Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 4
Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 4 SOC 2146
Popular in The Bill of Rights and Criminal Justice
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Sociology
This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Freddi Marsillo on Thursday September 22, 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 5 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 4
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: 09/22/16
Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 4 9/22/16 12:33 PM Timing • Most jurisdictions put time limits on warrants • For example, police in Jones installed the GPS device after the 10 day limit that was ordered • Generally courts permit searches of any property found on premises even if they belong to visitors • Staleness can become a problem for search warrants based on old information • Staleness issues may vary depending on the type of case being investigated • Grubbs: anticipatory warrants are okay Anticipatory Warrants: Grubbs (2006) • Held: warrant is not invalid because it is contingent on a future event • Warrant was to be executed only after a controlled delivery of child pornography • Magistrate must determine it is now probable that evidence will be at premises when warrant is executed Other Considerations • More than half the states permit nighttime searches, but almost half restrict them to special circumstances as do the Federal Rules • Generally, searches take place whether or not the occupant is present o Knock and announce • Sneak and peak searches (usually used in suspected/potential terrorism) are those where officers enter, search, and try to leave no evidence to indicate that they have searched Executing Warrant • Knock and Announce Rule (part of 4 th Amendment) is the usual rule before there can be a forcible entry • Knapp – 12 second delay – break-in is okay • Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) – exceptions okay – e.g., hot pursuit, destruction of evidence, safety of officers • Courts differ on whether entering an open door requires notice • No “breaking” generally if entry by ruse Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) • 3:40 AM entry into hotel room in Madison, Wisconsin to search for drugs and paraphernalia • Officers sought a “no knock warrant” – denied • Officer pretends to be a maintenance man o Richards opens door with chain still on, sees uniform, closes door and police wait 2-3 seconds and kick and ram the door ▯ Police tend to open doors with battering ram • Wisconsin S. Ct: Knock and announce excused whenever police seek evidence of felony drug crime (keeps suspect from flushing drugs down the toilet or disposing of them in any way) • U.S. S. Ct. rejects per se exception • Reasonable suspicion that knock and announce would be dangerous or futile or permit destruction of evidence is enough • Upholds entry under circumstances US v. Ramirez (1998) • Officers have no-knock warrant to search house for escaped prisoner • They announce over a loud speaker the warrant and simultaneously break a window in garage and point a gun through the opening • Ramirez grabs gun and fires it into garage ceiling • Convicted as felon in possession of gun • Court rejects argument that officers are held to higher standard when no-knock entry results in destruction of property US v Banks • 15-20 second delay in drug case = exigency • Warrant to search 2 bedroom apt • Suspected of selling cocaine at home • Magistrate may issue no knock warrant • Police may judge an exigency exists • Break open door with battering ram • Banks was in shower • What matters is time in which evidence could be destroyed, not time to get to door Unusual Force • Police sometimes use special devices • Battering rams are no longer unusual • “Flash-bang” devices may be used to disorient a suspect • Courts tend to defer to the police judgment Hudson v. Mich (2006) • 5-4 holding that violation of knock and announce does not justify exclusion • Scalia: knock and announce gives individuals opportunity to comply and to avoid destruction of property and also protects elements of privacy and dignity • Rule does not protect against gov’t seeing or taking evidence • Interests violated by a violation have nothing to do with the seizure of evidence • Victims can bring civil rights actions Breadth of Search • Generally courts permit searches of any property found on premises even if they belong to visitors • For example, warrant to search a house and detached garage included the trunk of a car parked in the garage • Magistrates supposedly gauge reasonableness although probable cause to search for anything is usually enough o But in Winston v. Lee (1985), Supreme Court invalidated warrant requiring suspect to undergo surgery to remove bullet lodged below the skin Occupants • Generally a search warrant for premises does not authorize a search of persons, but does authorize a search of property which might contain items described • Supreme Court has held that police may detain individuals found at the premises until they complete their search o Prevents possible flight o Minimizes harm to officers o May avoid harm to property – open locked items for example Executing Warrant • When does a search end? o ▯ when all possible evidence is discovered • Third parties may assist (U.S. v New York Tel. (1977)) – voluntary or compelled • But see Wilson v. Layne (1999) (Civil Rights Action) o Washington Post photographer and reporter accompany police executing an arrest warrant o Media ride along for arrest ▯ unconstitutional 9/22/16 12:33 PM 9/22/16 12:33 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'