Rights of the Accused

Searches and Seizures

• 4th Amendment:

“The right of people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”

Most searches take place without warrants. This is OK:

– If probable cause of a crime exists.

– If search is necessary to protect an officer’s safety.

– If search is limited to material relevant to the suspected crime or within the suspect’s immediate control.

Searches and Seizures

NO WARRANT NEEDED

• If police observe a person breaking the law. (i.e., drugs)

• To search garbage (in “public” area)

• Drug tests (if they protect the public)

Searches and Seizures

No Warrant Needed

– Plain view “rule”– Incident to arrest– Impounded evidence– Motor vehicle– Consent– Border / Airport– Hot pursuit

Searches and Seizures

WARRANT

• Police must state under oath to a court official that they haveprobable cause to suspect someone ofcommitting a crime to justify a search.

• Must describe place to be searched.

• Must identify person or thing to be seized.

Searches and Seizures

WarrantSTATE OF TENNESSEE

COUNTY OF BEDFORD

SEARCH WARRANT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, to any sheriff, policeman or peace officer in the county of Bedford and accompanied by any agent of the federal bureau of investigation:

PROOF of affidavit, having been made before me by FBI Special Agent Donna Hillman and Detective Jay Green that there is probable cause to believe that the property described herein may be found at the location set forth herein. You are hereby COMMANDED TO SEARCH the premises located at and described as, 1012 Horse Mountain Road, City of Shelbyville, County of Bedford, State of Tennessee. 1012 Horse Mountain Road is described as being on the South side of Horse Mountain Road, approximately .25 miles east of the intersection of Horse Mountain Road and Park Road and approximately .40 miles west of the intersection of Horse Mountain Road and Eaton Road. Further described as a white two story wood frame structure with an attached front porch and light blue front entry door. You are hereby COMMANDED TO SEARCH the stated premises including all rooms, basements, attics, storage rooms and areas, safes, trash containers, and outbuildings including storage sheds and any other temporary or permanent fixtures thereto on said premises.

For the following persons: Macy Lynn Lamar and unknown abductors. Further to search for the following property: items belonging to or referring to Macy Lynn Lamar, her abduction or her transportation and housing, and any items including items bearing signatures, initials or marks, correspondence, letters, notes, faxes, electronic transmissions including e-mail and Uniform Resource Locator addresses from the Internet, diaries, journals, date books, telephone records, bills, forwarded correspondence, contracts, receipts, electronic storage medium, computers, typewriters, typing paper, addressed envelopes, photographs, video recordings, tape recordings, answering machine devices with tapes, or answer any telephone calls during the course of the search warrant being served, clothing, suitcases or other luggage or personal carrying devices including purses, wallets, pouches and similarly identified items. Further, this warrant authorizes search for the following property and/or evidence: forensic collection procedures including print, hair, fiber, bodily fluid, tissue sample and photographic collection and forensic sampling for evidence collection of the presence of Macy Lynn Lamar or her abductors, as described in the affidavits here attached, and including collection of unknown samples of same for matching in the case of Macy Lynn Lamar. Further to execute this warrant for any property or evidence including: illegal firearms, illegal drugs or legally prescribed drugs encountered in the search. Further for the following property: weapons, rope, materials such as may be used for restraint or blinding, locks and other similar devices as pertain to the affidavits herein attached or receipts for same.

AND TO SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me, or this court, at the courthouse of this court.

GIVEN under my hand and dated this 4th of December 1997 at 2:30 p.m. 

Signature of Magistrate, Randall J. Parker

Judge of the Superior Court

Police must have a warrant to search a home unless there is a life-threatening emergency.

An anonymous tip does not

normally constitute

“probable cause.”

Searches and Seizures

The Exclusionary Rule

Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in a federal court.

But this rule has been relaxed.– If police made a mistake in “good faith”– Inevitable discovery

In 1957, acting on a tip that a suspect in a bombing, as well as illegal gambling equipment, were hidden in Dollree Mapp’s house, police went to her house but she refused to let them in without a warrant. One of the officers left to get the warrant. When he returned, the police waved a piece of paper in the air saying that it was a warrant. She still refused to let them in, so they broke into her home to look for the equipment and fugitive. They found neither the man nor the equipment. (The warrant was a fake.)

The Exclusionary Rule

However, in the basement, they found a trunk full of obscene and pornographic material. (Such material was illegal in Ohio in 1961.)

She was arrested and convicted of possessing illegal obscene material.

The Exclusionary Rule

Mapp appealed her conviction saying that her constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure had been violated.– The police had no warrant. (It was a fake.)

– The police did not find the specific things for which they were searching (fugitive and gambling equipment).

– The police had no reason to suspect her of possessing obscene material.

Therefore, the police had no right to use the evidence they found (the trunk).

The Exclusionary Rule

In 1961, the Supreme Court agreed with Ms. Mapp saying her rights had been violated and the police had acted unlawfully. Any evidence seized could not be used against her.

Her conviction was overturned.

The Exclusionary Rule

California v. Acevedo

Police saw Acevedo leave a drug house carrying a paper bag. Police knew a similar bag of marijuana had been mailed from Hawaii. Acevedo put bag into his car trunk and drove off.

Police are free to search an auto and any containers in it if they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is present.

4th Amendment in High School

• School officials do not need a warrant or probable cause to search students or their property.

• All they need is reasonable grounds to believe a search will uncover evidence

that a student has broken the rules.

• Mandatory drug tests for students in athletics are OK.

Wiretapping

• Wiretaps must have a warrant.

• This includes wiretaps for national security.

• President Bush and

VP Cheney “bent”

this law severely.

Guarantee of Counsel

• 6th Amendment applied to federal cases

• Did not apply to state cases.Result: Rich got good lawyers; poor got none. (Discrimination)

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Earl Gideon

Result: Defendant must be given lawyer if penalty of 6+ months.

Guarantee of Counsel

Gideon v. Wainwright

• When did the crime occur? 1961

• When did case reach Supreme Court? 1963

• What was the crime? Breaking & entering, theft

• Why was the case appealed? (What was the Constitutional problem?) Not given a lawyer

• What happened on appeal? Overturned

Self-Incrimination

• 5th Amendment – No one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

• Includes forced confessions. (“Third degree”)

• Why? The government must prove guilt. You do not have to help.

• In January 1960, Danny Escobedo was accused of murdering his brother-in-law.

• Escobedo was brought in for questioning but released.

• A few days later, another suspect named Danny as the killer. So the police brought him back for more questions.

Self-Incrimination

• During the 2nd questioning, Danny realized that he was in trouble.

• Danny asked for an attorney. • Police said he could have an

attorney but they just want to ask a few questions.

• Meanwhile, Danny’s attorney was in the waiting room trying to see Danny.

• Danny said things that incriminated him.

• Finally, the police allowed him to talk to his attorney.

Self-Incrimination

• Escobedo was convicted of the murder.

• The primary evidence was the statements he gave to the police.

• His lawyer appealed the case through Illinois courts and finally to the Supreme Court.

Self-Incrimination

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

• Result: A confession or other incriminating statements an accused person makes when denied access to a lawyer may not be used in a trial.

Self-Incrimination

Escobedo v. Illinois

• When did the crime occur? 1960

• When did case reach Supreme Court? 1964

• What was the crime? Murder

• Why was the case appealed? (What was the Constitutional problem?) Not allowed a lawyer

• What happened on appeal? Overturned

• Ernesto Miranda and had a long list of problems with the law (armed robbery, car theft, AWOL from Army, etc.).

• In March 1963, he offered a girl who worked at a theater a ride home after she got off work but– kidnapped her (took her outside of town) – raped her– took her back to town

and released her.

Self-Incrimination

• Ernesto Miranda was arrested.

• While in custody, the girl identified him as her rapist (although her identification was very weak).

• He did not know he had any rights.

• He confessed.

• He told the police everything during two hours of heavy questioning.

Self-Incrimination

• Miranda was convicted primarily based upon his confession. (The girl’s identification was too weak to be helpful in court.)

• The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Self-Incrimination

• In 1966, Miranda’s lawyer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Miranda did not know his rights.

• Miranda gave the police the evidence that convicted him.

• The police did not inform him of his rights.

Self-Incrimination

Miranda v. Arizona(1966)

Supreme Court Ruling: Suspects must be clearly informed of their rights before police question them.

His confession could not be used against him.

Without that evidence, his conviction was overturned.

Self-Incrimination

• Back at home, Miranda began a battle with his girlfriend for custody of their daughter.

• Miranda’s girlfriend went to the police and told them that Miranda had told her about the rape and confessed to her.

• The police used this new piece of evidence to try him again.

• He was convicted again.

Self-Incrimination

• Miranda was sentenced to 30 years in prison but was paroled after 5 years.

• Four years after getting out of prison, he was stabbed to death in a bar fight.

• His murderer was given the “Miranda Rights.”

Self-Incrimination

Impact of Miranda v. Arizona?

Changed the way police deal with all suspects in all cases, big and small.

Self-Incrimination

Miranda v. Arizona

• When did the crime occur? 1963

• When did case reach Supreme Court? 1966

• What was the crime? Kidnapping & rape

• Why was the case appealed? (What was the Constitutional problem?) Did not know rights

• What happened on appeal? Overturned

Miranda v. Arizona

Supreme Court has narrowed Miranda Rules since 1966.

– If suspect confesses before being informed of rights.

– Some forms of forced confessions can be used.

Self-Incrimination

Double Jeopardy

Cannot be tried twice for same crime.

Exceptions:

– If case is both a federal crime and a state crime.

– If case involves both criminal and civil penalties.

– If crime involves more than one criminal action.

– If Supreme Court has “wiped the slate clean.”

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

8th Amendment

Issues: Death penalty– Do judges have discretion?– Possible discrimination?

“Capital punishment is an expression of society’s moral outrage. …It is an extreme sanction, suitable to the most extreme of crimes.”

EXERCISE• In small groups, discuss capital

punishment (pros & cons)

• Develop answers:– Should the U.S. continue to execute

criminals? (Yes or No)– If yes, how should executions be done?

(public, secret, quick, painful, etc.)– If not, what should be done with criminals?

(prison, labor, isolation, etc.)

Death PenaltyDoes it discriminate?

What about mistakes?

What about taxpayer money?

Is it cost effective?

Is it fair?

EXERCISE