CJA 1100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Reasonable Suspicion, Affidavit

49 views5 pages
31 May 2016
School
Course
Professor
CHAPTER 7 – Police and the Constitution: The Rules of Law Enforcement
CHAPTER 7 – Police and the Constitution: The Rules of Law Enforcement
Abuse of Police Power
Rodney King Incident
Speeding in the car and refused to stop
Upon stopping, he was beaten with fists and nightsticks, also shocked
Officers sentenced to 2 ½ years in prison for use of unreasonable force
A Changing Legal Climate
Bill of Rights – first 10 amendments to the Constitution
Legal environment today is very complex compared to the past
- More informal then (robber hose and phonebook beatings)
1996 – Miranda vs. Arizona suspect must be notified of rights (Miranda rights)
Individual Rights
Checks and Balances
Ensure that no one has more power or abuses their power
People feel that their not getting proper respect or dignity from courts
Due Process Requirements
1) Evidence and Investigation (Search and Seizure) 2) Arrest 3) Investigation
Landmark Case: produced substantial changes in the understanding of requirements of due
process and in the practice daily operations of the justice system.
- clarify the rules of the game
Search and Seizure
4th amendment to the US Constitution
Illegally seized evidence: any evidence seized without regard to the principles of due
process.
- Usually evidence received without a warrant
The Exclusionary Rule
Incriminating information must be seized according to the constitutional specifications of
due process or it will not be allowed as evidence in a criminal trial
- Weeks vs. US (1914) was the landmark case that brought this rule
Problems with the precedent
- Before the Weeks case, it was uncommon for acquisitions of a warrant
- Criminal goes free because the constable has blundered
- Possible solution punish the officer & evidence remains usable
-Writ of Certiorari : right used from appellate court for purposes of obtaining
lower court’s records of a particular case’s proceedings
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: excludes the introduction of any evidence as
a result of an illegal search or seizure
The Warrant Court (1953-1969)
Mapp vs. Ohip (1961) - allowed the exclusionary rule to be applied to the state level
- Mandated that state and local law enforcement be held to same standards as
federal
Searches incident to arrest
1
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 5 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
CHAPTER 7 – Police and the Constitution: The Rules of Law Enforcement
- Chimel vs. California – Searches during arrest can be made to protect arresting
officers but that without a search warrant, their scope must be strongly
circumscribed
The Berger Court (1969-1986) and Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)
The 1980s $& 90s – swing toward conservatism
Good-faith Exception: an exception to the exclusionary rule to allow evidence that
officers had seized in “reasonable good faith” to be used in court.
- Good faith = operating according to the dictated of the law & later find out
mistakes made
Probable Cause: set of facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to
believe that a particular other person has committed a specific crime
- Also reasonable grounds to make or believe an accusation
- Must be demonstrated in a written affidavit to magistrate before warrant can be
issued
Good-faith exception was clear reversal of the exclusionary rule
- Many cases during Burger and Rehnquist allowed it for improperly seized
evidence
“Computer errors exception” was added to exclusionary rule
Plain-View Doctrine: readily visible objects may be seized as evidence during a search
in absence of a search warrant. Officers must first have legal right to be in viewing area
and must believe that the evidence is associated with criminal activity.
- Horton vs. California: search for stolen jewelry and came across weapons.
Although it was not entirely inadvertently, it still fits under plain-view doctrine
Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry
- Officers may enter home without warrant when they have reason to believe that
occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury
-Emergency searches: search conducted without warrant on the basis of some
immediate and overriding need.
Anticipatory Warrants: search warrant issued on basis of probable cause to believe that
evidence of a crime, though not currently, but will likely be there when warrant is
executed.
Arrest
Act of taking an adult or juvenile into physical custody by authority of law for purpose of
charging person with a criminal offense, delinquent act, or status offense.
Most common type of arrest is that which follows the questioning of a suspect
Most jurisdictions allow arrest for a felony without a warrant when crime is not in
progress, as long as probable cause is established, but some require a warrant
Searches Incident to Arrest
Officers have the right to conduct a search of a person being arrested and the area under
arrestee’s immediate control to protect themselves from attack, doesn’t necessarily need a
warrant
Reasonable suspicion: belief based on consideration of facts at hand and on reasonable
inferences from those facts, that would justify an officer in making further inquiry or in
conducting further investigation
2
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 5 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get OneClass Notes+

Unlimited access to class notes and textbook notes.

YearlyBest Value
75% OFF
$8 USD/m
Monthly
$30 USD/m
You will be charged $96 USD upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.