Criminal Justice in America: Police and Law

Police and Law

• Criminal Justice in America, Eighth Edition, authored by George F. Cole, Christopher E. Smith, and Christina DeJong, covers police and law.

• Learning objectives include understanding police authority to stop and search people and property, warrant procedures for searches and arrests, situations where warrantless searches are permitted, the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, and the exclusionary rule.

• A Miami, Florida case illustrates the debate about warrantless searches using trained drug-sniffing dogs.

• The Bill of Rights is the foundation for individual rights, and judges balance crime control and individual rights when interpreting the Constitution.

• The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

• A "search" is an action that intrudes on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

• The objective standard determines when a governmental intrusion constitutes a search.

• The plain view doctrine allows officers to use visible evidence when in a permitted location.

• Seizures involve police use of authority to deprive people of liberty, and are not always unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

• Arrests involve taking suspects into custody, while stops are brief, often measured in minutes, intrusions on freedom.

• Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts leading officers to believe criminal activity is afoot.

• Police actions must be based on reasonable suspicion, not hunches.

• Courts permit some stops without reasonable suspicion, such as at border crossings.

• The Supreme Court's 1974 decision in Tennessee v. Garner limited the use of deadly force against unarmed, fleeing suspects, requiring probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat.

• Graham v. Connor (1989 clarified the "objective reasonableness" standard for the use of force, judging it from the officer's viewpoint on the scene.

• An arrest requires probable cause, sufficient evidence making it likely a suspect committed a crime.

• Warrants must detail the place to be searched and the evidence sought based on probable cause and an oath of affirmation.

• Courts consider the totality of circumstances to assess probable cause (Illinois v. Gates, 1983).

• Warrantless searches may be justified by special needs beyond normal law enforcement, stop-and-frisk, incidents to lawful arrests, exigent circumstances, consent, and automobile searches.

• Special needs involve justified searches, like airport metal detectors and sobriety checkpoints.

• The 2000 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond case established that such checkpoints primarily for crime control are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

• Police officers have the right to conduct stops and limited searches when they have reasonable suspicion of a person being involved in criminal activity.

• The Terry v. Ohio (1968) case upheld the stop-and-frisk procedure as a justified police action under circumstances where a person presents an imminent danger to others or police.

• Police conduct limited searches of outer clothing when reasonable suspicion warrants it for weapons used in assault.

• The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination isn't intended to protect the guilty, but to protect all individuals by not forcing them to incriminate themselves.

• The Miranda decision (1966) mandated informing suspects of their rights upon arrest before questioning.

• Miranda warnings apply only to custodial interrogations; officers making routine questioning on the street do not need to read these rights.

• The public safety exception to Miranda allows immediate questioning about safety issues.

• Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) limited suspects’ right to remain silent regarding simply remaining silent during questioning.

• Missouri v. Seibert (2004) case warned against attempting to circumvent Miranda rights through sequential interrogations.

• The exclusionary rule, established in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) and strengthened in Weeks v. US (1914) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961), excludes illegally obtained evidence from trial.

• Exceptions to the exclusionary rule include good faith, inevitable discovery, and other considerations.

• Officers are allowed to use evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment if it would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means (Inevitable Discovery rule).

• Consent searches are permissible if voluntary and given by someone with proper authority.

• United States v. Drayton (2002) decided that officers don't have to inform people about their right to refuse a search when asking consent.

• Permissible consent searches must be voluntary and given by someone with the authority to consent.

• Carroll v. United States (1925) established that automobiles are a justifiable subject of warrantless searches because of mobility.

• Knowles v. Iowa (1998) clarified that a traffic violation alone doesn't justify the search of an entire vehicle.

This quiz explores the fundamental principles of police authority and law as outlined in 'Criminal Justice in America.' It delves into warrant procedures, the Fourth Amendment, and the balance between individual rights and crime control, featuring real case studies on warrantless searches. Gain a deeper understanding of the legal framework surrounding law enforcement practices.