Criminal Procedure Quiz

Police and Law

• The textbook, Criminal Justice in America, Eighth Edition, by George F. Cole, Christopher E. Smith, and Christina DeJong, covers various aspects of police and the law.
• Learning Objectives (LO) for the chapter include: describing the extent of police officer's authority to stop and search individuals/property; explaining how police obtain warrants for searches and arrests; describing situations where police can search without a warrant; explaining the privilege against compelled self-incrimination; and defining the exclusionary rule, and identifying its application.

Searches

• A case study of Miami, Florida police illustrates the debate surrounding warrantless searches. Police used a trained drug-sniffing dog to detect marijuana at a house without a warrant. The defense argued that no search occurred, while the prosecution contended otherwise; the court didn't make a decision on whether a search occurred.
• Students are asked to analyze whether an officer's actions constituted a search.

Legal Limits on Police Investigations

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

Search and Seizure Concepts

• The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts unreasonable searches and seizures.
• A "search" in a legal context involves actions that intrude on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
• Courts have established objective standards to determine if a government intrusion constitutes a search.
• The plain view doctrine allows officers to use visible evidence as long as they are legally present in the location.

Seizures

• Situations in which police act to limit or restrict a person's freedom of movement, without violating the Fourth Amendment, are addressed.
• Examples of seizures include arrest (taking someone into custody) and stop (brief interference with personal freedom lasting a few minutes).

Reasonable Suspicion

• Specific, articulable facts that lead officers to suspect criminal activity necessitate further investigation that intrudes on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
• Courts allow many kinds of stops without reasonable suspicion (e.g., at border crossing points), while other stops require more justified suspicion.

Use of Force

• The landmark Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner (1985), determined that deadly force can not be used against an unarmed and fleeing suspect, unless necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officers or others.
• Graham v. Connor (1989) clarified that police use-of-force should be judged based on the objective reasonableness of the officer's actions on the scene.

Concept of Arrest

• Law enforcement must have probable cause to arrest someone, demonstrating enough evidence to make it likely the suspect committed the crime.
• Probable cause differs in meaning, depending on the context, but the principle remains.

Warrants

• The Fourth Amendment requires warrants based on probable cause.
• Warrants must be supported by oath or affirmation (typically an affidavit) and must describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
• The Illinois v. Gates (1983) Supreme Court case established a flexible totality of the circumstances test used to determine if probable cause exists, and thus warrants can be issued.

Affidavit

• An affidavit is a written statement of fact that fulfills the oath/affirmation requirement for warrant applications.

Warrantless Searches

• Warrantless searches are permissible in situations beyond standard criminal investigations. Specific circumstances, needs, and exceptions are explained, such as special needs, stop and frisk on the streets, incidents to a lawful arrest, exigent circumstances, consent, and automobile searches.

Special Needs

• A specific exception in certain contexts (airports, sobriety checkpoints), is listed. Specific situations are presented as examples.

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond

• The Supreme Court ruled that vehicle checkpoints could not be justified based on general crime control, but rather on the need to address a public safety issue (e.g., alcohol impaired driving).

Stop and Frisk

• This strategy allows warranted police stops, depending on justification for reasonable suspicion.
• Terry v. Ohio (1968) established a legal framework for "stop and frisk" situations. The officer's safety is an element when deciding whether the stop is warranted.

Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest

• Searching a person/vehicle/property in connection to a lawful arrest is authorized under certain conditions, and these conditions are stated here.

Exigent Circumstances

• In situations requiring immediate action to prevent harm or preserve evidence (e.g., hot pursuit), warrantless searches are permitted.

Consent

• Consent provides a permissible warrantless search of a person, vehicle, home, or other location when appropriate authorization exists. The consent must be voluntary. United States v. Drayton (2002) case is included, which explains the police are not required to inform the person about their right to decline.

Automobile Searches

• Warrantless searches of automobiles are justified because of their mobility. Searches within the vehicle, based on valid justifications, are detailed. Carroll v. United States (1925) case is used to distinguish warrantless car searches from traditional warrant requirements. Different situations are highlighted.

Questioning Suspects

• The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination is a legal consideration influencing interactions between police and suspects in criminal investigations. Details are provided of different constitutional protections and interpretations for this legal procedure, in relation to police questioning suspects.

Miranda Rules

• Constitutional guidelines, (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966), must be followed in custodial interrogations. This mandate explains the necessity of advising suspects of their rights related to remaining silent, having an attorney, and understanding how statements may be used against them in court.

Limits on Miranda

• There are exceptions and limitations to the mandatory use of Miranda warnings. Specific case studies, (New York v. Quarles 1984), and (Berghuis v. Thompkins, 2010), are used to explain the exceptions and limitations to the Miranda requirement.

Consequences of Miranda

• Police adaptations in questioning techniques to circumvent procedural obstacles associated with Miranda are addressed. The Missouri v. Seibert (2004) case study is included, emphasizing the importance of following Miranda procedure.

The Exclusionary Rule

• Illegally obtained evidence is excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule. Decisions starting with Wolf v. Colorado (1949), including Weeks v. United States (1914) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961) are described to show how this rule developed. Different parts and components are explained and the principle of the rule is established.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

• Exceptions to the exclusionary rule exist, such as the good faith exception (United States v. Leon, 1984) and the inevitable discovery rule (Nix v. Williams, 1984). Relevant details and details about these exceptions are presented.

Test your knowledge on key legal principles related to criminal procedure, including the use of force by police and requirements for warrants. This quiz covers essential Supreme Court cases that shape law enforcement practices and citizens' rights. Perfect for law students or anyone interested in criminal justice!