Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
40 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
4th Amendment rights
|
-The right against unreasonable searches and seizures
-The right against arrest without probable cause |
|
5th Amendment rights
|
-The right against self-incrimination
-The right against “double jeopardy” -The right to due process of the law |
|
6th Amendment Rights
|
-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 |
|
8th Amendment Rights
|
-The right to reasonable bail
-The right against excessive fines -The right against cruel and unusual punishment |
|
14th Amendment Rights
|
-The applicability of constitutional rights to all citizens, regardless of state law or procedure
-The right to due process of the law |
|
Changing Legal Climate: The Warren Court (1953-1969)
|
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 |
|
Changing Legal Climate: Post- Warren Court
|
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 |
|
Police and Due Process
|
Most due process requirements relevant to the police involve:
Evidence and investigation (search and seizure) Arrest Interrogation |
|
Landmark Cases
|
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. |
|
The Exclusionary Rule
|
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. |
|
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1918)
|
Because illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure.
|
|
Search Incident to Arrest
Chimel v. U.S. (1969) |
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 |
|
Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule
|
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. |
|
Plain View Doctrine
|
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. |
|
Emergency Searches of Property
|
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 |
|
Anticipatory Warrants
|
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. |
|
Arrests
|
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. |
|
“Free-to-Leave” Test
|
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.” |
|
The “Terry” Stop
|
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.” |
|
Reasonable Suspicion Versus Probable Cause
|
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. |
|
FBI Guidelines for Conducting Emergency Warrantless Searches of Persons
|
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. |
|
Fleeting Targets: Vehicle Searches
|
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. |
|
Suspicionless Searches
|
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 |
|
Suspicionless Border Searches
|
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.” |
|
Intelligence Function
|
Police gather information through many sources, including:
Informants Interrogation |
|
Two-Pronged Test for the Use of Informants
|
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. |
|
Anonymous Tips
|
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. |
|
Police Interrogation
|
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 |
|
The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation
|
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
A defendant is entitled to counsel at police interrogations, and counsel should be provided when the defendant so requests. |
|
The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation
|
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). |
|
Nontestimonial Evidence
|
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 |
|
Nontestimonial Evidence: concerns
|
Concerns over non-testimonial evidence involve:
Right to privacy issues Body-cavity searches Electronic eavesdropping Electronic evidence |
|
Right to Privacy
|
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. |
|
Electronic Eavesdropping
|
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. |
|
Minimization Requirement
|
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. |
|
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986
|
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. |
|
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
|
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. |
|
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
|
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 |
|
PATRIOT II
|
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) |
|
Gaining Electronic Evidence
|
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 |