4. Legal Limitations on Police behavior:

a) Police are authorized to use coercive and intrusive measures in enforcing the law Legal use of force = defining element Legal constraints on police authority

b) Police are authorized to carry out interrogations & evidence collectionBut basic rights to privacy & freedom

c) How to insure proper use of coercive procedures by police?

4. Legal Limitations on Police behavior: Major Issues

a) Search and seizure 4th Amendment concerns

b) Interrogation and Self-incrimination 5th Amendment concerns 6th Amendment concerns The Miranda Rule

c) The Exclusionary Rule

a) Searches & Seizures: Key issue = 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.”

Implied right to privacy

a) Legal Searches & Seizures:1) Searches with Warrant – Obtaining a legal warrant “probable cause” +

specificity (what & where)– Executing a warrant limits on where & how

2) Searches without Warrants (warrantless)– Searches incident to lawful arrest– Consent searches – most common type of search– Plain view searches– Stop and Frisk– Automobile searches– Open fields & abandoned property

3) “Seizures” may refer to either people or things

3) Seizures (of people & things) (cont.)─ Seizures of people• Stops (“Terry stops”) – reasonable suspicion to stop,

inquire, and pat-frisk─ “frisks” versus searches?─ Detaining & restricting stopped persons

• Arrests (custody stops) – (1) probable cause to take into custody (felonies) or (2) arrest warrant or (3) in-view violation (misdemeanor)

Allows for broader, more intrusive searchSelf-incrimination rights become active (Miranda)

• Note a “Continuum of Intrusion” the more intrusive the stop, the stronger the suspicion requirement

─ Constitutional Right-to-Privacy?• Variable = some people have less expectation or rights• May be waived in exceptional circumstances

b) Interrogations Key issue = 5th amendment’s protection

against self-incrimination• “No person . . . . shall be compelled in any

criminal case to be a witness against himself,” Additional issue = 6th amendment’s

guarantee of right to counsel• “the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have

the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

b) Interrogations For police, the freedom from self-

incrimination and right to counsel apply to any interrogations where a person who is a “suspect” may supply self-incriminating info • Supreme court has ruled these rights apply

from the point of arrest or initial suspicion• The suspected person must be aware of

their rights and of police suspicion of them• The Miranda Rule – informing the “suspect”

b) Interrogations (cont.) Two major forms of interrogation:1) Custodial (in-custody) interrogation– Physical or Constructive custody– Miranda v. Arizona (1963) = the key

2) Field interrogation lesser degree of intrusion (stop-and-frisk actions)– “Reasonable suspicion” applies here– “Self-identification” requirement as an evolving

issue3) May also apply to physical/medical tests– Depends on degree of intrusion– DUI “implied consent”

b) Interrogations (cont.) When is Miranda not required?

• General on-the-scene questioning• Volunteered statements• Questioning of witnesses• Field stops (stop and frisk cases)• Routine questions of drunk-driving suspects• During line-ups and photo-ID sessions• Statements to private persons• Suspect appearing before grand jury• A situational threat to public safety

c) What happens if search, seizure, or interrogation is illegal?• “Exclusionary Rule” (ER): Evidence seized illegally

cannot be used to convict this applies deterrent sanctions to improper police conduct

• ER was introduced in 1914 (Weeks v. U.S.) to apply only to federal police actions

• Extended to all police in 1961: Mapp v. Ohio• Has been since been moderated in later decisions• Note: “Derivative Evidence rule” as an extension– “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine

• What are effects of the Exclusionary rule?

c) Important exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule:

• Good Faith exception• Inevitable Discovery exception• Harmless Error exception• Independent Source exception

d) Evaluating the Exclusionary Rule

• Reasons for the rule?• Argument against the rule?• Actual effects of Exclusionary Rule on

policing?– Substantial impact on standardization of police

practices– Little impact on enforcement outcomes– Effects appear to be largely symbolic (but

nonetheless important)

Evolving legal context of policing?• 20th Century– Explication of federal limits on policing (early decades)– Application of federal restrictions to local police

(Warren Court in 1960s)– Moderation & reduction in restrictions (in Berger and

Rehnquist Courts: 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, up to 2005)• 21st Century– Continued moderation of restrictions on police?

(Roberts Court) (but not always)– Impact of drug war and anti-terrorism legislation has

introduced more complications– Future changes = difficult to predict?