|
Criminal
Justice in America
Chapter 6: Police and the Law |
|
Criminal Procedure | Law of
Search and Seizure Palko v. Connecticut (1937) U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the 14th Amendment's due process clause incorporates basic freedoms. This meant that most of the Bill of Rights protects people from actions by states and local governments as well as the federal government. The Bill of Rights and the States Overview of incorporation doctrine from a critical point of view. (National Rifle Association)
Fourth Amendment The text of the Fourth Amendment along with links to all aspects of search and seizure law. (Findlaw)
Has a Search or Seizure Taken Place? Katz v. U.S. (1967) U.S. Supreme Court case defining searches as any government intrusion into something in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, one of the cases in the activity on pages 80-81. California v. Ciraolo (1986) U.S. One of the Supreme Court cases in the activity on pages 80-81. Florida v. Riley (1989) One of the Supreme Court cases in the activity on pages 80-81. Smith v. Maryland (1979) One of the Supreme Court cases in the activity on pages 80-81. California v. Greenwood (1988) One of the Supreme Court cases in the activity on pages 80-81. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) One of the Supreme Court cases in the activity on pages 80-81. Oliver v. U.S. (1984) One of the Supreme Court cases in the activity on pages 80-81. Bond v. United States (2000) One of the Supreme Court cases in the activity on pages 80-81. Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) Police used a thermal imaging device to see whether the defendant's triplex had heat coming from lamps usually used for growing marijuana indoors. The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that the police by using the thermal imaging device had conducted a search. Is the Search or Seizure Reasonable? Affidavit for Search Warrant From the Mississippi Code. Knowing When An Arrest Is Legal An explanation of probable cause from the Nolo Press. Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) U.S. Supreme Court case on whether police may stop people simply because they run away. Motor Vehicle and Other Exceptions U.S. v. Ross (1982) Ground breaking U.S. Supreme Court case on automobile searches. The Motor Vehicle Exception An article from the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin on this exception. U.S. v. Arvizu (2002) U.S. Supreme Court case upholding a border patrol stop of a car on a highway based on these factors: (1) the car was being driven in an area that smugglers drove to get around a border checkpoint; (2) the car was a minivan often used by smugglers; (3) the driver did not wave or even look at the patrolman, which most people do; (4) the children were sitting high in the car, seemingly on top of some cargo, and waved awkwardly at the patrolman; (5) the car turned just before it hit a border patrol checkpoint; and (6) the car was registered at an address near the border where many smugglers reside. Atwater v. Lago Vista (2001) U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that police may make a warrantless arrest of a person for a misdemeanor offense. Police arrested a woman for a seatbelt violation. Chimel v. California (1969) Leading case on searches incident to arrest. Searches of Premises Incident to Arrest Explanation of searches incident to arrest with particular attention to arrests in homes. Terry v. Ohio (1968) Leading case on stop and frisk. Stop and Frisk Law From O'Connor, T. MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Stop and Frisk Report From the Office of the New York State Attorney General. Florida v. J.L. (2000) U.S. Supreme Court case finding that police cannot stop and frisk a suspect for a gun if their suspicion is based only on an anonymous call. Court cuts police power to conduct searches based on anonymous tips Associated Press article on the Florida v. J.L. decision. U.S. v. Drayton (2002) U.S. Supreme Court case ruling that police do not have to tell people that they have a right to refuse to consent to searches. Illinois v. McArthur U.S. Supreme Court case in which police had probable cause that defendant had marijuana in his home. Police arrived at the home and stopped the defendant from entering for two hours until they had a warrant to search the home. The Supreme Court ruled that seizing the defendant was permissible under the Fourth Amendment because of emergency circumstances. Airline Searches Lengthy explanation of legal issues surrounding airline searches. Border Searches Brief overview of the legality of these searches. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) The city set up roadblocks on streets to stop drug dealing. The defendants were stopped at the checkpoints and charged with drug offenses. The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that these roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment. It stated that the government could set up checkpoints to check for illegal aliens near the border or for sobriety on highways, but it could not set up roadblocks to check for general criminality. The Fourth Amendment requires suspicion of individual wrongdoing. Search and Seizure FAQ From the Nolo Press. Interrogations and Confessions Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self- Incrimination Detailed explanation of the subject. Brown v. Mississippi (1936) Supreme Court case ruling physical coercion made confession involuntary. Ward v. Texas (1942) Supreme Court case ruling that isolated, long-term questioning made confession involuntary. Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) Supreme Court case ruling that confession was involuntary because police questioned suspect continuously over a 36-hour period. Malinski v. New York (1945) Supreme Court case ruling that confession was involuntary because police forced suspect to remove his clothes during questioning. Leyra v. Denno (1954) Supreme Court case ruling that confession was involuntary because police brought in a hypnotist who while seeing the suspect for more than an hour made suggestions that the suspect should confess. Spano v. New York (1959) Supreme Court case ruling confession was involuntary because police had questioned unwilling suspect for eight hours and sent in police-officer friend who lied that he would be fired if suspect did not confess. Malloy v. Hogan (1964) Supreme Court case ruling that Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination applied to the states. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Landmark Supreme Court case holding that before questioning suspects in custody, police must read them their rights. Ernesto Miranda, Miranda vs Arizona, and the Miranda Rights/Warning Background and links on the Miranda decision. Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) Supreme Court case ruling that brief stops do not constitute custody for Miranda purposes. Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) Supreme Court case defining "interrogation" for Miranda purposes. New York v. Quarles (1984) Supreme Court case that carved out the "public safety" exception to Miranda. U.S. v. Dickerson The text of the 1999 4th Circuit Court of Appeals case, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. Dickerson v. U.S. (2000) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5525.ZO.html U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Miranda. High Court Upholds Miranda Rights, 7-2 Report from Washington Post on the Dickerson decision. Miranda Rights Two attorneys argue the Dickerson case in a PBS interview. Focus on the Fifth: Miranda v. Arizona Article summarizing the Dickerson case with links to further resources. How a Recent Ninth Circuit Miranda Rights Decision Illuminates Chief Justice Rehnquist's Strategic Voting Article arguing that Rehnquist has gutted Miranda. Reconsidering Miranda A discussion between two police chiefs on Miranda. From PBS Online Newshour. Miranda Morass This Reason Magazine article argues that "Miranda does relatively little to prevent some of the most insidious police abuses--or to protect the innocent." She suggests that videotaping confessions, arrests, and interrogations would do more to prevent police abuses and to uphold the ideals of justice. True Confessions Two measures are proposed to better ensure that guilty verdicts are valid. From Atlantic Monthly. Consequences of False Confessions (PDF File) A Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology article on the problem of false confessions. Illinois v. Perkins (1990) Case "a" in the Class Activity: Taking the Fifth. Duckworth v. Eagan (1989) Case "b" in the Class Activity: Taking the Fifth. Arizona v. Mauro (1987) Case "c" in the Class Activity: Taking the Fifth. Fare v. Michael C. (1979) Case "d" in the Class Activity: Taking the Fifth. Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) Case "e" in the Class Activity: Taking the Fifth. Beckwith v. U.S. (1976) Case "f" in the Class Activity: Taking the Fifth. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Landmark Supreme Court case on the exclusionary rule. In Defense of the Exclusionary Rule Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute contends that the drive to abolish the exclusionary rule is fundamentally misguided. Exclusionary Rule Frees Criminals Argument against the exclusionary rule. Harris v. New York (1971) Supreme Court case making exception to exclusionary rule when challenging defendant's testimony. Michigan v. Harvey (1990) Supreme Court case elaborating on the Harris exception. James v. Illinois (1990) Yet another Supreme Court case elaborating on the Harris exception. U.S. v. Leon (1984) Supreme Court case creating exception to exclusionary rule when police in good faith rely on a defective warrant. Arizona v. Evans (1995) Supreme Court case elaborating on the Leon exception. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920) Supreme Court case on the independent source exception to fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Segura v. U.S. (1984) Another Supreme Court case on the independent source exception to fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Murray v. U.S. (1988) Yet another Supreme Court case on the independent source exception to fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Nix v. Williams (1984) Supreme Court case on the inevitable discovery exception to fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Wong Sun v. U.S. (1963) Supreme Court case on the cleansed taint exception to fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. |