Criminal Procedure: Police Investigations Outline

JACOBS’ CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OUTLINE

CHAPTER 2: BRIEF SEARCHES AND STOPS

Is there a seizure? Q: Is the person free to leave?

3 Types of Encounters:

1) Consensual Encounter

· Does the person feel free to leave?

· Did the police:

i. Display guns

ii. Show authority

iii. Use force or coercion

2) (Investigative) Stop

· Police must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or will commit a crime

3) Full Arrest

3 Reasonable Suspicion Tests

1) Supreme Court Test à “totality of circumstance”

· more than a hunch or guess

· mus be based on objective and articulable facts

2) Specific, Articulable Facts (about the individual)

3) Determination is fact sensitive:

· Demeanor of suspect

· Way theyre walking

· Knowledge about suspect’s background

· Manner suspect is dressed, bulges, carrying things

· Time of day/night

· Particular street or area involved

· 3rd person tips

· overheard conversations

· suspect’s proximity to known criminal conduct

· crime rate in neighborhood

State v. Nelson

§ Cop didn’t have enough evidence to justify reasonable suspicion to stop the car

§ “an investigatory stop is justified if at the time of the stop the officer has an articulable suspicion that criminal conduct has taken place, is occurring, or imminently will occur, and the officer’s assessment of the existence of specific and articulable facts sufficient to warrant the stop is objectively reasonable in the totality of circumstances” p.59

State v. Dean

§ mere presence in high crime area ≠ enough for a investigatory stop (to create reasonable suspicion)

§ But—presence can be a factor

Anonymous tips alone à do not amount to reasonable suspicion

Illinois v. Wardlow

§ Rule of Law: When an unprovoked individual flees from police in a high crime area, the officers have sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant and perform a pat-down.

§ Issue: Whether Wardlow’s unprovoked flight from officers provided “reasonable, articulable suspicion” of criminal acitivity to justify the officers’ stop of Wardlow?

§ Holding: Yes

Pre-textual Stops à Whren says any traffic violation is enough for an investigative stop

After Whren, defendant’s cant argue a pre-textual stop was no good

Whren v. U.S. – if police have probable cause to detain for a valid traffic infraction it is not a 4th amendment violation for them to use the infraction as a pretext to investigate some other matter.

Forfeiture

§ Its an “in rem” proceeding, only have to serve the property itself

§ Problematic if youre not guilty

Baltimore à it could be appropriate to use race in a drug profile

Quarles

§ Rule of Law: When officers question a suspect in custody to insure that the public is not in further danger, a subsequent incriminating statement by the defendant is admissible, regardless of the officer’s motive for asking the question. (Therefore, statement is admissible even when the officers asked the question to make a case against the suspect and even when the officer’s motive was not to protect the public)

§ Established the public safety exception to the requirements of Miranda

§ Facts: A woman approached police and told them that she had been raped, and that the man had just entered a supermarket and was carrying a gun. Officers entered the supermarket, and Defendant ran toward the back of the store when he saw the officers. Officers pursued him with guns drawn, and Defendant finally came forward. An officer frisked Defendant and discovered an empty shoulder holster. The officer handcuffed Defendant and then asked him where the gun was. The Defendant then told him the fun was in one of the cartons inside the store (near Defendant).

§ Issue: Whether Defendant’s statement telling where the gun was is admissible, when given without Miranda rights?

§ Holding: Yes

§ “Under 4th Amendment, a police seizure can be justified only when, based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the belief that a crime is being or has been committed”

NJ Turnpike Racial Profiling

§ these searches are bad b/c they destroy citizen’s confidence in the police and punish prosecutors b/c that evidence gets suppressed

§ the more discretion an officer had the more they profiled

Searches of cars à less privacy expected

U.S. Dept of Justice à racial profiling not allowed unless to prevent terrorism

Stops for heavily regulated industries: selling weapons, selling food, massage parlors

Indianapolis v. Edmund

§ Rule of Law: When a procedure employed by officers to promote state safety does not directly correlate with the safety goal, the procedure will not be allowed.

§ Rule of Law: When the main purpose of the roadblock cannot be separated from general crime enforcement of the police, the roadblock is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

§ Facts: There was a checkpoint (roadblock) for finding illegal drugs. Police announced that they were setting up the sites because there was a problem with drugs in the city. Officers stopped a predetermined number of vehicles (every 5th driver, or something similar that is not based on specific circumstances – race, age, etc.). Procedure involved an officer approaching the vehicle, advising the driver that he is being stopped at a drug checkpoint, and asks the driver to produce license and registration. The officer then let a dog walk around the outside of each stopped vehicle. The officers then may conduct a search only by consent, positive alert form dog, or appropriate particularized suspicion.

§ Holding: Unconstitutional

§ Reasoning: This particular roadblock was struck down because court found it was indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control. Looking for drugs in these cars is just like looking for drugs anywhere else. Roadblock was too general

§ administrative searches to accomplish a governmental objective are exceptions to the rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion. Brief stops or searches to accomplish important governmental objective. Cannot be used for the general purpose of ferreting out crime

§ Questions to consider:

o Is the stop fleeting?

o Is the intrusion minimal?

Iowa Code à lays out instructions for administrative stops (roadblocks)

Plain View Doctrine à if its in “plain view” the police can seize it

Florida v. Riley – there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in items that are out in the open, exposed to the public. Officers may seize items in “plain view”. Police may use things to enhance view: ladders, aerial photographs, flashlights

State v. Mihai Bobic

§ “under the open view doctrine, when a law enforcement officer is able to detect something by using his senses while lawfully present at the vantage point where those senses are used, that detection does not constitute a search.”

Bond