Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 3 Notes
Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 3 Notes SOC 2146
Popular in The Bill of Rights and Criminal Justice
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Sociology
This 8 page Class Notes was uploaded by Freddi Marsillo on Wednesday September 14, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to SOC 2146 at George Washington University taught by Saltzburg, S in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 28 views. For similar materials see The Bill of Rights and Criminal Justice in Sociology at George Washington University.
Reviews for Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 3 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/14/16
Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice – Week 3 9/14/16 2:10 PM Johnson v. US • Informant tells Lt. Belland opium was being smoked in Europe hotel • Informant sent back to hotel, smells opium • Belland and 4 feds go to hotel, smell opium • Officers knock, woman opens door, officers enter • Supreme Court says no warrant, therefore bad search o Where was the search? o Why was the police action unreasonable? o What are the advantages of a Magistrate? ▯ A Magistrate assesses probable cause ▯ A Magistrate assessed reasonableness, specificity and particularity The Warrant Preference • Despite the presumption that warrantless searches are unconstitutional, most searches are warrantless • More searches incident to arrest than any others • There is a tradeoff between (a) making police get warrants and delaying action, and (b) stopping crime and assuring arrests and gathering of evidence Spinelli v. US (1969) • Standard for warrants – two-prong test • FBI tracks Spinelli, identifies apartment o Spinelli goes from Illinois to St. Louis • Apartment has two listed phone numbers • Informants’ tip re: 2 phone numbers and gambling • Spinelli known to FBI as bookmaker o Bookmaker = a person who bets, gambles Previous Inadequate Affidavits • Aguilar – Police received reliable information from credible person and do not believe.. drugs o Not enough for probable cause • Nathanson – cause to believe.. liquor o Not enough for probable cause Informant vs. Affiant • Affiant provides oath or affirmation • Informant provides info to affiant • Officer presumed reliable; informant not presumed reliable • 2 basic questions: o Who is the source of the probable cause? ▯ Is this person reliable? o What does the source know? ▯ Is this sufficient? • What does it take for a valid warrant? ▯ One sentence Draper • Marsh = Denver federal narcotic agent with 29 years of experience • Hereford = “special employee” of Denver Bureau of Narcotics o Paid for information at Denver for about six months o 9/3 Hereford tells Marsh that Draper is dealing o 9/7 Hereford tells Marsh that Draper had gone to Chicago the day before and that he was going to bring back heroin, returning to Denver either 9/8 or 9/9 by train o Hereford gives description of Draper • 9/8 – Marsh and Denver officer go to train station o Watch over incoming trains from Chicago – no one matches the description given • 9/9 same procedure o See man that matches Draper’s description – they arrest and search him – discover heroin and syringe • Draper was an arrest case o Issue was probable cause • Hereford was a reliable informant Spinelli • Justice White notes that there was a confidential informant in Spinelli o Corroborated the 2 phone numbers ▯ Corroborate = to confirm or give support to a finding • Justice White says there is tension between Draper and Aguilar- Nathanson • Justice Harlan says that two phone numbers is not of such a nature that they would be obtainable only by observation of the informant himself/herself Illinois v. Gates (1983) • May 3rd letter predicts May 3rd drive by Sue and subsequent flight by Lance to Florida • Lance flies on 5 , drives with illegal license plates on 6 th • Illinois Supreme Court finds veracity prong missing • Court overrules Spinelli • Upholds Aguilar and Nathanson • Adopts totality of circumstances test o Totality of circumstances = suggests that there is no single deciding factor, that one must consider all the facts, the context, and conclude from the whole picture whether there is probable cause, or whether an alleged detention is really a detention, or whether a citizen acted under color of law ▯ Would a reasonable person decide that there is probable cause? • Justice White concurs – no need to overrule • Justice Stevens – informant wrong rd • May 3 letter from anonymous source to Bloomingdale police informing them that there is a couple (Sue and Lance Gates) that are strictly making their living by selling drugs o Is this information credible/trustworthy? It’s from an anonymous source… hard to get a warrant for something like this • Detective Mader investigates • Contacts secretary of state to get driver’s license address for Gates couple • Gets more recent address from “certain financial records” o Gets information from police officer saying Lance Gates has May 5 thflight from Chicago to Florida at 4:15 • DEA surveillance of flight o Gates boarded his flight; federal agents observed him arrive in Florida and take taxi to his hotel o Next morning Gates and unidentified woman left motel in car bearing Illinois plates and drove on interstate frequently used to go to Chicago – license plates registered to Gates • Mader signs affidavit reporting these facts and attaching a copy of letter o Affidavit = a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court • Magistrate issues a warrant to search house and car • When Gates arrived, police were waiting • Searched car and discovered 350 pounds of marijuana • Searched house and found marijuana, weapons, and other contraband Spinelli’s Prongs Alive Still • The two prongs of Spinelli are still relevant • Gates emphasizes that they may not be independent – that is, the same facts may be relevant to both prongs • Some states reject Gates and adhere to Spinelli o States can provide more protection under their Constitutions and laws than they are required to provide by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the US Constitution o States cannot provide less protection Probable Cause • Not as demanding as “preponderance of the evidence” • Way short of “clear and convincing evidence” and even more distant from “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” • It is the standard for warrants that end up covering arrests and searches for law enforcement purposes • Officers do not have to be certain • Hill: officers arrest Miller thinking he is Hill; they had probably cause and thus acted lawfully • Deference to police expertise • Devenpeck: arrest is valid as long as probable cause exists even if officer arrested for wrong crime • Collective knowledge of police can be combined Prandy-Binett (DC Case) • Union Station, PB walking faster than others and trying to get around them • Made eye contact with detectives in plain clothes and moved faster toward exit • Detectives ID themselves • Said he lived in DC, license = Hyattsville; said he came from NJ, but ticket was from NY. Carrying small cloth bag; said he was in NJ for a week • Detectives ask whether bag has a gun or drugs in it, PB says no • Refused consent to search and said bag had only clothing; then opened the bag • Elizabeth Taylor perfume bag revealed and block wrapped in duct tape falls out Velez (New York City) • Police see drug deal and broadcase description • Hispanic male, 20s, black leather jacket, grey pants, comb in back • 10 minutes after drug sale, officer makes arrest • Velez had thick moustache and small goatee • Arrest was of wrong man, but he had drugs on him Kithcart • 2 armed robberies • 2 black males in black sports car • 1 might be wearing white • Car might be a Z-28 or Camaro • Officer stops Nissan 300ZX – one black male visible • Racism or probable cause Devenpeck v. Alford (2004) • Wannabe cop tries to help disabled auto • Real cop comes by, and wannabe leaves • Officer Haner pursues, sees Alford listening to special radio with handcuffs and handheld police scanner in car • Sgt. Devenpeck arrives, sees tape recorder on passenger seat • Arrests Alford for violation of WA privacy act • Devenpeck consults with Deputy Prosecutor who recommends charging with obstructing a public servant • Devenpeck charges privacy violation and flashing headlight violation • Both charges dismissed – Alford sues • 9thCircuit overturns judgment, finding that there was no evidence to support the verdict of probable cause to arrest for impersonating an office and obstructing an officer because they were not closely related to offense of arrest • Scalia: Subjective intent of officer is irrelevant • If there is probable cause the arrest is valid, whether or not the officer had the right offense in mind th • Remands to the 9 Circuit for a determination of whether there was sufficient evidence of probable cause MD v. Pringle (2003) • Office stops car, asks for license and registration • Officer sees rolled-up money in glove compartment • Driver consents to search • Pringle was front seat passenger • Cocaine found • Officer questions all 3 men and arrests them • Pringle later confessed that the cocaine was his • Trial judge denies motion to suppress • Maryland Court of Appeals reverses – Sup Ct reinstates conviction • Court distinguishes Ybarra o Patdown of tavern customers incident to executing search warrant • Court distinguishes Di Re o Reed seen holding ration coupons o Officer arrests two other car occupants o No probable cause • Reasonable for officer to infer a common enterprise among the three men No Special 1 Amendment Standard • Probable cause justifies a warrant to seize pornography or obscenity – they are not constitutionally protected • But usually only 1 copy of each book, movie or magazine may be seized and an adversary hearing must be held before the entire lot may be seized Place • What if there is probable cause that a suspect has drugs either in his home, his office, or his car – possibly in more than one of these places • Courts usually say there is probable cause for all three 9/14/16 2:10 PM 9/14/16 2:10 PM
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'