orders except for cases of real-time telephone conversations
Updated and expanded the types of records that law enforcement can obtain with a subpoena

Front 39

PATRIOT II

Back 39

Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act contained
sunset clauses, set to expire in 2005. The 2006
USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization
(PATRIOT II):

Made permanent 14 of the original provisions
Extended other provisions for four more years
Addressed some of the concerns of civil libertarians
Provided additional protections for mass transportation systems and seaports
Closed some legal loopholes in laws preventing terrorist financing
Included the Combat Methamphetamine Act (CMA)

Front 40

Gaining Electronic Evidence

Back 40

Proper digital criminal forensics has become
increasingly important in today’s modern times.

Electronic evidence is of special concern because
it:

Is latent
Can transcend national and state borders quickly and easily
Is fragile and can easily be altered, damaged, compromised, or destroyed by improper handling or improper examination
May be time sensitive