Sir Robert Peel
- Established local responsibility for law & order, appointed civilians as law enforcement officers and enforced standard of conduct for appointees
A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that is based on an interpretation of a provision of the U.S. Constitution is
binding on both state courts and lower federal courts.
The Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution
vests final government authority in the U.S. Constitution.
According to the Supreme Court in Katz v. U.S., involving an electronic listening and recording device attached to the outside of a public telephone booth
the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
According to the plain view doctrine,
plain view falls outside Fourth Amendment searches and does not fall under its protections.
The first question to ask in Fourth Amendment violation cases is
whether the government action was a search or seizure.
The balancing approach to reasonableness used by the Supreme Court requires
courts to weigh the degree of intrusion to the individual against the government's need for the intrusion itself.
According the Supreme Court's opinion in the case, Terry v. Ohio, involving the stop and frisk of a citizen on the street to investigate a robbery,
whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, the officer has "seized" that person.
A proper "frisk" under the stop-and-frisk rules established under Terry v. Ohio, is limited to
a pat-down of the suspect's outer clothing unless something that could be a weapon is felt during the pat-down.
In Maryland v. Wilson, the case where police removed and detained a passenger from a lawfully stopped vehicle, the Supreme Court held
that the practice of ordering all drivers and passengers stopped in traffic stops out of their vehicles, as a matter of course, was reasonable.
Feeling a hard object that could be a weapon inside a suspect's clothing would justify
more than just a pat-down of the suspect's outer clothing.
Under the holding in Chimel v. California (1969), a leading Supreme Court case on searches incident to arrest, involving the search of a house incident to an arrest for burglary of a coin shop,
the police must limit a thorough search incident to arrest to the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate reach.
A consent search unlike other searches does not require
probable cause because the suspect consented.
In order to meet constitutional standards, an inventory search must be done pursuant to
written, established, police department procedures.
Strip searches of inmates at prisons (after visitations) and general searches of their property and persons are constitutional because
prisoners have a diminished expectation of privacy and the government has an important need to maintain prison security and order.
When a suspect asks for an attorney during a custodial interrogation, police must
stop questioning the suspect until an attorney is present or the suspect initiates further conversation with the police.
The Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, held
that provision of a suspect's rights concerning self-incrimination, must be given to a suspect when the suspect is first subjected to police interrogation while deprived of freedom in any significant way (custodial interrogation).
According to the courts, suspects can waive their 5th amendment rights but that waiver must be a
knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver. Furthermore, the Court is required to make sure it was such a waiver.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has applied the Exclusionary Rule mainly and only to
promote the interest in deterring illegal government action, i.e. mostly overreaching by the police.
According to the defense of official immunity, an officer is personally liable only for
willful or malicious misconduct and has immunity from any others.
Bivens actions are
constitutional tort actions against federal officers. (Bivens was the name of the case in which the Supreme Court determined that there actually was an action under the Constitution to be used against federal officers who violated the rights of individuals).
A defendant has a right to counsel which attaches (begins)
when the government files formal charges against the defendant.
In the case, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which involved a burglary suspect tried in Florida without counsel, the Supreme Court declared that
all felony defendants whether indigent or not, have the right to an attorney, even if one must be provided by government funded lawyers.
The Supreme Court has held that guilty pleas are constitutional, so long as
they are made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
The main characteristic of the Due Process Model of criminal justice is
a concern for the rights of the defendants.
The main characteristic of the Crime Control Model of criminal justice is a
concern for efficiency in prosecution and also, protecting society.
The 3 justifications for the exclusionary rule include
deterring illegal behavior by law enforcement, courts of law not participating in or condoning illegal conduct, and alternative remedies against police misconduct have not worked.
The vehicle exception to the warrant requirement is based upon
the inherent mobility of the vehicle and the reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles.
No-knock entries to execute search warrants are permitted only if
certain conditions exist which include the suspect might destroy evidence and/or the situation might endanger the officers.
Probable cause to arrest is an objective standard that requires
enough facts to lead the police to the reasonable belief that a crime has been committed by the suspect.
A state prisoner who seeks review of his case under a civil writ of habeas corpus in federal court can obtain review only if
his claim is based on an alleged violation of a federal right
The three most prominent characteristics of defendants used in the discussion of crime and crime policy are:
race, gender, and poverty
The Supreme Court through the use of the 14th amendment has made
much of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution applicable to the states.
The idea that the criminal law should be the last resort in solving a problem is derived from
the principle of limited methods.
The 4th Amendment "particularity requirement" for search warrants requires
the warrant to specifically describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.
In U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, involving the detention of a traveler at the border for extended hours, the Supreme Court held
the standard of evidence necessary to detain a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine custom search and inspection is reasonable suspicion.
Since 1971, the pendulum in the criminal justice process's balance has swung from
process to result.
The doctrine of stare Decisis binds judges to
follow prior decisions made by their own court and by all courts superior to them in their particular jurisdiction.
a legal defense that can be used by suspects induced by law enforcement to commit a crime.
any just cause for committing an act, which usually would be a crime, but for this defense that the act was justified under the circumstances.
Substantive and procedural law differs in that
substantive law is about defining prohibited behavior and procedural law is about procedures and process.
A consent search is
a warrantless search made when the person in control of an area or object gives consent.
In a search incident to an arrest, under the case, U.S. v. Robinson, the police can
search the person arrested and the area under the arrestee's control with the arrest.
A Civilian Review Board consists of
persons who are not police officers but review citizen complaints against police and then recommend punishment for violations.