Chapter 5 overview
- 1. Chapter 5 Police Officers and the Law Learning Objectives After completion of this chapter, students should be able to: 1. Understand procedural laws and how they govern police actions. 2. Identify landmark cases that established the exclusionary rule. 3. Describe exceptions to seizure without a warrant. 4. Understand a citizen’s rights while being interrogated. 5. Identify the circumstances when police can make an arrest or hold someone in custody. Chapter Outline I. Procedural Law and Oversight of the Police II. Rules of Evidence The Exclusionary Rule Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine Application to State Courts: Mapp v. Ohio Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule III. Search and Seizure The Fourth Amendment and the Right to Privacy Search Incident to Lawful Arrest Plain-View Searches Consent to Search
- 2. Search of Automobiles Search of Persons IV. Other Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement Public Safety Exceptions The Good Faith Exception Issues of Privacy Deadly Force and Fleeing-Felon Doctrine V. Interrogations and Confessions Waiver of Rights Standards for an Admissible Confession Use of Physical Punishment and Pain The Right to an Attorney Delayed Court Appearance Limits on Deception Miranda Rights Right to Remain Silent Police Lineups Juveniles Interrogations and the War on Terrorism VI. Arrest Entrapment and Police Intelligence Activities Enemy Combatants Key Terms
- 3. Arrest (p. 88) restricting the freedom of a person by taking him or her into police custody Carroll doctrine (p. 81) terms allowing admissibility of evidence obtained by police in a warrantless search of an automobile when the police have probable cause that a crime has occurred and delaying a search could result in losing evidence Clear and present danger (p. 84) a condition relating to public safety that may justify police use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect Deadly force (p. 83) the power of police to incapacitate or kill in the line of duty Entrapment (p. 88) the illegal arrest of a person based on criminal behavior for which the police provided both the motivation and the means, tested in Jacobsen v. United States (1992) Exclusionary rule (p. 76) a rule that prohibits the use of evidence or testimony obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, established in Weeks v. United States (1914) and extended to all state courts in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Fifth Amendment (p. 85) provides several important due process rights regarding the rights of the defendant Fleeing-felon doctrine (p. 83) the police practice of using deadly force against a fleeing suspect, made illegal in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), except when there is clear and present danger to the public Fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine (p. 77) a rule of evidence that extends the exclusionary rule to secondary evidence obtained indirectly in an unconstitutional search, established in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1918) and in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) Good faith exception (p. 82) an exception to the requirement that police must have a valid search warrant or probable cause when they act in good faith on the belief that the search was legal Indigent defense (p. 86) the right to have an attorney provided free of charge by the state if a defendant cannot afford one, established in Gideon v.Wainwright (1963) Material witness law (p. 89) a law that allows for the detention of a person who has not committed a crime but is suspected of having information about a crime and might flee or refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials Miranda rights p. 86) rights that provide protection from self-incrimination and confer the right to an attorney, of which citizens must be informed before police arrest and interrogation, established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Pat-down doctrine (p. 81) the right of the police to search a person for a concealed weapon on the basis of reasonable suspicion, established in Terry v. Ohio (1968)
- 4. Plain-view search (p. 80) the right of the police to gather without a warrant evidence that is clearly visible Police lineup (p. 87) an opportunity for victims to identify a criminal from among a number of suspects Probable cause (p. 79) the likelihood that there is a direct link between a suspect and a crime Procedural law (p. 79) the body of laws governing how things should be done at each stage of the criminal justice process Public safety exception (p. 82) the right of the police to search without probable cause when not to do so could pose a threat of harm to the public Rules of evidence (p. 76) administrative court rules governing the admissibility of evidence in a trial Search incident to lawful arrest (p. 79) the right of police to search a person who has been arrested without a warrant Search warrant (p. 79) legal permission, signed by a judge, for police to conduct a search Self-incrimination (p. 86) statements made by a person that might lead to criminal prosecution Sixth Amendment (p. 85) provides the defendant constitutionally protected rights related to the trial, witnesses, and right to counsel Wiretapping (p. 83) a form of search and seizure of evidence involving communication by telephone Chapter Summary As part of the checks and balances within the criminal justice system, there are constitutional amendments that provide guarantees against misconduct by police. Police practices are also affected by city, state, and federal legislative bodies that pass laws to limit or expand police jurisdiction. Additionally, rules of evidence stipulate requirements for police procedures in conducting searches and seizures, gathering evidence, making arrests, and conducting interrogations. The exclusionary rule, which defines admissibility of evidence in court, was extended to states, as well as federal jurisdictions in the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio. Under the Fourth Amendment protects Americans are to be protected from unreasonable search and seizures. However, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. These exceptions include: search incident to lawful arrest, plain-view searches, consent to search, and the search of automobiles.
- 5. The police also have the authority to conduct a pat-down search of a person without probable, but with reasonable suspicion, was established through the case of Terry v. Ohio. Other exceptions to the exclusionary rule address situations such as: public safety, fleeing felons, good faith mistakes, and some intelligence activities, such as wiretaps. The Fifth Amendment protects Americans from self-incrimination, so that that a confession cannot be obtained through physical coercion, lies, deceptions, unfair lineups, or denial of civil rights. The rules of evidence also define lawful arrest, which may not involve entrapment. The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona had a historical impact on police practices regarding arrests and interrogations of suspects. However, the current war on terrorism is not without its criticism regarding the arrest and detention of suspected terrorist, with respect to constitutional procedures. Critics have accused the Justice Department for denying due process to many accused or suspected terrorist. Under the Material Witness law, federal authorities can hold someone indefinitely if they suspect that person is withholding information or evidence. Media to Explore Go to www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html to view the U.S. Constitution and the various Amendments. The National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement maintains a roster of state resources for civilian oversight of the police at www.nacole.org Go to www.fbi.gov and in the search box enter “interrogations”. The resulting search will provide links to numerous articles, publications, and press releases related to interrogation policy and practices including the newly formed interrogation unit for “high value” terrorists. Go to www.fbi.gov and in the search box enter “high speed chases”. The resulting search will provide links to numerous articles, publications and press releases related to high speed police chases. For further information about military tribunals that have been proposed to try enemy combatants and how they are different from military courts and criminal courts go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal.