Select Page

Criminal Procedure
University of Connecticut School of Law
Orland, Leonard

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I. COMMUNITY CARETAKING/TRADITIONAL & COMMUNITY POLICING
a. Community Caretaking—intended for protection, not investigation
i. Appropriate community caretaking if (State v. Michael Lovegren (drunk in parked car))
1. Person in need of help or in peril
a. Need objective, specific, and articulable facts
2. Officer may take appropriate steps to render assistance
3. But, once risk has subsided, any further actions constitute 4th amend search/seizure

b. Community Policing
i. Goals of community policing
1. Partnership with community
a. Build trust, establish relationships
b. Become integral part of community
2. Focus on prevention
a. Identify and set priorities with the community for crime prevention
b. Broken windows theory—run down neighborhoods are prone to violence
ii. Problems with community policing
1. Cost—extremely expensive
2. Less oversight of patrol officers—more decentralized, potential for racial bias
3. May implicate 4th amend concerns, depending on nature/length of encounters

c. Models of Criminal Procedure (Herbert Packer)
i. Crime Control Model
1. Guiding principle—conformity and efficiency
a. Stopping crime and prosecuting crime—individual rights less important
ii. Due Process Model
1. Guiding principal—procedure over efficiency
a. Concerned about reducing possibility of error, don’t violate rights

II. BRIEF STOPS AND SEARCHES
a. BRIEF INVESTIGATIVE STOPS OF SUSPECTS
i. Stop/seizure implicating 4th amend when:
1. For property—meaningful interference with possessory interests
2. For persons—restraint on liberty done through physical force or show of authority (Terry)
a. A person is seized (and therefore protected by 4th amend RS or PC) if, in view of all the circumstances, a reasonable (innocent) person would believe that he is not free to leave (Mendenhall (airport stop))
i. Circumstances suggesting seizure include
1. Multiple officers
2. Display of weapons
3. Physical touching
4. Language/tone suggesting compliance is required
ii. Questioning alone doesn’t amt to seizure—if officer says “you’re free to go,” probably no seizure (Mendehall (airport stop)); failure to say “free to leave” may be a seizure (Wilson (limping arsonist))
b. If person is to be seized, need REASONABLE SUSPICION to justify temporary restraint
i. Reasonable suspicion must be particularized, objective, and articulable
ii. Consider the totality of the circumstances to support RS
1. Demeanor of suspect
2. Knowledge officer may have of suspect’s background
3. Whether suspect’s carrying anything
4. Manner of dress
5. Time of day
6. Neighborhood/proximity to crime

ofiles

b. Brief Administrative Stops/Checkpoints
i. Don’t need RS for checkpoint, but they must be
1. Non-discretionary (stop every X car)
a. Discretionary stops undermine legitimacy
b. Discretionary stops are ineffective (If person knows they’re in the group that will never be stopped, they’ll drive with impunity)
2. Notice of upcoming checkpoint
3. Minimally invasive
a. Longer they are, more questionable they’ll be
4. Must meet reasonableness test
a. Govt’s interest
i. Must have some relationship to highway safety
1. Primary purpose = sobriety; that’s fine (Stiz)
a. DUI poses immediate risk to other drivers
2. Primary purpose = drugs; probably not (City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (narcotic checkpoints))
a. But, in dissent, Rehnquist would’ve upheld these checkpoints—doesn’t matter what primary purpose of law enforcement is; as long as it serves a law enforcement process shouldn’t question motives
b. Individual’s privacy interest
i. Privacy interest in a car diminished compared to privacy interest in a house
c. Degree of intrusiveness