Criminal Justice Process: The Investigation

1. Criminal Justice Process:The Investigation The Arrest Search and Seizure Interrogations and Confessions

2. The Arrest – When a person suspected of a crime is taken into custody • Arrest Warrant: A court order commanding the person named in it be taken into custody. Usually, the police file a complaint with a judge/magistrate. They must swear to the facts and evidence of the case. IF the judge believes there is sufficient evidence, he/she will issue a WARRANT. • Warrantless Arrest: If the police do not have time to get a warrant or believe the suspect will flee or will harm others, they can arrest that person WITHOUT a warrant.

3. The Arrest • Probable Cause: Having a reasonable belief a crime has been committed by that person. Probable cause may be based on less evidence than what will be needed in court to convince a jury of guilt. Probable Cause is a judgement call by the police in a warrantless arrest. It required more than a suspicion or hunch. • DRUG COURIER PROFILE: PROBABLE CAUSE CAN BE ESTABLISHED USING “COMMONLY HELD BELIEFS” OF THE APPEARANCE OF A DRUG COURIER. THE TYPICAL AGE, RACE, APPEARANCE, BEHAVIOR AND MANNERISM LEAD POLICE TO BELIEVE THEY ARE GUILTY. • SOME ARGUE THIS IS A FORM OF “PROFILING” AND THAT THE POLICE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH MORE PROBABLE CAUSE • CORROBORATING FACTS: IF THE POLICE CAN CORROBORATE THEIR SUSPICIONS, THEY THEN HAVE REASONABLE CAUSE • REASONABLE SUSPICION: AN OFFICER CAN HAVE LESS THAN REASONABLE CAUSE TO STOP AND QUESTION A PERSON (IE-IF AN OFFICER HAS A REASONABLE SUSPICION A PERSON IS ARMED, THEY MAY STOP AND FRISK THAT PERSON) • A TRAFFIC STOP IS A FORM OF ARREST ON REASONABLE SUSPICION. THE DRIVER MUST STAY UNTIL RELEASED BY THE OFFICER. THE OFFICER CAN CHECK IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION. THEY MAY ALSO REQUIRE ALL PASSENGERS OUT OF THE CAR DURING THE TRAFFIC STOP

4. After an evening at the movies, Lonnie Howard and his girlfriend, Melissa, decide to park in the empty lot behind Briarwood Elementary School. They begin talking and start drinking the beer they had brought with them. After several beers, the couple is startled by the sound of breaking glass and voices from the rear of the school. • Unnoticed in their darkened car, Lonnie and Melissa observe two men loading office furniture and electronics equipment from the school into the back of a van. Quickly concluding that the men must be burglars, Lonnie decides he should leave the parking lot. He revs up his engine and roars out of the parking lot onto Main St. • Meanwhile, unknown to Lonnie and Melissa, a silent security alarm has also alerted the local police to the break in at the school. Responding to the alarm, Officer Vicki Ramos heads for the school. She turns onto Main Street just in time to see one vehicle, Lonnie’s car, speeding away from the school.

5. Answer these questions….. • 1. If you were Officer Ramos, what would you do in this situation? If you were Lonnie, what would you do? • 2. If Officer Ramos chases Lonnie, will she have probable cause to stop and arrest him? • 3. How do you think Officer Ramos would act after stopping Lonnie? How do you think Lonnie and Melissa would act? • 4. What could Lonnie and Melissa do if they were mistakenly arrested for burglary? What could they do if they were abused or mistreated by Officer Ramos? • 5. Assume Lonnie takes a baseball bat from the back of the car and begins to wave it after being stopped by Officer Ramos. Would it be legal for Officer Ramos to use deadly force?

6. What to do if you are arrested • Do Not Struggle with the police • Be polite: avoid swearing & fighting, even if you believe the police have made a mistake • If you believe you have been assaulted by the police, take down the officer’s name and badge number • Give your name, address, and phone number to the police • Do not discuss your case with anyone and don’t sign any statements until you talk to your lawyer • If arrested for a minor offense • You may be searched, photographed and fingerprinted • Call a trusted relative or friend. Tell them where you are, what you were charged with and what your bail is. • If you are a juvenile, a parent or guardian must be notified and there is no right to bail • You may be released without bail (unsecured bond) or with bail. You must put up money or collateral. Ask for a receipt

7. What to do if you are arrested • If arrested for a major offense • Ask a friend/relative to get a lawyer for you (one will be provided if you cannot afford one) • Before you leave the courthouse, find out when you are due in court. NEVER BE LATE OR MISS A COURT APPEARANCE • Do Not Talk to anyone about your case except your lawyer • Be honest with your lawyer • Ask the lawyer to be present at all lineups and interrogations • Most defense lawyers will recommend that you not talk to police about the crime until you speak to a lawyer

8. In March 2009, Victor Harris, who was 19 years old, was speeding at 73 mph on a stretch of read where the speed limit was 55 mph. A police officer activated his blue flashing lights to signal Harris to pull over, but Harris sped away. The officer chased Harris and radioed his dispatch for assistance. • Deputy Timothy Scott joined the pursuit along with other officers, and most of the chase occurred on a two-lane highway. At one point, Harris pulled into a shopping center parking lot, where he collided with one of the patrol cars, and then continued fleeing down the high way. Deputy Scott, now the lead pursuit vehicle, decided to stop Harris by ramming him from behind. He sought and received permission from his supervisor, who said “Go ahead and take him out.” • Scott pushed his bumper into the rear of Harris’s vehicle, which ran off the road, overturned, and crashed. Harris was badly injured in the crash, which left him a quadriplegic. He sued Scott for violating his Fourth Amendment rights, saying that Scott used excessive force to seize him.

9. Answer these questions. . . . • 1) What arguments can Harris make that his rights were violated? • 2) What arguments can Officer Scott make that his use of force did not violate Harris’ rights? • 3) How should this case be decided? Explain • 4) Draft a policy that the police could use to determine when a chase is justified

10. Search and Seizure • 4th Amendment: The right of the 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 searched and the persons or things to be seized

11. Exclusionary Rule • Evidence found from an illegal search CANNOT be used in a court of law • “Fruit of the poisonous tree” • Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

12. Search and Seizure???? • The police see Dell standing at a bus stop in an area known for drug dealing. They stop and search him, finding drugs in his pocket. • After Brandon checks out of a hotel, the police ask the hotel manager to turn over contents of a wastebasket, where they find notes planning a murder. • Jill’s ex-boyfriend breaks into her apartment and looks through her desk for love letters. Instead he finds drugs, which he gives to the police. • Pam is seen shoplifting in a store. Police chase Pam into her apartment building and arrest her outside the closed door of her apartment. A search of the apartment reveals a large quantity of stolen goods. • Sandi is suspected of receiving stolen goods. The police go to her house and ask Claire, her roommate, if they can search the house. Claire gives them permission, and they find stolen items in Sandi’s dresser

13. Search and Seizure (4th Amendment) • Americans value their privacy and expect to be left alone, especially in their homes • No “right to privacy” in the Constitution, but the 4th Amendment protects you from “unreasonable searches and seizures”. This limits the power of the government to intrude on your life without reasonable cause • This right is balanced against the government’s need to gather information about criminal activity • The Courts have to decide what is reasonable when it come to searches and seizures • Warrantless Searches are common outside the home. As long as they are “reasonable,” the Courts have upheld this practice • “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” – “Did the person in that situation have an expectation of privacy” • “Exclusionary Rule” – If the Courts rule a search was ‘unreasonable’, then any evidence gathered during that search CANNOT be used against the suspect in court. (fruit of the poisoned tree)

14. Search and Seizure (continued) • Searches with a Warrant –A search warrant is a court order obtained from a judge who sees a genuine need to search a person or place. • To get a warrant, an officer must file an AFFIDAVIT which is a sworn statement of facts and circumstances that provides probable cause to believe a search is justified. • If a judge agrees to a warrant, the warrant must specifically describe the person or place to be searched and the particular things to be seized • Once issued, the warrant must be executed within a specified number of days • It must be executed during the day, unless stated otherwise on the warrant • “Knock and Announce” – Officers must knock, announce their purpose and authority and request admission. If the person refused, the police can then enter without permission • “No Knock” – if the circumstances present a treat to the officers or where evidence would likely be destroyed, the police can enter without “knock and announce”

15. Elements of a Warrant • Swear an Oath or Affirmation before a judge or magistrate • Show PROBABLE CAUSE • Reasons for the search • Evidence against that person • Specifically list WHO/WHAT/WHERE to be searched

16. When the police fail to act in good faith or in compliance with search warrant terms, any resulting evidence will not be held admissible in a court of law, as established by the federal "exclusionary rule" doctrine. • Good Faith: Acting with good intentions to follow the law • Compliance: Searches only where and for what the warrant allows

17. Searches Without a Warrant • Search incident to a lawful arrest: When part of a legal arrest, a search is considered reasonable • Stop and Frisk: If an officer believes a person is behaving suspiciously and likely to be armed • Consent: When a person voluntarily agrees to a search, a warrant is unnecessary. A parent CAN allow police to search the property of their child, but a spouse cannot give permission to search the house when the spouse is there and objects • Border and Airport Searches: Customs agents are authorized to search without warrants or probable cause

18. Searches Without a Warrant • Vehicle Searches: If the police have probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband may search the entire vehicle without a warrant. They CANNOT stop and search vehicles randomly • Plain View: If the object of a crime or contraband is in plain view, the police can seize it without warrant • Hot Pursuit: The police may enter a building if they are pursuing a suspect. They may also seize evidence found in plain view • Emergency Situations: If the police believe an emergency exists, they may enter without a warrant (IE-bomb threat). They also can enter a home if they believe a suspect might escape, evidence might be destroyed or harm to others may occur.

19. Public School Searches • Students as public schools have 4th Amendment rights • US Supreme Court has granted school authorities broad discretion to search students and their possessions in several situations • In public schools, the main concern is whether a search is reasonable in the context of the school’s legitimate interests (IE – Drug Problem) • Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion • Do you have a 4th Amendment Right? • Your Backpack • Your Locker • Your car • On your person • Student Drug Testing (book assignment p. 147) • T.L.O. case

20. Book Assignment (read p. 147) • How is the Tecumseh case like the Oregon case? How is it different? How is this case similar to and different from the New Jersey v. TLO case discussed on p. 148? • What are the most convincing arguments challenging the policy for the students? • What are the most convincing arguments in justifying the policy for the school? • How should the case be decided? Explain • Assume that the case is decided in favor of the school. Will this mean that schools can test all students. Faculty and staff? Should schools be able to test everyone for drugs? Explain your answer

21. Suspicionless Searches • Searches considered unreasonable if there is no INDIVIDUALIZED suspicion of wrongdoing. • Exceptions: • Border Searches • Airline Searches • Mandatory Drug Testing (IE –for railroad workers involved in crashes) • Highway Sobriety Searches (some states have made illegal – Washington state has) • Racial Profiling: The inappropriate use of race as a factor in identifying people who may break or have broken a law. (IE-Arab looking young male boarding an airplane) • Goes against the presumption of innocence • It is inappropriate for an officer to stop an person SOLELY because of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion

22. Determine whether profiling was used in making each of the following decisions. Give your reasons • Two African American men are driving over the speed limit on a highway where police know drugs are being transported to a part of the city with a large African American population. A police officer stops them for speeding and then conducts a complete search of their car, including their trunk, to look for drugs. They do not find any drugs. • After a terrorist attack, the government decides to use more telephone wiretaps to gather information in communities that have mosques. • A man reports overhearing two Spanish-speaking men in a coffee shop planning to rob a specific jewelry store the next day. The witness could not see the men’s faces and does not know their names. The next day the police go to the store and question two “Latino-looking” men who are sitting in a car outside. • A woman entering the US holds a passport from a country with which the US was recently at war. A customs agent detains her for questioning

23. Interrogations and Confessions • Interrogation: questioning the accused after arrest that often lead to confessions or admissions of guilt • 5th Amendment: guarantee against self-incrimination. This means a suspect has a right to remain silent and cannot be forced to testify against him/herself at trial • Burden of Proof: In our system, the government must prove a person is guilty of a crime (‘innocent until proven guilty’) • 6th Amendment: guarantee to council or a lawyer to assist you. • Confessions cannot be coerced. This means no torture, threat or other techniques can be used to force a confession • Miranda 1966: must be read rights when arrested • Public Safety exception: police can question about public safety (ie-where’s the gun) • Escobedo 1964: cannot use confession if request for an attorney is denied • Constant balance between the rights of the individual and the government’s need to protect society from crime

24. Miranda Warnings & Juveniles Read p. 154 and then answer the questions below: • What are the strongest arguments that Alvarado should have been given Miranda warnings at the beginning of the questioning by the detective? • What are the strongest arguments that there was no need to give Alvarado Miranda warning in these circumstances? • If you were a judge on an appeals court hearing this case, how would you analyze the issue of whether Alvarado was in custody and being interrogated? Should his age and experience be a factor? Explain • Should Alvarado have done anything differently? Should the detective have done anything differently?