Policing Legal Aspects

Policing: Legal Aspects The Abuse of Police Power ● The beating of Rodney King by LAPD officers is a well-known example of the abuse of police power ● This chapter shows no one is above the law, not even the police ● HPD A Changing Legal Climate ● The Bill of Rights is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power: ○ The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights ○ James Madison wrote the amendments which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties ○ Over 50 years ago, behavior and “investigative techniques” were different than they are now ○ In the 1960s, the Warren Court focused on guaranteeing individual rights during criminal prosecution ○ More recently, new conservative Court philosophy has reversed some Warren-year advances Individual Rights ● Constitution provides for a system of checks and balances in government ○ One branch always held accountable to other branches ○ The legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws ○ Ensures no individual or agency can become too powerful ● People who feel their rights were violated can appear to courts Due Process Requirements ● Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments require due process ● Most requirements relevant to police police to three areas ○ Evidence/investigation - 4th ○ Arrest - 4th ○ Interrogation - 5th Fourth Amendment ● “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches and the persons or things to be seized.” The Exclusionary Rules ● Weeks v. U.S. (1914) ○ First landmark case concerning search and seizure ○ Forms the basis of exclusionary rule ○ Evidence illegally seized by police cannot be used in a trial ○ Only applied to federal officers at the time ● Weeks created a new rules that changed enforcement activities of federal officers ○ Before Weeks, warrants were not routinely sought ● Case shows that appeals system allows the guilty to go free because of illegal behavior of police The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine ● Silverthorne Lumber Co. v U.S. (1920) ○ Held that evidence that derives from an illegal seizure cannot be used at trial ■ Items used to gain confession = bad confession ● Case had far-reaching effects ○ Cases may be ruined if the defense can show that the prosecution’s case was originally based on a search or seizure that violated due process ○ Due Process: respect the rights of the accused throughout the criminal justice process Searches and Arrests ● Chimel v. California (1969) ○ Search incident to arrest is limited to area in suspect immediate control ○ More restrictive today ● Fourth Amendment protects people, not places ○ People can reasonably expect privacy in their homes even if the home is not a house ○ Home: the places where one lives The Warren Court (1953-1969) ● Prior to the 1960s, Supreme Court rarely intruded on the operation of state/local criminal justice system ● Mapp v. Ohio (1961) ○ Applied exclusionary rule (Weeks v. U.S.) to the states ● Led to the Warren Court becoming known as a liberal court The Burger Court (1969-1986) ● Burger Court distanced itself from Warren Court decisions ● Mirrored conservatives stance of the U.S. ● Burger Court adhered to the principle that defendants violations of due process rights were responsible for proving police went beyond the law The Rehnquist Court (1986-2005) ● Took conservative approach to key issues ● Limited exclusionary rule to broadened police powers ● Limited opportunities for state prisoners to appeal in federal courts ● Supported preventive detention, “no knock” police searches, the death penalty, and three-strikes laws The Roberts Court (2005-today) ● Conservative but many opinions closely divided ○ Justice Kennedy often cast the swing vote ● Gives little weight to precedent - willing to change the law ● Herring v. U.S. (2009) ○ Exclusionary rule may only be used if there is an intentional or reckless violation of Fourth Amendment rights Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule ● U.S. v. Leon (1984) ○ Modified exclusionary rule ○ Allowed evidence officers seized in “reasonable good faith” to be used in court, even if the search is later ruled illegal. PC on search warrant ● Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984) ○ Further reinforced concept of good faith ○ Failed to accurately describe evidence to be seized ● Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) ○ Police reasonably believed consent to search was given by individual who had the authority to consent ○ Victim had not lived in apt for a month ● Arizona v. Evans ○ Created computer errors exception to exclusionary rule ○ Warrant was not taken out of the computer when it should have been, but led to discovery MJ The Plain-View Doctrine ● Harris v. U.S. (1985) ○ Police may seize evidence without