Final: Chapter 5- Policing Legal Aspects Flashcards
Bill of Rights purpose
designed to protect citizens against abuses of police powers
Chief Justice Earl Warren + Supreme Court decision making
focused on guaranteeing individual rights during criminal prosecution
- strict procedural requirements
Miranda V. Arizona
established precedent for proper procedure
- “Miranda rights”
- advisement of rights
When must Miranda Rights be read?
custodial arrest + interrogation
Checks and Balances purpose
holds branches accountable for one another and ensures that one does not hold more power than others
Landmark Cases
cases that produce significant changes within the justice system
Rule for illegally seized evidence
cannot be used in court/trial
Exclusionary Rule
evidence illegally obtained by police cannot be used in a trial
Weeks v. US
(1914) applied exclusionary rule to federal officers ONLY
Writ of Certiorari
writ issued from appellate court for purpose of obtaining lower court records for the case
Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine + Example
evidence developed as a result of illegal search/seizure is excluded from the trial
Ex. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v US
Silverthorne Lumber Co v. US
set precedent for Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Mapp v. Ohio
made exclusionary rule applicable to state offficers
Exceptions to exclusionary rule
stop + frisk, consent, plain view, exegent circumstances, hot pursuit
Searches incident to arrest meaning
searching only places in immediate control of person while they are under custodial arrest or detained
Chimel v. California
search is limited to area in suspect’s immediate control
Minnesota v. Olson
extended protections against warantless searches to overnight guests in the name of another
- privacy in another home when not affiliated
Georgia v. Randolph
officers may not conduct a warrantless search if one resident gives permission and another refuses
Burger Court
conservative w/ more police support and “greater good era”
Rehnquist Court
protected the interest of those living within the law, broadened police power
Good Faith exception to Exclusionary Rule
evidence seized based on good faith but later shown to be a mistake, may still be used in court
United States v. Leon
(1984) surveilled suspect for drug trafficking, then policer applied for search warrant based on this. Belief that they were operating according to the law
Probable Cause
a set of facts/circumstances that would induce intelligent/prudent person to believe that a particular person has committed a specific crime
- also reasonable ground to make the accusation
Illinois v. Krull date
1987
Massachusetts v. Sheppard date
1984
Illinois v. Rodriquez date
1990
Plain-View Doctrine
police officers have the opportunity to seize evidence w/o a search warrant if it is visible
- must have legal right to the area
- must have reason to believe it is associated with crime
Harris v. US
determined objects falling in plain view of officer, who has right to position, are subject to seizure + to be evidence
US v. Irizarry
determined that officers could not move objects to gain view of evidence that is otherwise hidden
Horton v. California
Inadvertence (attention) is not needed for evidence to be legitimate
3 reasons for an emergency search w/o warrant
-danger to life
-danger of escape
-danger of removal/destruction of evidence
No knock policy grounds
under circumstances considered dangerous, or that would inhibit investigation an officer has clearance not to knock
Anticipatory Warrant
issued on basis that evidence of a crime, while not at located there at the time will be when the warrant is served
Free to Leave Tests Precendent
US v. Mendenhall (1980)
US v. Robinson
upheld officers right to warrantless search for safety + use of fruits of search when finding contraband
Terry v. Ohio
upheld officers right to warrantless search for safety
- standard for brief stop + frisk
Minnesota v. Dickerson
limited officers ability to seize evidence from pat-down for protection when the search itself was only off suspicious and did not reveal a weapon
Smith v. Ohio
individual has right to protect belongings from unwarranted searches
