CPOLS Flashcards
You are at the office interrogating a juvenile, in-custody. Before questioning, you advise him of Miranda which he waives, agreeing to answer your questions. During this interrogation, his parents arrive in the office & speak with a supervisor. The parents tell the supervisor that they are invoking Miranda on behalf of their son & they do not want any more questions asked. Can parents invoke Miranda on behalf of their juvenile child?
No. Case law dictates that a juvenile can validly waive his or her own Miranda rights. In this scenario, the juvenile waived Miranda & his parents request can be denied.
If you are going to interrogate a minor, you have no obligation to advise him that he has a right to contact his parents or other adult or to have them present during questioning–even if the parent is present & wants to confer with the minor.
One of your officer’s stops an off-duty Nevada Highway Patrol officer. This Nevada officer is on vacation & is carrying a concealed weapon. What should your officer do in this situation?
Per the federal Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (2004), all officers (includes retired) nationwide are allowed to carry concealed weapons in any state. However, the Federal law will not encroach upon state laws in this regard. Therefore, if a state has a specific state statute making it illegal for out of state officers to carry concealed weapons, than this would take precedence. California “does not” honor the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act so out of state officers are not allowed to carry concealed weapons.
While on-duty at a local DMV you observe a subject behaving suspiciously. You ask if you can speak to him & he agrees. After answering some initial questions, the subject turns & leaves the facility. Can you follow the subject & continue asking him/her questions?
Yes, as long as the consensual encounter does not turn into a detention.
A consensual encounter is a contact between an officer & an individual that is strictly voluntary. The key element is that the person remains totally free to leave or not cooperate. You must not restrain the person or exert any authority over him. You do not need any objective reason or justification for initiating this type of contact.
You arrest a suspect & advise him of Miranda. The subject invokes Miranda & refuses to answer your questions. After booking the subject, he suddenly calls your name & states he wants to answer your questions before you leave the jail facility. Since the subject is now booked, do you need to advise him of Miranda again? (CPOLS, Ch 7, III Miranda, A. Custody, 2. Reinitiation by the Suspect)
It is always permissible to question a suspect who has invoked his rights if he changes his mind & comes to you about the case. Stated another way, further interrogation is permissible (after another advisement & a voluntary waiver) if it is the suspect who “initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversation with the police.” In other words, you can question the suspect if he initiates the conversation, you re-advise him & he waives, & he originally invoked the right to remain silent & not asked to speak to an attorney.
NOTE: If the suspect originally invoked his right to counsel, you cannot question the suspect again without his attorneys present, regardless of the suspects wish to speak with you again.
On the other hand, if a suspect has not waived, but rather has invoked their Miranda rights, it makes a difference whether they have invoked their right to counsel (“I want a lawyer”) or their right to silence (“I don’t want to talk”). The general rule is that once a suspect in “custody” has clearly asserted his Miranda right to counsel, all interrogation must cease. As long as the suspect remains in custody, you may not “try again” under any circumstances without defense counsel being present.
You arrive at the scene of a felony hit & run. After some investigation, you decide to conduct an in-field identification or “show-up.” Is it more appropriate to move the suspect to the victim for the show-up, or to move the victim to the suspect?
Be extremely careful about transporting a suspect during a detention. Avoid it unless it is truly necessary. You may, of course, move a suspect a short distance for your protection (crowd gathering, etc.) or to avoid embarrassment to the suspect. But requiring the suspect to accompany you to another location or interrogation room without valid consent or compelling reason may turn your detention into an unreasonable arrest.
If an in-field identification or “show-up” is desired, you should bring the victim or witness to the scene of the detention if at all possible. As a general rule, the courts do not want you to transport the suspect to the victim
However, there are exceptions to this general rule. The major exceptions are:
o when you have probable cause to arrest the suspect;
o when you have the voluntary consent of the suspect;
o when the victim cannot be moved;
o when transporting the suspect to the victim is the best (or only) practical alternative (e.g., no other officers available);
Example: It was reasonable for a single officer to handcuff two Hispanic suspects, who had no identification & could not speak much English, & to transport them for an in-field “show-up” at a nearby hospital where a traumatized gang-rape victim was undergoing a lengthy examination.
One of your officers stops a minor for speeding. The minor was unlicensed & failed to provide evidence of his identity, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration. Prior to issuing a citation, the officer felt under the driver’s seat for documentation relating to the driver or the truck. From a position behind the driver’s seat, the officer then looked under the seat & found a glass pipe & a box containing a vial with a white powder residue. Was this a good search?
The seizure of the pipe & vial was valid. The area under the front seat, unlike an area such as the trunk, is a location where the documents reasonably may be expected to be found.
As a supervisor, you hear one of your officer’s on the phone with a 20002 suspect. The officer advises the suspect over the phone of his Miranda rights. Is this appropriate?
It is not necessary for the officer to advise Miranda because it is only triggered by in-custody & interrogation.
Your officers decide to detain a man with an axe who was riding a bicycle at 3:00 a.m., even though no “axe crime” had been reported. Is this a lawful detention or did it lack enough Reasonable Suspicion?
It was a reasonable detention. The courts held that, “Some activity is so unusual, so far removed from everyday experience that it cries out for investigation.”
Are officers justified in searching a vehicle incident to arrest (not inventory)?
Incident to a lawful custodial arrest, you are entitled to search the arrestee’s person & area around him, that is, the area & objects that are under his immediate control (due to officer safety & destruction of evidence). The area that may be searched incident to an arrest is limited to the area within the “immediate control” of the suspect. This generally means the area within “arm’s reach” of the arrestee–the nearby physical area from which he, in theory, could grab a weapon or destroy or conceal evidence.
As to vehicles, a search incident to arrest is not allowed if the arrestee has been secured & is not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment–unless the officer has reason to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Driver stopped for unsafe lane changes denied having his license or any documentation concerning the car. The officer searched in the glove compartment, under the driver’s seat, & under the front passenger’s seat, where he found a wallet containing the driver’s identification & a baggie of methamphetamine. Is this a valid search?
The search for documents & the seizure & search of the wallet were valid.
Indeed, in any vehicle detention situation where the driver, upon your request, “fails to produce” the necessary documentation, you have the right to conduct a limited search for the driver’s license or identification and/or the vehicle registration. Furthermore, this search–which must be carried out before you issue the citation–is not restricted to “traditional repositories,” such as a glove compartment or a sun visor, but rather may include any area within the vehicle where such documentation reasonably may be expected to be found.
NOTE: This area would normally not include the vehicle’s trunk.
Vehicle Inventories are supported by three rationales, what are they?
Protection of an owner’s property;
Protection of police against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property; &
Officer safety
