Questions for Discussion
- 1 Why is it so important for detectives to understand how evidence is collected?
- 2 Under what circumstances can warrantless searches be made?
Evidence: Evidence consists of legal proofs presented to the court in the form of witnesses, records, documents, objects, and other means, for the purpose of influencing the opinions of the judge or the jury toward the case of the prosecution or the defense.
Exclusionary rule: According to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable or illegal search is not admissible in a criminal prosecution.
Exigent circumstances: Emergency or urgent circumstances.
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine: This rule prohibits the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal or initially tainted admission, confession, or search.
Good faith exception: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police relied in good faith on case law that was later changed by another judicial opinion or on a valid law or statute later declared unconstitutional, or on a search warrant that was later declared invalid even though originally signed by a judge.
Plain-view searches: Plain-view searches occur when the police are conducting a search pursuant to a search warrant and come across contraband or evidence they can plainly see but which they did not expect to find.
Procedural law: Aspect of the law that specifies the methods to be used in enforcing criminal law.
Stop and frisk: A frisk or a pat-down search of the outer garments of the suspect is permissible if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is engaging in criminal activity and may be dangerous.
Study Guide Questions
For questions 1—4, indicate whether the statement is true or false.
- 1 The Fourth Amendment governs search and seizure evidence in a criminal case.
- 2 Procedural law has to do with a body of laws governing how courts proceed with appointing judges.
- 3 The importance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mapp u Ohio is that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible.
- 4 A search does not require a search warrant if it is made incident to a lawful arrest.
- 5 A stop and frisk, or pat-down search, of a suspect requires a Probable cause
b A search warrant
c Reasonable suspicion
d A judge s approval
6 The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of evidence that is
a Discovered in plain view
b Of little value
c Not obtained by crime scene investigators
d In violation of the Fourth Amendment
7 When evidence is obtained by illegal means and that evidence results in the finding of further evidence, then this situation will fall under
a Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
b Miranda warnings
c Stop and frisk rule
d Misconduct rule
8 A search and seizure is legal if
a The officer means well
b An individual gives the officer permission to search
c The police are trying to get evidence to prosecute a serial killer
d The police follow the rule of cutting corners in order to ensure a
Albanese, J.S. (2013). Criminal Justice. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Bohm, R.H., and Haley, K.N. (2012). Introduction to Criminal Justice. 7th ed.
New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
Carroll u United States. 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
Chalk, R, and Rosenau, W. (2004). Confronting “the Enemy Within": Security
Intelligence, the Police, and Counterterrorism in Four Democracies. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/ pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG100.pdf
Chimel v. California. 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
Cole, G.F., and Smith, C.E. (2007). The American System of Criminal Justice. 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Dempsey, J.S., and Forst, L.S. (2010). An Introduction to Policing. 5th ed. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar.
Escobedo v. Illinois. 378 U.S. 438 (1964).
Fagin, J. A. (2007). Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Fagin, J.A. (2012). CJ: 2011. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educational.
Florida v. Bostick. 501 U.S. 429 (1991).
Florida v. Jimeno. 500 U.S. 248 (1991).
Gelber, W.A. (1993). Videotaping interrogations and confessions. Rockville, MD: National Institute ofjustice. Available at: www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/ abstract.aspx?ID= 139962
Hall, K.L., and Ely, J.W (2009). The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris u United States. 390 U.S. 234 (1968).
Hess, K.M., and Orthmann, C.H. (2010). Criminal Investigation. 9th ed. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.
Kuykendall,J., and Roberg, R. R. (1982). Mapping police organizational change: From a mechanistic toward an organic model. Criminology, 20(2): 241—256. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.eom/doi/10.l 111/j.1745—9125.1982.tb00459.x/
Langworthy, R.H., and Travis, L.P. (1999). Policing in America: A Balance of Forces. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mapp v. Ohio. 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Powell v. Alabama. 287 U.S. 45 (1931).
Scheb.J.L., and Scheb, J.L., II (1999). Criminal Law and Procedure. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminal Justice Today. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Siegel, L.J., and WorralLJ.L. (2012). Introduction to Criminal Justice. 13th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. 251 U.S. 385 (1920).
Terry v. Ohio. 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Weeks v. United States. 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
Weston, P.B., and Lushbaugh, C.A. (2006). Criminal Investigation. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Wolf v. Colorado. 338 U.S. 25 (1949).