Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement

316 Pages·2012·1.761 MB·English

Briefs of Leading
Cases in Law
Enforcement
Briefs of Leading
Cases in Law
Enforcement
Eighth Edition
Rolando V. del Carmen
Jeffery T. Walker
AMSTERDAM (cid:129) BOSTON (cid:129) HEIDELBERG (cid:129) LONDON
NEW YORK (cid:129) OXFORD (cid:129) PARIS (cid:129) SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO (cid:129) SINGAPORE (cid:129) SYDNEY (cid:129) TOKYO
Anderson Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier
AcquiringEditor:PamChester
DevelopmentEditor:EllenBoyne
ProjectManager:PaulGottehrer
Designer:JoanneBlank
AndersonPublishingisanimprintofElsevier
225WymanStreet,Waltham,MA02451,USA
#2012Elsevier,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic
ormechanical,includingphotocopying,recording,oranyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,
withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.Detailsonhowtoseekpermission,further
informationaboutthePublisher’spermissionspoliciesandourarrangementswithorganizationssuch
astheCopyrightClearanceCenterandtheCopyrightLicensingAgency,canbefoundatour
website:www.elsevier.com/permissions.
ThisbookandtheindividualcontributionscontainedinitareprotectedundercopyrightbythePublisher
(otherthanasmaybenotedherein).
Notices
Knowledgeandbestpracticeinthisfieldareconstantlychanging.Asnewresearchandexperience
broadenourunderstanding,changesinresearchmethodsorprofessionalpractices,maybecome
necessary.Practitionersandresearchersmustalwaysrelyontheirownexperienceandknowledgein
evaluatingandusinganyinformationormethodsdescribedherein.Inusingsuchinformationor
methodstheyshouldbemindfuloftheirownsafetyandthesafetyofothers,includingpartiesforwhom
theyhaveaprofessionalresponsibility.
Tothefullestextentofthelaw,neitherthePublishernortheauthors,contributors,oreditors,
assumeanyliabilityforanyinjuryand/ordamagetopersonsorpropertyasamatterofproductsliability,
negligenceorotherwise,orfromanyuseoroperationofanymethods,products,instructions,orideas
containedinthematerialherein.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Applicationsubmitted
BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN:978-1-4377-3506-2
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
12 13 14 15 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
ForinformationonallAndersonpublicationsvisitourwebsiteatwww.andersonpublishing.com
The Eighth Edition is dedicated to
Josefa “Josie” Flores del Carmen,
January 16, 1935–February 27, 2011
Preface to the Eighth Edition
ThisEighthEditionofthebookcontainsoneofthemostextensiverewritesinsev-
eral editions. This was accomplished thanks to the extensive review of Judge
James W. Bachman at Bowling Green State University. Almost no case was
untouchedbyhiscomments,andthebookismuchstrongerinlegalaccuracyforit.
As with all versions of the book, this edition adds the significant cases that
weredecidedbytheSupremeCourtsincethelastprinting.Thecutoffdateforthis
editionisMarch15,2011.Casesdecidedafterthatdatewillbeincludedinthenext
edition.
Eight new cases were added to this edition. Classified according to the chap-
ters, these cases are:
Chapter2—TheExclusionaryRule Herringv.UnitedStates
Chapter3—StopandFrisk Arizonav.Johnson
Chapter7—SearchesafterArrest Virginiav.Moore
Chapter9—VehicleStopsandSearches Arizonav.Gant
Chapter16—CasesAffirmingMiranda Marylandv.Shatzer
Berghuisv.Thompkins
Chapter19—RighttoCounselRelated Kansasv.Ventris
toPolicing Michiganv.Bryant
TheoriginaldecisionsoftheUnitedStatesSupreme Courtinthese cases are read-
ilyavailableinvariousways,particularlyontheInternet.Tofindthesecases,goto
the Supreme Court’s Web site at www.supremecourtus.gov and click on “Opi-
nions,” then the year of the decision. If more research is desired on a case, use
the LexisNexis Web site or conduct Internet searches for the desired cases. Any
in-depth research should also include examining articles and comments from law
review journals.
Asinthepast,theauthorswelcomesuggestionsandcommentsforimprovement.
Rolando V. del Carmen
DistinguishedProfessorofCriminalJustice
SamHoustonStateUniversity,Huntsville
Jeffery T. Walker
ProfessorofCriminalJustice
UniversityofArkansas,LittleRock
vii
List of top ten cases
in day-to-day policing
There are so many cases in policing, the questionoften arises regarding which are
the most important. If a person could only choose 10 cases to examine, which
would those be? Included in this edition is a list of what we consider to be the
top 10 cases most influencing day-to-day policing in the United States. They are
listed in reverse order, along with their holding.
10. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977)
UndertheMirandarule,interrogationscanbe“actual”(aswhenquestionsare
asked) or the “functional equivalent” thereof.
9. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)
Thetwo-prongedtestforprobablecauseestablishedinpreviouscasesisaban-
doned in favor of the “totality of circumstances” test.
8. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)
Whenmakingavalidsearchofacar,thepolicemaysearchtheentirecarand
open the trunk and any packages or luggage found therein that could reason-
ably contain the items for which they have probable cause to search.
7. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)
Somesearchesareso“shockingtotheconscience”thattheyrequireexclusion
of the evidence seized based on due process.
6. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Thepolicemay notusedeadlyforce toprevent theescape ofasuspect unless
it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect
poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or
to others.
5. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
After an arrest, police may search the area within a person’s immediate
control.
4. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
The warrantless search of an automobile is valid if probable cause is present.
3. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
A stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion is valid.
2. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
The exclusionary rule applies to all state criminal proceedings.
1. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Evidence obtained by the police during custodial interrogation of a suspect is
not admissible in court to prove guilt unless the suspect was given the
Miranda warnings and there is a valid waiver.
xv
List of cases with principle
(capsule) of law
Chapter 1: Probable Cause
Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959) 2
Information from an informant that is corroborated by an officer may be
sufficient to provide probable cause for an arrest even if such information
is hearsay.
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) 3
To establish probable cause, an affidavit must meet the two-pronged test in
Aguilar v. Texas. Failure to do so means that the warrant issued is invalid.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) 4
The two-pronged test for probable cause established in previous cases is
abandoned in favor of the “totality of circumstances” test.
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) 5
Thetotalityofcircumstancesinthiscaseestablishedareasonablesuspicion
that the suspect was transporting illegal drugs; hence, the investigative stop
without a warrant was valid.
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) 6
The Fourth Amendment does not require the offense establishing probable
causeforanarresttobe“closelyrelated”toandbasedonthesameconduct
as the offense identified by the officer during the initial encounter.
Chapter 2: The Exclusionary Rule
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) 10
Evidence seized by federal law enforcement officers in violation of the
Fourth Amendment is not admissible in a federal criminal prosecution.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) 10
Some searches are so “shocking to the conscience” that they require exclu-
sion of the evidence seized based on due process.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) 11
The exclusionary rule applies to all state criminal proceedings.
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) 12
Evidenceobtainedasaresultofillegalactsbythepolicemustbeexcluded.
In addition, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” of that illegal act must also be
excluded. Evidence that has been purged of the primary taint, however, is
admissible.
xvii
xviii List of cases with principle (capsule) of law
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 14
Illegally obtained evidence may be admissible if the police can prove that
they would have discovered the evidence anyway through lawful means.
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 15
The “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule allows the use of evi-
denceobtainedbyofficerswhoareactinginreasonablerelianceonasearch
warrant that is later declared invalid.
Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984) 16
Evidenceobtainedasaresultofasearchinwhichthepoliceactedin“good
faith” reliance on a search warrant the court subsequently declared invalid
becauseofamagistrateerrorisadmissibleasanexceptiontotheexclusion-
ary rule.
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) 18
The“independentsource”exceptiontotheexclusionaryruleallowstheuseof
evidenceobtainedbyofficerswhoactinreasonablerelianceonasearchwar-
rantthatisbasedoninformationthatwasnotobtainedillegally.
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1989) 19
A warrantless nonconsensual entry of a residence by police to arrest an
overnight guest violates the Fourth Amendment.
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) 20
The “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule does not require
suppressionofevidenceseizedinviolationoftheFourthAmendmentwhere
the erroneous information resulted from clerical errors of court employees.
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart et al., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) 21
“Police may enter ahome withoutawarrantwhenthey have anobjectively
reasonablebasisforbelievingthatanoccupantisseriouslyinjuredorimmi-
nently threatened with such injury.”
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) 22
“Statementsarenontestimonial[andthereforenotadmissibleincourt]when
made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively
indicatingthattheprimarypurposeofinterrogationistoenablepoliceassis-
tance to meet an ongoing emergency.”
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 24
The good faith exception for police applies to errors made by non-judicial
personnel.Asearchincidenttoanarrestbasedontheerroneousinformation
is also valid.
Chapter 3: Stop and Frisk
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 28
A stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion is valid.
List of cases with principle (capsule) of law xix
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) 29
A stop and frisk may be based on information provided by another
individual.
United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) 30
Reasonable suspicion based on a “wanted poster” is sufficient for a
valid stop.
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) 31
There is no rigid time limit for the length of an investigatory stop; instead,
specific circumstances should be taken into account.
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) 32
Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause, and
canbebasedonananonymoustipcorroboratedbyindependentpolicework.
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) 33
A frisk that goes beyond that allowed in Terry is invalid.
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) 35
Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon
observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate
further to determine if criminal activity is about to take place.
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (1999) 36
“Ananonymoustipthatapersoniscarryingagunisnot,withoutmore,suf-
ficient to justify a police officer’s stop and frisk of that person.”
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001) 37
“In making reasonable-suspicion determinations, reviewing courts must
look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the
detainingofficerhasaparticularizedandobjectivebasisforsuspectinglegal
wrongdoing.”
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al., 542 U.S. 177
(2004) 39
The Fourth Amendment allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk, to
require a person to provide his or her name. The person may be arrested
for refusing to comply.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. ___; No. 07-1122 (2009) 40
Officersmayorderpassengersoutofalawfullystoppedvehicle,andpatthem
down if there is reasonable suspicion they may be armed and dangerous.
Chapter 4: Arrests and Other Seizures of Persons
Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952) 44
An unlawful arrest does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to try a crimi-
nal case.
xx List of cases with principle (capsule) of law
United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1975) 45
Awarrantlessarrestthatbeginsinapublicplaceisvalidevenifthesuspect
retreats to a private place and is arrested there.
United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) 46
An arrest without a warrant in a public place is valid as long as there is
probable cause, even if there is time to obtain a warrant.
Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) 48
Probable cause is needed for the stationhouse detention of a suspect if such
detention is accompanied by an interrogation.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) 49
Thepolicemaynotvalidlyenteraprivatehometomakearoutine,warrant-
less felony arrest, unless justified by exigent circumstances.
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) 50
Thewarrantlessnighttimeentryofasuspect’shometoeffectanarrestfora
non-jailable offense violates the Fourth Amendment.
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) 51
Thetesttodeterminewhetheraseizureofapersonoccursiswhetherarea-
sonable person, viewing the police conduct and surrounding circumstances,
wouldconcludethatthepolicehadrestrainedtheperson’slibertysothathe
or she is not free to leave.
Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989) 52
Theseizureofapersonoccurswhenthereisa“governmentalterminationof
freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.”
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) 53
No seizure of a person occurs when an officer seeks to arrest a suspect
through a show of authority, but applies no physical force, and the subject
does not willingly submit.
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 413 (1991) 55
The warrantless detention of a suspect for 48 hours is presumptively
reasonable. If the time-to-hearing is longer, the burden of proof shifts to
the police to prove reasonableness of the delay. If the time-to-hearing is
shorter, the burden of proof of unreasonable delay shifts to the suspect.
United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) 56
The abduction of a foreigner that is not in violation of a treaty does not
deprive a U.S. court of jurisdiction in a criminal trial.
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) 58
Under exigent circumstances, and where police need to preserve evidence
until a warrant can be obtained, they may temporarily restrain a person’s
movements (thus temporarily seizing a person) without violating his or
her Fourth Amendment right.