Individual Project Unit 2
July 30, 2007
1. Assume a law enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault, and he also has probable cause to believe that the person is hiding in a third person’s garage, which is attached to the house. What warrants, if any, does the officer need to enter the garage to arrest the defendant? What if the officer is in hot pursuit of the defendant? What if the defendant is known to be injured and unarmed? Provide evidence to support your answer.
A warrant is the authorization or the right accorded to a party to conduct an activity such as the arrest of a person or search of premises. Due to the probability of abuse, limitations are in place to balance the right of the people to safety and security with liberties and privacy. Standards based on judicial interpretation of laws provide the limitations in issuing warrants of arrest or search warrants. However, application requires flexibility so that there are also exemptions to these limitations. (2006)
Under federal law, the US Code provides under Chapter 205, Title 18 govern the rules in the issuance of federal warrants together with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Each state also build upon warrant rules applicable to their jurisdiction but consistent with federal rules.
In the case of search warrants, the Fourth Amendment provides that search warrants made by law enforcement officers should find basis on probable cause. This is the existence of sufficient information to support reasonable judgment that a person or persons have committed a crime or that objectives used or involved in a crime may be found in a particular location. The standard of reasonableness then applies in the issuance of search warrants allowing the courts to decide on the issuance of a warrant based on the circumstances. Moreover, the search warrant is only limited to the property or location describes so that another search warrant is needed to cover other areas. There are exceptions to the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause. Exigencies such as entering private premises in the course of pursuing a felon, the imminent destruction or transfer of evidence, the urgency of preventing a suspect from escaping, or the high probability of putting police officers or other people at risk.
When a search warrant has been issued, both properties found at the location and persons found at the location with connection to the property may be seized. This follows the reasoning on probable cause that a person connected to a property may be seized while an object linked to a crime found in a person may also be seized as part of the criminal investigation.
However, probable cause does not only support the issuance of warrants but also the right of law enforcement officers to search locations or properties even without a warrant (Groh v Ramirez, 2004). This means that as long as there is probable cause, a law enforcement officer may stop to search a person, a vehicle or property and seize persons or objects suspected of committing the crime contemplated by the probable cause (Terry v Ohio, 1968).
In the first situation, when a police officer has probable cause that a suspected felon is hiding inside the garage of a third person, a search warrant may be obtained in order to rightfully enter the third person’s private property. However, since there is probable cause, the police office may also enter the property especially when this is done in pursuit of a felon, imminent danger that evidence stored or placed in the garage may be destroyed or transferred, the felon may escape if the search is not done immediately, or delaying the search and seizure could endanger the police authorities or civilians. Although a warrant of arrest may also be obtained, the existence of probable cause also supports arrest without warrant.
If the police officer has knowledge that the defendant is injured and unarmed to immobilize the felon from escaping or posing a threat to the safety of the police officers and civilians, then this may call for a search warrant or warrant of arrest. However, even if the felon is injured and unarmed, other exigencies such as the destruction or transfer of evidence may also become imminent supporting the right of law enforcement authorities to make the search, seizure and arrest on probable cause.
2. Formulate a set of circumstances in which there is probable cause to search but not probable cause to arrest; in which there is probable cause to arrest but not probable cause to search; in which there is probable cause to both arrest and to search.
There are instances when there is probable cause to search but there is no probable cause to arrest. The police learned of credible information to support the probable cause that a bartender was selling drugs. To act on this, the police authorities went to the bar to search the bartender and the bar he also owned. During the search, the police found heroine in the possession of the bartender. On suspicion that the bar may be used to retail and consume illegal drugs, the people in the bar were also searched and some were arrested. Given these circumstances, there is probable cause to search the bartender and the bar but no probable cause to arrest other people apart from the bartender. This is especially so when the people at the bar did not act suspiciously to draw the police officers to think that they are hiding something illegal.
There are also instances when there is probable cause to arrest but no probable cause to search. In this instance, a passing police car saw a person wearing a closed jacket with a visible bulk on the pockets running away from a store when there seems to be commotion inside the store. On probable cause that the person may have stolen something or robbed the store, the police officers have the right to make the search. However, if they find no weapon or items that the person cannot account for, there is no probable cause to arrest and the police officers should let the person go no matter how odd the actions of that person may seem to the police officers.
In some instances, probable cause to search and arrest may arise at the same time. Police officers doing a routine patrol of the street observed a man crouched below the open alley window of a drug store already closed for the night. The position of the man looked like he just got out of the window. On probable cause of theft, the police officers accost the person. Since the man cannot explain what he was doing there at that time, the police searched the person and found reams of cigarettes in his pockets and a bundle of cash. This creates the probable cause to arrest the person.
3. Mr. A walks into a police station, drops three wristwatches on a table, and tells an officer that Mr. B robbed a local jewelry store two weeks ago. Mr. A will not say anything else in response to police questioning. A quick investigation reveals that the three watches were among a number of items stolen in the jewelry store robbery. Do the police have probable cause to do any or all of the following?
1. Arrest Mr. A
2. Arrest Mr. B
3. Search Mr. A’s home
4. Search Mr. B’s home
If you answered no to any of the above, explain why in detail. If you answered yes to any of them, draft the complaint or affidavit for a warrant or explain why a warrant is not needed.
A probable cause can be based upon hearsay but the information should come from a reliable source for this to be considered in support of probable cause to search or arrest a person (Aguilar v Texas, 1964; Spinelli v United States, 1969). In the given case, the reliability of Mr. A as a source of information should be investigate especially since he refuses to answer succeeding police questions on the circumstances upon which he came in possession of the stolen watches. If the police investigating the robbery determine that Mr. A does not have any participation or involvement in the robbery and that his circumstances allowed him to come into possession of the watches, then his claims may be worth pursuing. However, this should be taken together with the information on the possible involvement of Mr. B in the robbery.
Based on the claims alone of Mr. A that Mr. B stole the watches but without answering any further inquiries, the police do not have probable cause to arrest Mr. A because possession alone of the watches does not result to the probability that the person stole these especially when these were voluntarily surrendered to the police. However, the police should take custody of the watches. Based on the scant statement alone of Mr. A, there is no probable cause to arrest Mr. B because of the inability of Mr. A to provide the connection between Mr. B and the robbery. Concurrently, there is also no probable cause to search Mr. A or Mr. B without any supporting evidence.
If Mr. a makes the statement and acts in a manner that does not create suspicion on the part of the experienced police officers, then there is not probable cause to search the house of Mr. A. Without any supporting evidence connecting Mr. B to the robbery, there is also no probable cause to search the home of Mr. B.
Unit 2 Discussion Board
July 30, 2007
Debate the following statement: The United States Supreme Court recently held that if police fail to knock and announce then whatever evidence they seize will not be subject to the exclusionary rule. Does that mean police no longer need to knock and announce before entering a dwelling?
The exclusionary rule provides that evidence gathered in a manner that violates constitutional rights cannot be admitted as evidence in criminal prosecution (2006). This rule evolved to serve two purposes, to provide a remedy to people in instances when they are being prosecuted based on evidence collected in violation of their rights and to provide disincentive on the part of law enforcement authorities to ensure respect of constitutional rights in criminal investigation to secure conviction based on strong evidence.
In the recent decision of the US Supreme Court, that failure to knock and announce would render the evidence seized not subject to the evidence rule leads to divergent results. On one hand, this means that police officers may become complacent in practicing ‘knock and announce’ because even if they fail to do this, evidence presented would not be included under the operation of the exclusionary rule. This opens the possibility of violation of constitutional rights. On the other hand, this provides law enforcement with the flexibility they need in order for felons to be held accountable for their actions based on all the evidence collected, which could not have been achieved with the operation of the exclusionary clause.
The resolution of this issue involves striking the balance between the protection of constitutional rights and the necessary exchanges to strengthen the criminal procedures in the interest of peace and order in society. This balance should be subject to the determination of the courts in order to prevent this jurisprudence from being abused while at the same time ensuring that constitutional rights are respected in criminal prosecution.
Individual Project Unit 3
July 30, 2007
A search should comply with reasonable privacy expectations. Katz v United States (1967) provides a two-part test in determining whether a search complies with reasonable privacy expectations based on the Fourth Amendment. First test is that the action of law enforcement authorities contravenes the person’s subjective expectations of privacy. To meet this test, the individual whose person or property is subject to search should prove subjective expectations of privacy in the sense that the objects found during the search were kept in a private manner. Second test is that this subjective expectation of privacy should be reasonable with reasonableness determined by comparing subjective with general expectations. Although this test also considers the subjective expectations of the individual, this takes on an objective stand because of the consideration of reasonable expectations based on the general or common perspective. In California v Greenwood (1988), the court held that police search of a person’s garbage already thrown does not violate privacy because people intended the garbage not to be private.
Apart from compliance with reasonable privacy expectations, a search should also find basis on probable cause. In conducting a search, law enforcement officers should hold or carry the reasonable belief that conducting the search would uncover criminal activity or evidence of crimes. Carroll v United States (1925) provides that the facts known by the officers making the search is sufficient to convince a reasonable person of the merits of conducting the search. Texas v Brown (1984) adds that probable cause means having a practical and non-technical probability of the involvement of incrimination evidence. If police officers have probable cause, the search is valid.
In conducting the search, the plain view doctrine may find application. This doctrine provides that law enforcement authorities lawfully present in a scene or situation may conduct a search and seize objects in plain view. However, a requisite to this rule is that the police officers should have established probable cause to perceive the object as contraband. (Horton v California, 1990)
In the case of the search of motor vehicles, additional rules developed. Carroll v United States (1925) provides for exceptions to the general rule in the case of the search of motor vehicles. Law enforcement officers may search a motor vehicle even without a search warrant provided there is probable cause has been established covering contraband kept in the vehicle. The exception is based on the consideration of a lower degree of privacy accorded to motor vehicles relative to homes because people do not usually live in their vehicles ( 2005). Moreover, the mobility of motor vehicles creates an urgency to accost the owner and search for contraband or evidence. Pennsylvania v Lebron (1996) provides that when a vehicle is in motion and there is probable cause to believe that existence of contraband in the motor vehicle, police officers may stop to search the vehicle.
The scope of the search depends upon the places covered by the probable cause or the places where the contraband is believed be placed or kept. This means that the search can cover the glove compartment, passenger and driver’s seat, trunk or the entirety of the car. Moreover, the contraband or evidence in the car need not belong to the owner of the motor vehicle. Wyoming v Houghton (1999) provides that ownership of contraband found in a motor vehicle subject to a search does not affect the validity of the search conducted by law enforcement officers. This means that the search is valid as long the contraband is found in the car, which was stopped on probable cause, even if the objects searched and seized turn out not be the property of the owner of the car. This circumstance could even support the probable cause of the commission of a crime or transport of contraband.
However, there are also cases allowing the validity of the search even if there is no imminent risk that the vehicle could be driven-off before the search warrant can be obtained. California v Carney (1985) provides that the motor vehicle exception rule also apply to motor homes provided the motor home is readily mobile and not parked in a manner that restricts ease in driving-off the vehicle. This means that the mobility of the vehicle determines the urgency of conducting a search without a warrant.
In the given case, the police officers had probable cause to accost the men for loitering because of their presence outside at night. This probable cause then provides the police officers with the right to accost the men to inform them about the law and investigate the situation. The detectives, judge and district court differently described the reaction of the men upon seeing the marked patrol car approach. However, all these parties agree that there was urgency in the movements of the men in reacting to the presence of the police car. Based on common perception, people that urgently move away due to the presence of police officers have something to hide. According to the testimony of the detectives, the men were also in an area with the buildings mostly abandoned and where frequent shootings and drug sales occur. The fact that the men quickly boarded the car to get away from the police and they were in an area known for crimes and criminal undertakings provided the police officers with probable cause to stop the car, a crime may be committed or in the process of being committed.
When the car was stopped, the police officers talked with the men to know what they were doing outside and why they quickly moved away from the patrol car. Stopping the vehicle for probable cause that a crime has been committed finds support in the fact that the men were not able to provide a corroborating explanation on their presence outside, in the area at night. Although loaded magazine clips were seen in plain view, this does not in itself support the probable cause to search the vehicle based on the judgment of the detectives. Due to these reasons, the police officers arrested the men for loitering and prowling. It was valid for the police officers to stop the car to investigate but not to search the vehicle since the probable cause that arises is for arrest for a crime not necessarily involving contraband.
Unit 3 Discussion Board
July 30, 2007
Based on the facts alone, there seems to be no legal justification for the search of the defendant’s clothing since he was detained as a potential witness. Even if a potential witness has an outstanding warrant for parole violation, this does not support the change of perception that the person could be an important witness to a crime subject to investigation. During his detention, there was also no readily apparent evidence supporting his involvement in the crime. This means that there was no probable cause to search his clothing and conduct forensics test in relation to the murder.
The search of Mr. A’s clothing only achieves validity when this is supported by a probable cause that conducting the search could support the strong belief of the investigators regarding his involvement in the crime. The detectives handling the murder case should have uncovered evidence pointing to Mr. A as a suspect because of the circumstances of him becoming a witness together with a previous record for murder if this is the crime for which he was jailed and released on parole. Without knowledge or information to give rise to the probable cause to search Mr. A’s belongings, the search is not valid.
Apart from the lack of information to support probable cause, the concept of fairness provides that a previous criminal record cannot be used as the sole evidence for concluding that the person has again committed crime. Even a parole violation cannot be made to support actions to investigate a murder case that has nothing to do with the parole violation. Moreover, a parole violation does not usually involve search of clothing unless there is probable cause that the search would support the acquisition of evidence to support the parole violation.
Individual Project Unit 4
July 30, 2007
1. Should the passenger’s motion to suppress the seized evidence be granted?
Searches made by police officers without a warrant should be done in a manner that does not violate the constitutional rights of the person or owner or property being searched. Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution provides for
“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 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”.
This means that even while the Constitution allows for searches and seizures without a warrant during exigencies, these searches and seizures need to be reasonable and balanced with the peoples’ right to privacy. If searches and seizures are done outside of the context of situations considered as exigencies, then the search and seizure becomes unreasonable (Schnekloth v Bustamante, 1973), and the evidence collected from the search and seizure will fall under the exemption rule or becomes inadmissible as evidence in criminal prosecutions (Weeks v United States, 1914).
This further implies that even if the courts want to comply with their job of prosecuting felons based on evidence, part of the role of the courts is to respect the principles enshrined in the federal constitution (Weeks v United States, 1914). The courts then hold the responsibility to determine, as part of the considerations in criminal prosecutions, the reasonableness of the evidence collection process prior to considering the merits of the evidence to the resolution of the case.
In searches and seizures without warrants, the primary requirement is that there should be probable cause. According to Delaware v Prouse (1979), random stops to check the licenses or registration papers of the people driving these motor vehicles are considered unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment because of the non-existence of probable cause. Without any indication that motor vehicle or traffic regulations have been violated, stopping motor vehicles to check on licenses and registration papers violates the constitutional rights of drivers. In the case of State v Patino (1979), the court held that law enforcement authorities violated the constitutional rights of the driver in ordering him to exit from the vehicle to allow the police to conduct a search ad seizure since it appears that the driver has not violated any traffic rules. Although the police found evidence of crime inside the vehicle, these should be suppressed since this was searched and seized unreasonably or in violation of constitutional rights. Professional curiosity or hunches without any other supporting factors do not constitute probable cause to conduct a search and seizure without a warrant.
In the given case, the motion to suppress the seized evidence should be suppressed since the situation does not give rise to a reasonable cause. The car was parked with two people inside. There was no indication that the car was violating any traffic violations in the manner that it was parked. Had the car been parked illegally, the police officers have the right to approach the car to cite the traffic violation but since there was no indication of any infractions the search and seizure is unreasonable and the evidence collected from this should be suppressed. The passenger was conversing with a woman standing outside the passenger side and then the woman handed something to the passenger that the police officers were not able to identify. The fact that the police officers were not able to identify the object handed by the woman standing outside to the passenger means that the plain view rule could not apply to support the search, seizure and arrest. As the patrol car approached, the woman standing outside the passenger side started to walk away without any indication of haste. Since there was nothing to reasonably create an idea that searching the passenger would elicit evidence of crime, the search and seizure violated the constitutional rights of the passenger.
State v Lund (1990) provides that furtive gestures on the part of the passengers of motor vehicles do not readily suggest suspicious activity of the commission of a crime. Even if there was a traffic violation, a search or seizure may still be unreasonable if there is no reason to support a valid suspicion of the commission of a crime.
In application to the given case, the shoving action of the passenger cannot solely support probable cause for search and seizure. Although the woman standing outside the passenger side of the car gave something to the passenger, the police officers did not previously identify this as illegal drugs. It is not illegal to hand something to another person, especially when the person handing the object walked away without in a normal fashion. The shoving action also does not support probable cause of a crime especially when the object being shoved was not identified in plain view as evidence of a crime.
2. Should the passenger’s motion to suppress the controlled substance be granted?
The commission of an automatic search of people subject to inquiry by police officers violates fundamental rights of individuals because a search without a warrant should be supported by probable cause. Maryland v Buie (1990) provides that the conduct of searches without a perceived threat on the safety of the police officer or the public or without any additional support for the suspicion that a crime has been committed and conducting the search would bring out evidence of the crime.
In the given situation, there was no indication that the people inside the parked car had just committed a crime or are in the process of committing a crime. There was also no parking violation to command the attention of the police officers to approach the motor vehicle and cite the driver for the violation. The people inside the car seemed to be fumbling with something on the floorboard but this does not readily support a search, as the police officers were not able to identify the object they were fumbling with as illegal substance or evidence of crime. However, based on the situation and the experience of the police officers, the area is considered as a high crime area. The police officers have previously responded to calls in a bar near the location of the parked car for numerous crimes such as gang-related crimes. In anticipation of the possibility that the people inside the car have committed or in the process of committing a crime, the police officers rightly investigated the people and activity inside the car.
Terry v Ohio (1968) provides that searching an individual before being concerned with safety does not support probable cause for the search. The police officer conducting the search admitted that he had no concern for safety before searching the individual and safety only became an issue when the police officer felt the keys on the pocket of the person during the search that felt like a weapon. Since the search commenced even before the concern for danger, the search was unreasonable and the objects seized should be suppressed.
In application to the given case, there was no indication that the people inside the car parked posed any threat to the safety of the police officers or the public. Since, the car was parked in a high crime area near a bar known for gang activity and frequent calls for police intervention, there was a reason to investigate the affairs of the people in the car. The plain view rule applied when the officers saw a bullet on the car console. This created the probable cause for search since the bullet may mean that the individuals were armed.
Illinois v Wardlow (2000) provides that the presence of an individual in a high crime location does not readily support probable cause for search since this involves a non-specific suspicion of any criminal acts to justify the Terry stop. However, the characteristics of the location and flight from law enforcement authorities comprise important factors in determining the merit of suspicion in supporting search and seizure investigations.
In application to the given case, the car and the individuals inside are located in a high crime area. Although, the individuals did not attempt to take flight when the police officers approached, they appeared to be fumbling with the floorboard. Initial investigation yielded a bullet in the console justifying the search of the person of the individuals for the firearms. It was not mentioned whether the police actually found weapons from the frisking. The existence of the guns determines the validity of search of the vehicle. If the police officers found a gun or guns through the frisking and looked inside the car to determine plain view evidence, then the thorough search of the floorboard may not be justified since there was no probable cause to assume that further danger was posed by the individuals, especially when the gun or guns found matched the bullet in the console. If the police did not find any gun through frisking, this creates the assumption that the gun may be inside the car that supports the search of the car even the floorboard if the gun matching the bullet cannot be seen in plain view.
In the first scenario, the illegal possession of a gun or guns supports the arrest of the individuals. In the case of a valid arrest, the search of the car including the floorboard becomes legitimate following the arrest. The discovery of controlled substance in the floorboard is valid so that the motion to suppress the controlled substance should not be granted. In the second scenario, the search of the floorboard follows as the place for police officers to look since no gun was found in the person of the individuals but there was a bullet in the console. Although the discovery of the controlled substances was only incidental, the seizure of this as evidence in the criminal prosecution should not be suppressed since the police officers were in the right place and position since there was probable cause to support their initial approach of the vehicle, the bullet in plain view supported the search for concealed weapons, the thorough search of the car resulting from the arrest is valid practice, and non-existence of a gun during the frisk supports search for the vehicle to locate the gun.
Unit 4 Discussion Board
July 30, 2007
1. Describe three situations in which there are exigent circumstances and probable cause to search a vehicle that is not readily mobile.
One exigency supporting probable cause to search a vehicle that is not readily mobile is in the event of the commission of a crime witnessed by law enforcement authorities or plain view principle. This is exemplified by the situation when law enforcement authorities were passing through a block o mobile homes on routine check. They hear and observe a violent commotion in one of the mobile homes. This involved an investigation so the police officers knocked on the door, announced their presence and asked the people inside to open the door. There was silence and then a slight commotion before the door was opened. Two people were inside. One claimed that the other person threatened to kill him with a rifle, which the person hid under the sink, while the other person denied the allegation of the threat and the existence of the rifle. Since a crime could be happening based on the state of the people inside and the inconsistency in their statements, there was reason to search under the sink even without a warrant. If the police officers waited for a warrant, the gun may not be where it was located by the time the warrant arrives.
Another exigency supporting the search of a vehicle that is not readily mobile is the imminent destruction or concealment of evidence. Police officers observe an exchange between people inside a parked car and a known drug pusher. The pusher runs towards an alley before the police officers were able to come close to the car. The people inside the car noticed the police and started fumbling with something under the seat. As the police approach the car, they noticed drug foils and a lighter at the backseat but no drugs. This supports probable cause to make the search of the vehicle even without a warrant and even if there was no risk of flight.
Still another exigency in searching a vehicle even without risk of flight is the possible harm to the police authorities. Police authorities received an anonymous call about a van with a timer and contraption in the back according to the observation of a gas attendant while he was talking to the driver who stopped for gas. Upon hearing this report, police officers saw a car with the same description parked outside a mall. Even without a search warrant, the police can investigate and search inside the van to allay the risk of harm to the public.
2. Search the Internet for a case in which this occurred. What were the details and what was the outcome?
Carney v United States (1985) exemplifies the case of a valid search without a warrant of a vehicle that is not readily mobile. In this case, federal agents received information that Carney was using his motor home as venue in selling marijuana. The motor home was parked in a lot reserved for mobile homes. Based on this probable cause, agents knocked on the motor home and since there was no reply, the agents entered the home. The search resulted to seizure of marijuana and drug use paraphernalia in plain view. Although the motor home was not readily mobile, the search without a warrant was found by the court as reasonable because of probable cause and waiting for a search warrant could have given Carney the opportunity to dispose or transfer evidence.
Group Project Unit 5
July 30, 2007
Identification in cases involving a perpetrator who is not arrested during the commission of the crime or who does not confess to the crime gives rise to difficulties. In these instances, law enforcement authorities have to rely on eyewitness identification and statements to determine the suspect. Eyewitness identification is important because rules of evidence mandate the existence of circumstantial evidence linking the suspect to the crime or crime scene to be corroborated by evidence. There are two types of identification exists, one is pre-trial identification and the other is post-indictment identification.
Pre-trial identification follows the Kirby rule. This means that the person in the custody of the police have not yet been subjected to formal charges. During this time, law enforcement authorities locate and take the statements of witnesses to create circumstantial evidence linking the person under custody to the crime in support of the filing of formal charges. At this stage, the police usually conduct line-ups and have witnesses come to the station to identify the person they claim as the perpetrator from the line-up.
Post-indictment identification follows the Wade rule since a complaint has already been filed. During this stage, the suspect is entitled to legal representation to ensure that his rights are respected such as ensuring that the process of identification is fair, checking on the reliability of eyewitnesses, and gathering information on the case to identify any irregularities and file motions for suppression. At this stage, the legal counsel of the suspect is present during the line-up to ensure fairness and propriety of the identification process.
Fairness and propriety of the identification process is important because any actions unfair to the suspect could be grounds for suppression. People v Burton (1996) cited Simmons v United States (1968) to provide that the in-court identification of a witness should be suppresses in instances when this depended upon an unfair and suggestive pre-trial identification process that resulted to the high probability of the existence of irreparable misidentification. Manson v Braithwaite (1977) adds that the courts should consider the complete circumstances of the identification process in considering the issue of identification suppression.
In considering the issue of suppression of in-court identification, a number of tests developed from case laws. One is the Stoval test in the case Stoval v Denno (1967) involves the inquiry into police compliance with standard procedures and guarantees of impartiality. Compliance includes to a number of actions including record keeping and the sequencing of steps in the pre-identification and post-indictment identification. In this test, freshness is important so that show-ups and confrontations involve salient sources of identification information.
Another test involve the five factor considerations provided by Neil v Biggers (1972) that include: 1. the opportunity of the witness to observe the actions during the commission of the crime; 2) the degree of attention given by the witness to the details of the crime, perpetrator and crime scene; 3) accuracy of the prior description of the suspect by the witnesses; 4) degree of certainty showed by the witnesses during the confrontation; and 5) the period that elapsed from the commission of the crime to the confrontation.
Still another test is Biggers-Brathwaite developed in Manson v Brathwaite (1977) that provides for a balancing approach that consider the five factors relative to the degree of corrupting impact of any intervening suggestive factors in the identification procedures. In practice, the balance means that even if police authorities contributed a suggestive factor, the identification statement of the witness could still be upheld in instances when other factors support the reliability of the identification process.
In application to the given case, some aspects of the situation provides support for the non-suppression of the in-court identification but there are also aspects of the situation in support of the suppression.
On one hand, in-court identification should not be suppressed because the pre-trial identification process was not suggestive since the police officer taking the statements of the bank employees did not suggest anything about the identity of the suspect. In fact, one bank employee contacted the police to volunteer confirmation about the identity of the suspect as the person arrested shown in the newspaper. When the police took the statement, another two bank employees offered their corroborating statement. On the other hand, the statements of the bank employees may have been influenced by the suggestive factor of the picture in the newspaper as the person arrested for the robbery. Since the statements of the bank employees came out after the release of the newspaper article, this could have influenced their statement.
The resolution of this case involves the application of the balancing test so that the possibility of the influence that the newspaper picture might have on the pre-trial identification of the witnesses should be weighed with the strength of the testimony of the witnesses in identifying the perpetrator as the same person taken into custody by the police. If despite the possible influence, the statement of the witnesses remains strong such as their ability to provide consistent reliable details of the occurrence of the crime that are not provided by the newspapers, then the in-court identification should not be suppressed. If the statements of the witnesses cannot defeat the issue of the suggestive factor of the picture posted in the newspapers then motions for suppression may be granted if there are no other factors that could defeat the suggestive factor.
In addition, there are certain procedural issues arising in the case that may justify the suppression of the in-court identification. One is the conduct of identification as soon as possible after an arrest. Although, the statements of the witnesses were taken the morning after the robbery, the police investigating the case showed a picture of the person depicting the suspect to only one of the witnesses a few days after. This defeats the Stovall test that calls for freshness in identification.
Moreover, the line-up was discontinued because the police believed this to be futile since the public has already seen a picture of the suspect in the newspapers. However, line-ups are important in the identification of suspects to test the strength and reliability of the identification statement of witnesses. This should be done immediately so that the face and features of the perpetrator are still fresh in the memory of the witnesses. Discontinuation of the line-up fails the five-factor and Stoval test.
Unit 5 Discussion Board
July 30, 2007
Miranda has been expanded because of the existence of rules developed in succeeding cases clarifying the applicability of this criminal law procedure. Although, these rules provide limits to the application of the Miranda standard, the existence of limits supported the widespread acceptance and application of this standard. Colorado v Connelly (1986) clarifies that the waiver of Miranda rights should be voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made with these characteristics applied by ensuring that the person being read the Miranda rights appear, within reason, to understand his actions and there is no coercion in waiving this right. Although in general, testimonies or confessions obtained in violation of Miranda rights may not be used as evidence in determining guilt, Harris v New York (1971) provides that a confession obtained under this circumstance may still be used to challenge the credibility of the succeeding testimony of the accused. Moreover, Rhode Island v Innis (1980) also provides that statements made by individuals in custody even without being read their rights or without the presence of counsel may be accepted as evidence if these statements were made outside of police interrogation or in situations without any influences by the police in eliciting the incriminating response. In addition, New York v Quarles (1984) also introduced the ‘public safety’ exception to the Miranda rights involving situations where a person has knowledge of the location of firearms or other objects posing threats to public safety so that the transcripts of the interrogation without reading the person his Miranda rights may still be admissible as evidence in criminal prosecution.
The expansion of Miranda rights is also supported by the survival of the reaffirmation of the standard in Dickerson v United States (2000). The issue was whether Miranda rights was mandated by the Constitution or merely acts as preventive measures forming part of sound judicial policy. Majority of the Supreme Court provided that Miranda warning has formed part of the national culture supporting the consideration of this practice as part of the important standards of the justice system. Although, a number of justices purported that Miranda rights is not included per se in the Constitution, the standard adheres to the fundamental rights contained therein giving the standard a status greater than a mere preventive measure subject to the relative compliance of law enforcement officers. The fact that the Supreme Court decision supported the mandate of the Miranda rights in criminal prosecutions means that this standard gained renewed strength in its inclusion in police practice standards.
Since Miranda rights apply to people who are under police custody so that they are not free to leave without permission by the police, this should remain so. The purpose of Miranda standard is to ensure the right of individuals under custody by providing them with protection against forced confessions and to prevent police officers from taking advantage of the lack of knowledge or information of individuals about their rights to their disadvantage (2004). In the case of people free to leave during questioning, their freedom to answer the questions remains so that they can refuse to answer questions posed by the police or even leave the police station. The retention of their freedom then makes Miranda rights unnecessary, redundant, or even a source of confusion.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment