Case Laws Introduction
Knowledge of important case law is critical for every law enforcement officer. Not only does case law govern the many acts and omissions of officers on the street, but it also serves to guide internal department policies and procedures, training protocols and internal investigation procedures. Even though case law affects nearly every aspect of police work, the sad reality is that most officers only have a cursory understanding of the most vital case law . This lack of knowledge can hardly come as a surprise—it would be impossible for any officer to read and study fully the mountain of constantly evolving case law. Unfortunately good intentions cannot undo the effects of appalling ignorance of the law when things go wrong. This article provides a brief overview of the top 10 most important case laws every officer should know to preserve and protect both yourself and the department you serve.
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
In the early 1960s, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in connection with a rape and kidnapping charge. Police had been directed to him by the victim, who had positively identified him. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. He was convicted on the basis of that confession.
Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that his confession should not be admissible in court because he was never informed of his rights against self-incrimination or his right to counsel. The Court stayed his conviction but did not hold up the decision.
The Court reached its decision in 1966, fundamentally altering the way police interrogated suspects. The ruling established that suspected criminals must be made aware of their rights prior to interrogation. Generally speaking, this means that they must be told the following:
Police officers now understand that in order to lawfully question suspects, they must follow strict protocol in accordance with the Miranda decision. For example, it’s not enough just to tell a suspect that he has a right to counsel. While it is acceptable for an officer to agree to assist a suspect in obtaining a lawyer, he also has to explain that if the suspect cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for him free of charge.
It might also be acceptable for a policeman to wait until all of the suspect’s questions about his situation are answered before reading him his rights, as long as he is clear that questions or requests about particular details do not count as an invocation of those rights.
Officers may also obtain a valid waiver of those rights if they make it clear that the suspect is giving up those rights voluntarily and intelligently. So while it is not enough to simply read suspects their rights, an officer can legally proceed with an interrogation if it is reasonable to believe that the suspect understands those rights and has chosen to waive them.
Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio (1968) – This case introduced the "stop and frisk" rule, allowing officers to conduct a brief investigative stop if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur or is occurring. A stop must meet criteria including that it be brief, based on reasonable suspicion, and within an officer’s legal right to stop someone. Courts look at the totality of circumstances surrounding the stop. Simply having an officer’s hunch or gut instinct that something is wrong is not enough; the officer must be able to articulate the facts that lead to reasonable suspicion. If the officer has reasonable suspicion, the officer may pat down the person to search for firearms or weapons (for the officer’s own safety). A pat-down must also meet criteria including that it must be brief, searching only for items that may harm the officer, and within an officer’s reasonable right to search.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark decision in a long line of cases that has come to be known as the Exclusionary Rule. In the Court’s 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the majority, stated that "All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." Mapp then offered that "We are compelled to hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in state courts." The ruling is based on the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution which states; "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." The majority opinion focused on the fact that the 14th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" in the United States. Since the similar language of the 4th amendment mandates the same rule on federal entities, all evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment is not admissible in both federal and in state courts. (Note that since the ruling of the 90’s some states have been notoriously lax with their implementation of the exclusionary rule). Relying on precedent cases the Court noted that; "The history and the language of the Fourth Amendment, as well as the incalculable value we attach to the right of privacy, sufficiently advise us that the Fourth Amendment established this right as fundamental and it is hence enforceable against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." Police officers should be aware of this case and its implications to the cases they investigate. Search and seizure rulings can be volatile in both Criminal and Civil cases.
Tennessee v. Garner
Tennessee v. Garner involves the use of deadly force by police officers. The opening paragraph of the opinion of the court gives a succinct overview of the facts: A 15-year-old boy was shot and killed by Memphis, Tennessee, police officers who pursued him after the boy had apparently broken into a house and was fleeing the scene. Respondent’s father filed suit in Federal District Court on his son’s behalf, alleging that the fatal shooting constituted an unreasonable seizure of his son’s person in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This lawsuit was supported by expert testimony that (1) police officers have been trained to forego deadly force when an individual shambles smaller than the officer at the time he was shot; and (2) police officers are trained to shoot to the leg when they are forced to use deadly force.
The law resulting from this case placed significant restraints on officers’ ability to use lethal force in apprehending subjects fleeing in motor vehicles or on foot.
Subsequent to this decision, law enforcement agencies developed comprehensive use-of-force policies. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment standards articulated in Garner, policies generally prohibit the use of lethal force unless a subject poses a significant threat to officers or others. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 3 (1985). Describing the legal standard of "imminent danger" in the context of police pursuits, the Seventh Circuit observed: "The suspect must pose a serious, of grave, danger if not immediately apprehended; a confrontation with police the suspect could probably evade; a risk of injury to third parties, should the suspect attempt to escape on foot, in a car, or otherwise." Smith v. Ball State University, 295 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2002).
Agreed, laws and policies change, use of force protocol evolves, and technology improves. When it all comes down, though, officers have to judgment and when faced with a life or death situation, the officer must pull the trigger if the need for lethal force is apparent.
Graham v. Connor
The Supreme Court ruled in an effort to clarify the standard for evaluating the use of force by police officers. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that the courts must evaluate the amount of force used based on the "objective reasonableness" standard formulated by the Court in Fourth Amendment cases (Graham v. Connor). Several cases had earlier allowed for subjective elements to be taken into account in the evaluation of an officer’s actions. This change in the law allowed for the reasonable officer standard to actually be employed based on the observations an officer made of an incident including information not available to other officers who might be evaluating the conduct of that officer from subsequent vantage points.
Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) "In 1955, John Brady was charged and convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Brady and his accomplice, Petitioner Robert Murphy, were alleged to have burglarized and murdered J&M McHugh in Baltimore County, Maryland, to obtain money with which to buy narcotics. Brady was convicted on the strength of his confession to the police, but he had never been informed by the prosecution that a witness had said that Murphy, not Brady, had committed the murder. Brady argued that the withholding of this favorable evidence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The issues in this landmark case are (1) whether the prosecution suppressed evidence favorable to the accused, thus violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) whether the petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, his own pre-trial statement that he was not guilty, and the prosecution’s failure to disclose the existence of evidence favorable to him . "
The Supreme Court of the United States in a unanimous decision held, "We do not mean that the prosecution must deliver its entire file to defense counsel. What we now hold is that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. The principles here developed must also determine the standards of prosecutorial conduct in the administration of the criminal law. But the category of evidence affected by the Brady rule is a very limited one because of the special features of the requests which trigger the duty to disclose, the distinctive formulation of the standard for materiality, the distinctive weighing of competing interests, and the evolving nature of the constitutional requirement."
Katz v. United States
Katz v. United States (1967) – The extension of privacy rights
The Katz case was pivotal in extending privacy rights of individuals; the language used in the decision has been used over and over again. The words "protected by the Fourth Amendment (4th Amendment)" are now commonly used in many areas of the law, and are often heard in a courtroom. When a police officer hears a lawyer or judge say the 4th Amendment, he or she needs to be alert and aware that the Constitution is involved.
Background information on the case of Katz v. United States:
Katz, was charged with illegal gambling and was observed by the FBI while using a pay phone at a drug store in Los Angeles, California. The police used a "listening and recording" device on the outside of the public phone booth to hear and tape his phone conversation. The FBI used that information to obtain a search warrant. The search revealed that he was illegally trying to place bets and he was charged with violating the Federal Wiretap Statute, 18 U.S.C. 1951. He was convicted after trial. Mr. Katz appealed.
The Law:
In reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court said that the FBI’s actions violated Mr. Katz’s Fourth Amendment rights. They said that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places", saying that it protected the individual over the government’s actions. And then the Court went on and said: "For ‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,’ depends, of course, upon whether that ‘governmental intrusion’ infringes upon ‘personal privacy’." "The Fourth Amendment is not concerned with ‘naked’ physical entry of an ‘object’ but with a broader right of individual privacy." The Court went on to say that "It is immaterial that the conversation sought to be overheard is not carried in an "effect" owned by the speaker, that he has no proprietary interest in the conversation itself, and that the only information exposed to outside was the non-visual image of his voice." The Court concluded that "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own house, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." The Fourth Amendment has drawn ‘a line’ at the entrance of one’s home, their home is sacrosanct. Police may not seek and seizure anything without a Warrant. This is in direct opposition to the ‘open field doctrine’, which allows police to search areas around a person’s home without a Warrant. The Court then goes on to outline the use of surveillance and wiretaps/wiretaps by police. In this case, the Court enumerated three areas of justification for law enforcement surveillances by wire or electronic means: (1) ‘the potential inability of the target of surveillance to dispose of or remove incriminating incriminating evidence from the premises’; (2) ‘a citizen’s desire to preserve that evidence as inconspicuous as possible’; and (3) ‘the risk of discovery in the absence of strict adherence to proper procedures.’
The Supreme Court decided: "We hold that the Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording petitioner’s words violate the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and constitute a ‘search and seizure’ covered by the Fourth Amendment. The Government must, therefore, obtain a warrant before undertaking such activities." The Court discussed the impact of modern technology on the ability of police to conduct surveillances, rejecting the notion that "the present and future visibility of any object at public observation must be considered by the police in the performance of their duties ‘normal and natural’ actions."
The Court went on hold that police must have standards for use of surveillance devices and that the surveillance must be specified and related to a criminal investigation. The warrant must limit the scope of the surveillance to individuals involved in the criminal offense. The warrant must have standards for ending the surveillance; a plan for reporting results to a court; and limited time periods. The Supreme Court also said that police must have probable cause for a wiretap.
United States v. Leon
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)
In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of United States v. Leon that an officer is presumed to act in good faith when executing a search warrant. One of the few exceptions to the valid search warrant rule is known as the "exclusionary rule", which states any evidence found during a warrantless search, or a search with a warrant obtained through "bad faith" by police officers, will be excluded at now admissible in a court of law. Leon carved out another exception to the exclusionary rule that has become known as the "good faith" exception. In essence, if a search warrant is executed by an officer who has "good faith" in the search warrant, and the officer believed he or she was acting on a valid search warrant, the evidence found still can be used in a court of law, even if the warrant is later revealed to be invalid. Leon also introduced the "substantial basis" test to determine whether the affidavit in support of the search warrant so lacks probable cause as to render the officer’s reliance on the affidavit unreasonable, under which the "good faith" exception would not apply. Practically, the "good faith" exception does not give officers a "green light" to execute a search warrant in bad faith. Officers who execute a search warrant in bad faith still run the risk of civil liability and/or criminal prosecution. The good faith exception, however, is another arrow in the quiver that enables officers to do their jobs without a fear of evidence being suppressed. If officers are executing a search warrant who have "good faith" in its validity, then it stands to reason that they also have a good faith in the public at large – to protect people’s privacy.
Illinois v. Gates
The 1983 Supreme Court case, Illinois v. Gates, replaced Aguilar-Spinelli with a "totality of the circumstances" analysis for the determination of whether probable cause exists. Specifically in Gates, the couple sought to use the United States Postal System to bring drugs from Florida to Illinois. They dropped two letters, each containing drug sale information from a different return address, at location in Calumet City, Illinois. After receiving an anonymous letter regarding the couple, a search warrant was authorized and searched its destination address and found drugs and weapons. The couple was arrested and convicted for possession of drugs with intent to distribute. The couple appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction.
On certiorari the Supreme Court held the warrant lacked probable cause stating: In our view, however, the test of probable cause is not reducible to "such part of the affidavit that may not be entirely of a character admissible in evidence to establish guilt . . . if given by one who has been duly examined upon oath saying, according to his best knowledge and belief, that the grounds of his complaint or the sources of his information are true." Nothing in the wording of the amendment suggests that its authors intended to forbid police officers from seeking judicial authorization when their observations give them probable cause that a violation of law has occurred or is occurring. Nor are we prepared to hold that the Fourth Amendment requires a level of certainty for the conclusion that a particular item will illicit contraband, which, in the event of error, would virtually guarantee exclusion. Such a hypertechnical approach to the probable-cause standard, however, would be unworkable in practice.
Instead, the Court opted for a "totality of the circumstances test" involving the informant’s "truthfulness," "basis of knowledge" and a "pragmatic" review of the informant’s information. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213. The Court explained: We have thus totality-of-the-circumstances approach for dealing with informant tips that has emerged from our decisions, is amply supported by other authorities, and is consistent with common-sense principles of review to give fair leeway to imaginative submissions…. As we said in Spinelli: "[i]t is self evident that the magistrate must . . . look to the ‘totality of the circumstances’ (including both the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information) in deciding whether there is probable cause to issue a search warrant. [Emphasis added.] Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410.
New York v. Quarles
The decision in New York v. Quarles is one of the exceptions to Miranda that every police officer should know. Specifically, the holding – which has come to be known as the "public safety" exception to Miranda – allows for a police officer in an emergency situation to ask questions necessary to protect his or her safety or the safety of the public without having to first warn against self-incrimination or provide Miranda warnings.
The case came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984 after a man known as Quarles had placed a loaded weapon in an empty carton of orange juice when he entered a supermarket with the intention of committing robbery. Police had been aware of the crime about to take place, and arrived immediately after Quarles had placed the carton back in its proper place and left the store.
Two officers noticed Quarles walking out with the carton, and stopped him to question and search him. One officer asked where the gun was, to which Quarles responded that he "hadn’t finished f***ing with it yet" (it should be noted that the gun was, in fact, not finished and an unloaded gun was put on evidence). Immediately after the police officers left the grocery store with Quarles the police department issued a radio call warning police officers in the area that armed men were at large in the vicinity of the grocery store.
Although Quarles was not advised of his Miranda rights, both the state trial court and the appellate division court sided with the prosecution, stating that the responses made by Quarles were made under exigent circumstances; i.e., a reasonable belief on behalf of the police department that danger did in fact exist with Quarles at large armed and still in possession of the weapon. Although the Supreme Court held that the questioning was indeed a violation of Miranda, they also held that such a deficiency was de minimis, or marginal enough, that Quarles’ arrest was not subject to exclusion.
Conclusion: How Case Laws Affect Policing
The above mentioned cases are just a few of the multitude of landmark case laws that have an impact on the law enforcement community today. It is imperative for all officers in leadership positions to know and understand these cases to help them in the daily interactions with citizens. This understanding by command and supervisory staff can assist in smaller issues of the agency by avoiding pitfalls that could otherwise arise. Our understanding of case law opens the door to better educating the officers that we supervise , empowering the officers with knowledge that implements sound policing practices for the entire organization. Even as leaders and supervisors, we must also stay current and up to date on what the courts are now deciding on. Case law is constantly changing, with rulings from the supreme courts of both the states as well as the United States Supreme Court. Do not be afraid of reading these rulings, and their various opinions, to gain a better understanding of our ever changing world of policing and how it affects us as law enforcement officers, commanding officers, and the communities we serve.