Case Law – At the Speed of Light

UNIT 4 POLICE – LEGAL CONCEPTS

Get ready for a ‘fast ride’!

• Rules: 1.If you have a question about the specific case,

then please ask while on that slide.2. Please hold ‘this happened to me once’ –

share them via instant message with other members or wait til end to ask me.

3.Write down your questions or reminders – b/c I may cover it or I will answer it.

Case Law – Miranda

• This will help you in the Discussion Board for UNIT 4.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)• Police interrogated Ernesto Miranda for 2

hours.• Miranda was 23 years old, poor and had 9th

grade education.• He confessed to rape and kidnapping.• Justice Warren admonished police actions

during interrogation.

• In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp.384 U. S. 467-473.

5

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• The police are required to advise in-custody suspects of: – The right to remain silent – The right to be told that anything said can and will

be used against him or her in court – The right to consult with an attorney prior to

answering any questions and the right to have an attorney present during the interrogation

– If the suspect cannot afford to pay for an attorney, the court will appoint one

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• Two conditions:

• 1. Suspect is in custody• 2. Suspect is being interrogated

Other considerations• Miranda does not apply to detention or consent-

encounters.• Miranda does not apply to traffic stops, DUI

breath/blood tests (PA v Muniz).• Miranda does not apply when someone’s life is

at stake (NY v Quarles).

Berghuis v Thompkins (2010)

• To invoke your right to remain silent during interrogation, you must FIRST break silence.

• The Supreme Court advised that by announcing your right, you invoke the protection and can cease interrogation.

JDB v. North Carolina

• 5-4 decision• Custody as a requirement • Because of the psychological factors related to

juveniles – age is a consideration for determining ‘custody’

Try to remember the 333 Rule?

3 types of police authority3 types of citizen-police encounters3 ways the police can search

3 Types of Police Authority

1. Detention2. Arrest 3. Force

3 types of citizen-police encounters

1. Consensual Encounter2. Articulable Reasonable Suspicion - ARS –

required for Detention3. Probable Cause – required for both Detention and Arrest

13

3 ways to search

1. Consent2. Search Warrant3. Exigent Circumstances:

(several –related) Hot Pursuit, car, fields, weapons (pat-down),

emergency, preservation of evidence

14

But first...1. Detention2. Arrest 3.3. ForceForce #3 Force: Quickly discuss Force Tenn. v. Garner (1985) Graham v. Connor (1989)--------------------------------------------------------• Then, we’ll start with Detention and Arrest

Deadly Force Landmark Case: Tenn. v. Garner (1985) “All uses of deadly force must be objectively

reasonable based upon the totality of circumstances surrounding its use.”

Objective Reasonableness is satisfied where: Suspect poses imminent threat of serious bodily

harm or death to officer or some other person who is present. OR;

Officer has probable cause to believe suspect inflicts serious bodily harm/death and by his or her escape poses a danger of same to others.

Graham v. Connor – Non Deadly It considers 3 factors: Severity of offense suspected Did suspect pose an immediate threat to the

officer or others Is the suspect actively resisting or attempting to

escape (Note: this is judged by totality of circumstances known to the officer at the time)

Must step into the shoes of the officer 20/20 Hindsight is not considered ....

Florida v. Bostick (1991)• What about consensual encounters – the 1st

tier?• Without ARS, 2 officers boarded a bus and

approached Bostick. They asked for his ID and his bus ticket – and then asked for consent to search his luggage. Cocaine was found and Bostick was arrested.

• Did the police conduct in this case constitute a seizure of Bostick under the 4th Amendment – such that he felt compelled to talk to officers?

Florida v. Bostick (1991)• The assumption there is a ‘per se’ rule in

police seizures is incorrect in FL.• “Our cases make it clear that a seizure does

not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions. So long as a reasonable person would feel free to ‘disregard the police and go about his business,’ the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required.”

Detention• Articulable Reasonable Suspicion - ARS –

Detention• Remember it’s the 2nd Level of Encounter• Those facts and circumstances that would

lead a reasonable police officer, utilizing their knowledge, training, experience, and senses, to believe criminal activity is afoot.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)• Plainclothes officer with 39 years of

experience – 30 years in the same area• Two men ‘cased’ the store • Met with third a block away, Officer

approached and pat them all down• Officer retrieved weapons from Terry• Terry was charged with carrying concealed

weapon.• Is a ‘stop and frisk’ valid under the 4th

Amendment?

Terry v. Ohio• Yes• "The record evidences the tempered act of a

policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger, and took limited steps to do so.“

• "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

Hiibel v. 6th district court Nevada (2004)• Deputy received a call from a driver who had

seen a man assault a woman by a GMC truck on the side of the road.

• Deputy approached and noticed skidmarks and matching description. Hiibel was intoxicated.

• Officer asked for ID, but Hiibel refused and taunted deputy to take him to jail.

• Hiibel was charged with NV statute on must ID• Can a person be arrested for refusing to

identify themselves when ARS is present?

Hiibel continued• Yes!• “contention that his conviction violates 5th

amendment protections fails because disclosure of name and identity present no self-incrimination.”

U.S. v. Watson (1976)• Postal Inspector/Fed Agent relying on a tip

asked Watson for consent to search his car. • Watson agreed and had stolen credit cards.• Fed Agent arrested Watson based on probable

cause Watson had broken the law• Question: Can officers arrest and individual in

a public place with probable cause without an arrest warrant even if there is time to obtain an arrest warrant?

U.S. v Watson (1976)• Yes!• “Such a requirement (to wait to obtain a

warrant) would...handicap legitimate law enforcement interests...the Court has never invalidated a warrant supported by probable cause.”

• Note: Court also stated LE must follow state guidelines for arrest warrants.

Payton v. New York (1980)• Payton was under investigation for murder;

police had p.c.• Police went to Payton’s home.• Payton wasn’t home, police entered, searched

home and gained evidence.• Question: Does the 4th Amendment require

officers to obtain a warrant if making a routine felony arrest when there is time to obtain a warrant?

Payton v. New York (1980)• Yes! • “The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at

the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.”

• Note: This is for routine arrests of crimes that have already been committed!!! Exigent circumstances allow officers to enter and arrest without a warrant.

Case Law – 2Traffic Stops

Carroll v. U.S. (1925)• Officers, relying on evidence that Carroll was

transporting illegal liquor, chased and stopped Carroll.

• Officers searched under the seats of Carroll’s car and found 68 bottles of liquor.

• Question: May officers search an automobile without a search warrant but with probable cause it contains illegal contraband?

Carroll v. U.S. (1925)• Yes!• The mobility of the vehicle is an exception to the

warrant requirement, commonly referred to in other case law as the ‘automobile exception’.

• “The guarantee of freedom...by the 4th Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store or house in which a warrant can be obtained, and search of a boat, wagon or automobile...because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the ...jurisdiction of the warrant.

U.S. v. Arvizu (2001)• Border Patrol in AZ; sensors avoid checkpoint• Officer followed vehicle, which: time of

vehicle on the road, roads circumvented c-point, driver would not look at officer, children waved mechanically, vehicle slowed down, vehicle made turns away from checkpoints.

• Officer stopped Arvizu, consent, drugs• Question: In making reasonable suspicion stops,

what must courts consider as evidence?

U.S. v. Arvizu (2001)

• Totality of Circumstances – even if there is an innocent explanation of EACH activity.

• ARS under Terry v. Ohio is a total sum of activity that may equal criminal behavior.

Whren v. U.S. (1996)• Drug officers in undercover car were

patrolling a high drug activity area. They noticed a vehicle make a u-turn to avoid them, turn without signaling and speed to get away.

• Whren had crack rocks in his lap when officers stopped the vehicle, and he was arrested.

• Question: Can police stop an individual for traffic offenses even if they have other objectives?

Whren v. U.S. (1996)• Yes!• Pretext stops based on race are illegal, but

pretext stops with a law enforcement objective do not violate 4th Amendment.

• “We think these cases foreclose any argument that reasonableness depends on the motivations of the officer.”

Maryland v. Wilson (1997)• Trooper stopped vehicle where Wilson was a

passenger. Driver exited vehicle to meet Trooper. Trooper noticed nervousness, especially Wilson who was sweating and trembling.

• Trooper ordered Wilson out of the car, crack cocaine fell to the ground.

• Question: After stopping a car, may an officer order the passengers to exit the vehicle?

Maryland Pennsylvania v. Mimms• Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) - Can officers

order a driver out of the car?• Govt and public interest of officer safety

outweighs the minimal intrusion of standing outside a car or sitting inside.

• In Maryland v. Wilson, the court extended the rule to passengers. The answer is: Yes!

Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000)• Indianapolis Police conducted a checkpoint

primarily for drug enforcement. People were stopped, asked for documents, checked for impairment, and a drug dog was run around each vehicle. The entire stop took less than 5 minutes.

• Question: Do roadblocks that have the primary purpose of drug enforcement violate the 4th Amendment?

Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000)• Yes!• Drug checkpoints are unconstitutional.

• However, checkpoints with a legitimate public safety interest, not a crime control interest, are constitutional (Michigan v. Sitz). (Like: DUI checkpoints, License checkpoints, and Immigration checkpoints)

Case Law – 3Searches & Consent

CJA 1100 – Intro to CJALee Wade, M.P.A.

333 Rule

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)• Officers went to Mapp’s house, claimed they

had a warrant (fake piece of paper), and demanded entrance. Mapp refused and police broke down the door anyways.

• Mapp was found with obscene materials• Simple Question: Is evidence obtained in

violation of 4th Amendment admissible in court?

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

• No!• The exclusionary rule, which was applicable in

federal cases via Weeks decision is now applicable in state courts.

Stoner v. California (1964)

• Police went to arrest Stoner in hotel, but he wasn’t there. Hotel clerk opened room for police where they seized more evidence.

• Question: May a hotel clerk give valid consent to a warrantless search of the room of one of the occupants?

Stoner v. California (1964)• NO!• “It was Stoner’s right to waive, not the clerks

or hotels.”

Bumper v. North Carolina (1968)• Bumper was suspected of Rape. • When they announced to Grandma they had a

warrant (but didn’t), she said go ahead.

• Question: Can a search be lawful with consent when the alleged consent is given only when LE conducting the search claims they have a warrant?

Bumper v. NC (1968)

• No!• Prosecution has the burden of proving the

consent was freely and voluntary.

Case Law – 4Search Warrants

333 Rule

Steagald v. U.S. (1981)• DEA agents had an arrest warrant for Lyons.• DEA believed Lyons was staying with Steagald. • The arrest warrant had Lyons address not

Steagald, but agents went in anyways and didn’t find Lyons, but found cocaine.

• Question: May LEOs search for a suspect in a 3rd party home with an arrest warrant and not a search warrant?

Steagald...• No!• Unless exigent circumstances, LEO must have

search warrant. However, exigent circumstances for arrest warrants:

Consent of the owner Hot Pursuit Threat of Escape

Case Law – 5Exigent Circumstances

333 Rule

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)• Dickerson evaded police by walking down an

alley. Police conducted a ‘Terry Stop’• During the pat-down, the officer examined on

the outside what felt to be cocaine. The officer went into the pockets and found a crack rock.

• Question: Was the seizure of the crack cocaine valid under the stop and frisk rule of Terry v. Ohio?

Minnesota v. Dickerson• No! The search was invalid.• A frisk that goes beyond determining if a

suspect is armed is not permitted.• However, if an officer lawfully pats down a

suspects outer clothing and feels an object that is immediately apparent to him/her to be contraband, the search is valid.

Chimel v. California (1969)• Police had an arrest warrant for Chimel and

arrested him in his house. • Chimel objected to a search, but police

searched the immediate area and found evidence.

• Question: In the course of making a lawful arrest, may officers search the immediate area where the person was arrested without a search warrant?

Chimel v. California (1969)• Yes• After an arrest, the police may search the area

within a person’s ‘immediate control’. • Immediate control = wingspan/reaching area

of person at time of the arrest.

U.S. v. Robinson (1973)• Yes!• “We hold that a full search after an arrest is

not only an exception to the warrant requirement for the 4th Amendment, but it is also ‘reasonable’.”

courierpress.com

Traffic Stops – Arizona v. Gant (2009)

New Rule• Police may search a vehicle incident to a

recent arrest only:1.Arrestee is not cuffed and within reaching

distance of the vehicle.2. There is a ‘reasonable belief’ the vehicle

contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

Without these 2 conditions, police must have a search warrant.

Colorado v. Bertine (1987)• Bertine was arrested for DUI• Officer inventoried vehicle prior to tow truck• Found backpack containing drugs/money• Question: Is evidence seized by opening a

closed container without a warrant during an inventory search incident to a lawful arrest admissible?

Colorado v. Bertine (1987)YES!Inventory searches are permissible:

1.Protects owner’s property2. Claims against the police3.Protect police from danger

California v. Acevado (1991)• “....We therefore interpret Carroll v. U.S. as

providing one rule to govern all automobile searches.”

• Rule: The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.

Illinois v. Caballes (2005)• Caballes stopped for speeding.• 1st officer wrote warning. 2nd officer used K-9

for exterior sniff.• K-9 alerted on trunk. Officers searched and

found marijuana.• Question: Do officers need ARS before using a

drug detection dog during a traffic stop?

Illinois v. Caballes (2005)

• No.• Drug dog sniffs during traffic stops are valid –

no ARS required.

Questions?????

• I’ll answer any other police legal – search, stop, warrant, use of force, etc….. Questions you got!

• I left out a lot….for time reasons.• Ask me a question, I beg YOU.