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.