In this journal entry, reflect on at least two things you learned or discovered through the Chapter’s readings. Reflect on how a particular topic in the chapter was interesting, challenging, boring, surprising to you and how you may apply a particular concept or theory you learned in the reading in your current or future profession.
Instructions: There is no minimum word limit for your journals, however, you will need to put in some effort and write at least a couple of good paragraphs for your reflection journals.
Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction Thirteenth Edition
Chapter 5 Policing: Legal Aspects
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Abuse of Police Power
• Police involvement in the deaths of Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown are examples of abuse of police power
• The beating of Rodney King by L A P D officers was the most widely discussed abuse of police power prior to these events
• No one is above the law, not even the police
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
A Changing Legal Climate
• The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power
• In the 1960s, the Warren Court focused on guaranteeing individual rights during criminal prosecution by holding the criminal justice system to strict procedural requirements
• More recently, a new conservative Court philosophy has reversed some Warren-era advances
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Table 5.1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice (1 of 2)
This Right Is Guaranteed By This Amendment
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures
Fourth
The right against arrest without probable cause Fourth
The right against self-incrimination Fifth
The right against “double jeopardy” Fifth
The right to due process of law Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
The right to a speedy trial Sixth
The right to a jury trial Sixth
The right to know the charges Sixth
The right to cross-examine witnesses Sixth
The right to a lawyer Sixth
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Table 5.1 Constitutional Amendments of Special Significance to the American System of Justice (2 of 2)
This Right Is Guaranteed By This Amendment
The right to compel witnesses on one’s behalf Sixth
The right to reasonable bail Eighth
The right against excessive fines Eighth
The right against cruel and unusual punishments
Eighth
The applicability of constitutional rights to all citizens, regardless of state law or procedure
Fourteenth
Note: The Fourteenth Amendment is not a part of the Bill of Rights.
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Checks and Balances
• The Constitution provides for checks and balances among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches
– One branch is always held accountable to other branches
– System ensures that no individual or agency can become too powerful
• People who feel their rights were violated can appeal to courts for redress
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Due-Process Requirements
• Due process required by 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments
• Areas where due process requirements are relevant to the police:
– Evidence and investigation (search and seizure) – Detention and arrest – Interrogation
• Landmark cases produce major changes in justice system operations
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Search and Seizure
• Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures:
–“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.”
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Exclusionary Rule (1 of 2)
• Holds that evidence illegally seized by the police in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights cannot be used in a trial
• Exclusionary rule acts as a control over police behavior
• Weeks v. U.S. (1914) – First landmark case concerning search and
seizure – Only applied exclusionary rule to federal officers
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Exclusionary Rule (2 of 2)
• Writ of Certiorari – A writ issued from an appellate court for the
purpose of obtaining the lower court’s records of a particular case
– A mechanism for discretionary review
• Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine – Evidence later developed as a result of illegal
search and seizure is excluded from trial – Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Protective Searches (1 of 2)
• Most police searches are conducted without a warrant (warrantless searches)
• Chimel v. California (1969) – Warrantless search incident to arrest is limited
to area in suspect’s immediate control
• Minnesota v. Olson (1990) – Extended protection against warrantless
searches to overnight guests in the name of another
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Table 5.2 Implications of Chimel v. California (1969)
What Arresting Officers May Search
The defendant
The physical area within easy reach of the defendant
Valid Reasons for Conducting a Search
To protect the arresting officers
To prevent evidence from being destroyed
To keep the defendant from escaping
When a Search Becomes Illegal
When it goes beyond the defendant and the area within the defendant’s immediate control
When it is conducted for other than a valid reason
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Protective Searches (2 of 2)
• Minnesota v. Carter (1998) – Reasonable expectation of privacy required for
4th Amendment protection
• Georgia v. Randolph (2006) – Officers may not conduct a warrantless search
if one resident gives permission, but the other refuses
• Bailey v. U.S. (2013) – Limited the power of the police to detain
people who are away from home while police search their residence
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Warren Court (1953-1969)
• Before the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court rarely intruded into the overall operations of the criminal justice system
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – Applied exclusionary rule to the states – Started the Warren Court on a course that would
guarantee recognition of individual rights
• Warren Court known as liberal or “progressive” court
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Burger Court (1969–1986)
• Court distanced itself from earlier decisions of Warren Court
• Decisions supportive of a “greater good era”—emphasis on social order and communal safety
• Criminal defendants had most of the responsibility of demonstrating that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005)
• The United States showed strong swing toward conservatism and renewed concern with protecting the interests of those living within the law
• Rehnquist Court invoked a characteristically conservative approach to important criminal justice issues
– Limited the exclusionary rule – Broadened police powers – Limited opportunities for appeals by offenders
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Roberts Court (2005–Today)
• Court known for conservative nature, although many opinions closely divided
• Court willing to change the law; gives little weight to precedent and stare decisis
• Roberts Court has been eroding the exclusionary rule
– Herring v. U.S. (2009): Exclusionary rule may be used only if there is an intentional or reckless violation of Fourth Amendment rights or systematic police violations with regard to searches and seizures
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
• Good-faith exception – Allows evidence seized on the basis of good
faith, but later shown to be a mistake, to be used in court
– U.S. v. Leon, Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984) – Clear reversal of Warren Court philosophy
• Probable cause – A set of facts that would induce a reason person
to believe that a crime was committed
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Plain View Doctrine
• Officers may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant if they are in a place where they have a legal right to be
• Key cases – Harris v. U.S. (1968) – U.S. v. Irizarry (1982) – Arizona v. Hicks (1987) – Horton v. California (1990)
• Electronic evidence creates a special problem
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry (1 of 2)
• Emergency searches involve warrantless searches which are justified on the basis of some immediate and overriding need
• Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless action
– Clear danger to life – Clear danger of escape – Clear danger of the removal or destruction of
evidence
• Exigent circumstances searches
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry (2 of 2)
• Key cases – Warden v. Hayden (1967) – Maryland v. Buie (1990) – Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) – Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) – Illinois v. McArthur (2001) – Hudson v. Michigan (2006) – Kentucky v. King (2011)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Anticipatory Warrants
• Anticipatory warrant – Search warrant issued on the basis or probable cause
to believe that evidence, while not currently at the place described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed
• U.S.v. Grubbs (2006) affirmed the constitutionality of anticipatory warrants
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Detention and Arrest (1 of 2)
• Arrest – The act of taking someone into physical custody
by authority o flaw to charge that person with a crime, delinquent act, or status offense
– Occurs when a law enforcement officer restricts a person’s freedom to leave
• Arrest is a form of seizure under the Fourth Amendment
• Investigative detention is not the same as arrest – A temporary detention for investigative
purposes, based on reasonable suspicion
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Detention and Arrest (2 of 2)
• Key cases – U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) – Stansbury v. California (1994) – Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) – Muehler v. Mena (2005) – Rodriguez v. U.S. (2015) – Payton v. New York (1980)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Searches Incident to Arrest
• A warrantless search of an arrested individual to ensure the safety of the officer
• Terry-type stop – Brief stop and frisk based on reasonable
suspicion
• Reasonable Suspicion – Belief that would justify an officer in making
further inquiry or in conducting further investigation
– Sufficient for investigative detention but not arrest
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Searches Incident to Arrest—Cases (1 of 2)
• U.S. v. Robinson (1973)
• Terry v. Ohio (1968)
• U.S. v. Sokolow (1989)
• U.S. v. Arvizu (2002)
• Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Searches Incident to Arrest—Cases (2 of 2)
• Brown v. Texas (1979)
• Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004)
• Smith v. Ohio (1990)
• California v. Hodari D. (1991)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Emergency Searches of Persons
• Fall under exigent circumstances exception
• F B I guidelines for conducting searches – Probable cause at the time of the search to
believe that evidence was concealed – Probable cause to believe an emergency threat
of destruction of evidence existed – No prior opportunity to obtain a warrant – Action was no greater than necessary
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Emergency Searches of Persons— Cases
• Arkansas v. Sanders (1979)
• U.S. v. Borchardt (1987)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Vehicle Searches
• Motor vehicles create a special problem for law enforcement, due to their mobility
• Fleeting-targets exception – Exception to the exclusionary rule that permits
police to search a motor vehicle based on probable cause but without a warrant
– Justified by the fact that vehicles are highly mobile and can leave police jurisdiction quickly
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Vehicle Searches—Cases (1 of 3)
• Carroll v. U.S. (1925)
• Preston v. U.S. (1964)
• Arizona v. Gant (2009)
• South Dakota v. Opperman (1976)
• Colorado v. Bertine (1987)
• Florida v. Wells (1990)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Vehicle Searches—Cases (2 of 3)
• Ornelas v. U.S. (1996)
• Florida v. Jimeno (1991)
• U.S. v. Ross (1982)
• Whren v. U.S. (1996)
• Maryland v. Wilson (1997)
• Brendlin v. California (2007)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Vehicle Searches—Cases (3 of 3)
• Knowles v. Iowa (1998)
• Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)
• Thornton v. U.S. (2004)
• Illinois v. Caballes (2005)
• Davis v. U.S. (2007)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Roadblocks and Motor Vehicle Checkpoints
• Community interests may require temporary suspension of personal liberty even if probable cause is lacking
• Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990) – Highway sobriety checkpoints legal if essential
to community welfare
• U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) – Suspicionless seizures to intercept illegal aliens
legal
• Illinois v. Lidster (2004) – Information-seeking highway roadblocks
permissible
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Watercraft and Motor Homes
• U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez (1983) – Police may conduct warrantless searches of
watercraft
• California v. Carney (1985) – Police may conduct warrantless searches of
motor homes
• U.S. v. Hill (1988) – Police may conduct warrantless searches of
houseboats
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Suspicionless Searches
• The need to ensure public safety may provide compelling interest to justify limiting the right to privacy
• Suspicionless search – A warrantless search conducted when a person
is not suspected of a crime – National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab
(1989) – Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association
(1989)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Suspicionless Searches—Cases
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989)
• Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association (1989)
• Florida v. Bostick (1991)
• Bond v. U.S. (2000)
• U.S. v. Drayton (2002)
• U.S. v. Flores-Montano (2004)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
High-Technology Searches
• Use of high technology to discover and investigate crimes is forcing courts to evaluate applicability of constitutional protections to high-tech searches and seizures
• People v. Deutsch (1996) – California appellate court held that high-tech
searches may violate reasonable expectations of privacy
• Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) – Supreme Court held high-tech searches may be
presumptively unreasonable without a warrant
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Informants (1 of 3)
• Use of paid informants raises ethical concerns – Informants may be paid to get away with crimes
– Police may agree not to charge an offender if he or she will testify against others in a group
• Successful use of informants in supporting requests for warrants depends on demonstrable reliability of their information
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Informants (2 of 3)
• Two-pronged test – Established by Aguilar v. Texas (1964)
– Informant information could establish probable cause if:
▪ The source of the informant’s information is clear ▪ The officer has reasonable belief that the informant
is reliable
– U.S. v. Harris (1971)—exception to two-pronged test
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Informants (3 of 3)
• Totality of the circumstances test – Established by Illinois v. Gates (1983)
– Probable cause for issuing a warrant exists where an informant can be reasonably believed on the basis of everything the police know
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Police Interrogation
• Interrogation is the information-gathering activity of police that involves direct questioning of suspects
• Not limited to verbal questioning
• Interrogation of suspects is subject to constitutional limits as interpreted by the courts
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Physical Abuse
• Brown v. Mississippi (1936) – Physical abuse cannot be used during interrogation to
obtain a confession or elicit information from a suspect
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Inherent Coercion
• The tactics used by police interviewers that fall short of physical abuse but pressure the suspect to talk
– Includes nonphysical coercion, hostility, pressure to force a confession
• Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) – 5th Amendment prohibits inherent coercion
during interrogation
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Psychological Manipulation
• Involves manipulative actions by police interviewers, designed to pressure suspects to divulge information, that are based on subtle forms of intimidation and control
• Leyra v. Denno (1954) – Banned use of professionals skilled in
psychological manipulation to gain confessions
• Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) – Interrogation may not involve sophisticated
trickery or manipulation
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation —Cases
• Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
• Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
• Michigan v. Jackson (1986)
• Minnick v. Mississippi (1990)
• Arizona v. Roberson (1988)
• Davis v. U.S. (1994)
• Montejo v. Louisiana (2009)
• Maryland v. Shatzer (2010)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – Must advise suspects of their rights before
questioning (Miranda warnings) – No evidence obtained as a result of an
interrogation conducted without a rights advisement can be used against the suspect
– Rights extended to illegal immigrants living in the United States
• Key cases – U.S. v. Dickerson (1999) – U.S. v. Patane (2004)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
CJ Exhibit 5.2 The Miranda Warnings
ADULT RIGHTS WARNING Suspects 18 years old or older who are in custody must be advised of the following rights before any questioning begins:
1. You have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything you say can be used against you in a
court of law. 3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and to
have a lawyer present while you are being questioned.
4. If you want a lawyer before or during questioning but cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you at no cost before any questioning.
5. If you answer questions now without a lawyer here, you still have the right to stop answering questions at any time.
WAIVER OF RIGHTS After reading and explaining the rights of a person
in custody, an officer must also ask for a waiver of those rights before any questioning.
The following waiver questions must be answered affirmatively, either by express answer or by clear implication. Silence alone is not a waiver.
1. Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you? (Answer must be YES.)
2. Having these rights in mind, do you now wish to answer questions? (Answer must be YES.)
3. Do you now wish to answer questions without a lawyer present? (Answer must be YES.)
The following question must be asked of juveniles under he age of 18:
1. Do you now wish to answer questions without your
2. parents, guardians, or custodians present? (Answer
3. must be YES.)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Waiver of Miranda Rights by Suspects
• Suspects may waive their Miranda rights through a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver
• Knowing waiver – Suspect must be advised of rights, must be in a
condition to understand them
• Intelligent waiver – Suspect must understand the consequences of
not invoking rights
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Inevitable-Discovery Exception to Miranda
• Evidence gathered inappropriately can be used in court if it would invariably turned up in the normal course of events
• Key cases – Brewer v. Williams (1977)—“Christian burial
speech” – Nix v. Williams (1984)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Public-Safety Exception to Miranda
• Overriding considerations of public safety may negate the Miranda requirement in order to prevent further harm
• Key cases – New York v. Quarles (1984) – Colorado v. Connelly (1986) – Kuhlmann v. Wilson (1986) – Illinois v. Perkins (1990)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Miranda and the Meaning of Interrogation
• Rock v. Zimmerman (1982) – If the suspect is not in custody and probable
cause is lacking in the investigator’s mind, questioning can occur without Miranda warnings
– Interrogation within the meaning of Miranda has not yet begun
• Miranda triggers – The dual principles of custody and interrogation – Both are necessary before an advisement of
rights is required
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Miranda and the Meaning of Interrogation—Cases
• Arizona v. Mauro (1987)
• Doyle v. Ohio (1976)
• Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993)
• Missouri v. Seibert (2004)
• Florida v. Powell (2010)
• Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)
• Salinas v. Texas (2013)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence (1 of 2)
• Nontestimonial evidence – Generally physical evidence – Special category includes personal items within
or part of a person’s body (ingested drugs, blood cells, DNA, fingerprints, etc.)
• Gathering of very personal nontestimonial evidence complicates the issue of constitutional protections
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence (2 of 2)
• Right to privacy – The courts have placed limits on seizures of
personal nontestimonial evidence – Hayes v. Florida, Winston v. Lee (1985) Police involvement in the deaths of Freddie Gray
• Body-cavity searches – Very problematic for police – U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Electronic Eavesdropping—Cases
• Olmstead v. U.S. (1928)
• On Lee v. U.S. (1952)
• Lopez v. U.S. (1963)
• Berger v. New York (1967)
• Katz v. U.S. (1967)
• Lee v. Florida (1968)
• U.S. v. White (1971)
• U.S. v. Karo (1984)
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Minimization Requirement for Electronic Surveillance
• U.S. v. Scott (1978)
• Officers must make all reasonable efforts to monitor only those conversations specifically related to the criminal activity under investigation
• As soon as it becomes obvious that a conversation is innocent, monitoring personnel must cease their invasion of privacy
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
• Established the due-process requirements police must meet to legally intercept wire communications
• Deals with three areas of communications – Wiretaps and bugs – Pen registers recording numbers dialed from a
telephone – Tracing devices that determine the number from
which a call emanates
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
• Title V of this Act made it a federal offense for anyone engaged in interstate or international communications to engage in communications that are obscene, lewd, indecent, etc. with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person
• Communications Decency Act (CDA) criminalized the transmission to minors of “patently offensive” obscene materials over the Internet or other computer telecommunications services
– Reno v. ACLU (1997) invalidated portions of the CDA
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
• Made it easier for police to intercept many forms of electronic communications
• PATRIOT II (2006) extended or made permanent a number of provisions, including roving wiretap provision
• In 2011, President Obama extended several provisions of the U S A PATRIOT Act that would have otherwise expired
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (C I S A)
• Designed to improve cybersecurity in the United States by facilitating information sharing about cybersecurity threats
• Allows for easy sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies
• Critics say it facilitates mass surveillance of private communications
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Electronic and Latent Evidence
• Latent evidence—not readily visible to the unaided eye
• Special characteristics of electronic evidence – Latent – Transcends national/state borders – Fragile – Time-sensitive
• Police must take special precautions when documenting, collecting, preserving electronic evidence
Copyright © 2020, 2018, 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Copyright
- Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction
- The Abuse of Police Power
- A Changing Legal Climate
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Checks and Balances
- Due-Process Requirements
- Search and Seizure
- The Exclusionary Rule (1 of 2)
- The Exclusionary Rule (2 of 2)
- Protective Searches (1 of 2)
- Table 5.2 Implications of Chimel v. California (1969)
- Protective Searches (2 of 2)
- The Warren Court (1953-1969)
- The Burger Court (1969–1986)
- The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005)
- The Roberts Court (2005–Today)
- Good-Faith Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
- The Plain View Doctrine
- Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry (1 of 2)
- Emergency Searches of Property and Emergency Entry (2 of 2)
- Anticipatory Warrants
- Detention and Arrest (1 of 2)
- Detention and Arrest (2 of 2)
- Searches Incident to Arrest
- Searches Incident to Arrest—Cases (1 of 2)
- Searches Incident to Arrest—Cases (2 of 2)
- Emergency Searches of Persons
- Emergency Searches of Persons—Cases
- Vehicle Searches
- Vehicle Searches—Cases (1 of 3)
- Vehicle Searches—Cases (2 of 3)
- Vehicle Searches—Cases (3 of 3)
- Roadblocks and Motor Vehicle Checkpoints
- Watercraft and Motor Homes
- Suspicionless Searches
- Suspicionless Searches—Cases
- High-Technology Searches
- Informants (1 of 3)
- Informants (2 of 3)
- Informants (3 of 3)
- Police Interrogation
- Physical Abuse
- Inherent Coercion
- Psychological Manipulation
- The Right to a Lawyer at Interrogation—Cases
- Suspect Rights: The Miranda Decision
- CJ Exhibit 5.2 The Miranda Warnings
- Waiver of Miranda Rights by Suspects
- Inevitable-Discovery Exception to Miranda
- Public-Safety Exception to Miranda
- Miranda and the Meaning of Interrogation
- Miranda and the Meaning of Interrogation—Cases
- Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence (1 of 2)
- Gathering Special Kinds of Nontestimonial Evidence (2 of 2)
- Electronic Eavesdropping—Cases
- Minimization Requirement for Electronic Surveillance
- The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
- The Telecommunications Act of 1996
- The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
- Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (C I S A)
- Electronic and Latent Evidence
GET THE COMPLETED ASSIGNMENT
ASSIGNMENT COMPLETED AT CapitalEssayWriting.com
MAKE YOUR ORDER AND GET THE COMPLETED ORDER
CLICK HERE TO ORDER THIS PAPER AT CapitalEssayWriting.com on Police involvement in the deaths of Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown are examples of abuse of police power
NO PLAGIARISM, Get impressive Grades in Your Academic Work
