Counseling Chapter 6 Homework Seizure Involves Actions Simple Confiscation Illegal Items

54

CHAPTER 6

POLICE AND LAW

Learning Objectives

2. Explain how police officers seek warrants in order to conduct searches and make arrests.

4. Explain the purpose of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

5. Define the exclusionary rule, and identify the situations in which it applies.

Lesson Plan

Correlated to PowerPoints

I. Legal limitations on police investigations

Learning Objective 1

conduct searches of people, their vehicles, and other property.

Bill of Rights embody important, historic American values regarding individual rights in

A. Search and seizure concept

Seizure is defined as when officers use their authority to deprive people of liberty or

property

Media Tool

See Assignments 2

–

4

PPT 5-7

55

Class Discussion/Activity

Have students debate the limits of the plain view doctrine as well as the

plain feel and other senses. Where should the line be drawn?

What If Scenario

3. Reasonable suspicion

B. Use of force and the Fourth Amendment

Pre-punishment or conviction it is 4th

post-conviction it is 8th

C. The concept of arrest

Arrest is a significant intrusion on liberty

Probable cause must support all arrests

D. Warrants and probable cause

Class Discussion/Activity

Divide students into small groups and ask them to debate and define the

the discretion available to police officers in the area of search and seizure.

See Assignments 2-4

See Assignments 2

–

4

PPT 8

PPT 11

56

II. Warrantless searches

Learning Objective II: Explain how police officers seek warrants in order to conduct searches

and make arrests.

Class Discussion/Activity

Have students discuss the variety of warrantless searches that are legal

under case law established by the U. S. Supreme Court. Should the Court

expand warrantless searches into other areas as an aid to homeland

security? Or should the Court make an effort to limit them in order to

safeguard individual rights?

What If Scenario

What if you were a police officer and you could save the life of a life of an

Six kinds of searches can be made without a warrant

A. Special needs beyond the normal purposes of law enforcement

B. Stop and frisk on the streets

Terry v. Ohio (1968) officer may frisk a person that is briefly

detained for questioning

C. Search incident to a lawful arrest

D. Exigent circumstances

When there is an immediate threat to public safety or the risk that

evidence will be destroyed

See Assignments 2-3

PPT 15-

PPT 21

PPT 18-

19

57

E. Consent

United States v. Drayton (2002) consent to search is also a waiver of

rights

F. Automobile searches

What If Scenario

What if someone lived permanently in a camper? Under what circumstances

could searches of a home versus searches of automobiles apply? What

Constitutional principles may be involved?

III. Questioning suspects

Learning Objective 3: Describe situations in which police officers can examine property and

conduct searches without obtaining a warrant.

Fifth Amendment is the most relevant to police actions in questioning suspects

A. Miranda rules

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Only apply to what are called custodial warnings

Suspects must told four things:

1. They have the right to remain silent

Public safety exception permits police to immediate question a suspect in custody

without warning

Consequences of Miranda

Media Tool

See Assignments 2

–

4

PPT 22-

24

PPT 29-

34

58

Class Discussion/Activity

Divide students into teams to prepare arguments about constitutional

issues affecting police practices. Have two teams square off against each

other to debate the following proposition in front of the rest of the class:

IV. Exclusionary Rule

Learning Objective 4: Explain the purpose of the privilege against compelled self–

incrimination.

Learning Objective 5: Define the exclusionary rule, and identify the situations in which it

applies.

The principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial

A. The application of the exclusionary rule to the states

Court cases Wolf v. Colorado (1949), the Supreme Court incorporated the

Fourth Amendment

Weeks v. United States (1914) established exclusionary rule in federal prosecutions

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) applied the exclusionary rule to the states

The excl

See Assignments 1, 5

Media Tool

See Assignment 4

PPT 35

59

B. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule

1. Good faith exception established by United States v. Leon (1984)

2. Inevitable discovery rule created by Nix v. Williams (1984)

What If Scenario

Lecture Notes

In theory, few Americans would disagree that police are, and should be, subjected to the

rule of the law. A solid majority of Americans are supportive of the police and believe that they

should have the tools and resources to protect society. Americans do disagree, however, at

which point the law should be applied to police. Students must understand that police power is

vital in a civilized society, but that power must be properly balanced against the equally

important rights of individual liberties. The struggle to find the proper balance is an evolving

process.

Search and seizure form the core of police power. Seizure involves actions as simple as

confiscation of illegal items and substances to the arrest and detention of individuals. The U. S.

The exclusionary rule, as discussed in the textbook, is a controversial yet important

concept. In the infrequent but inevitable event of corruption or malice by police in searching and

seizing evidence, are the police exempt from responsibility? The courts have ruled that such

possibly guilty person may be released. Is this the only way to control careless or malicious

police officers?

See Assignment 4

See Assignments 4

PPT 36

60

Key Terms

affidavit – Written statement of fact, supported by oath or affirmation, submitted to judicial

officers to fulfill the requirements of probable cause for obtaining a warrant. (p. 192)

consent search – A permissible warrantless search of a person, vehicle, home, or other location

based on a person with proper authority or the reasonable appearance of proper authority

voluntarily granting permission for the search to take place. (p. 199)

exclusionary rule – The principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial.

(p. 209)

– Supreme Court ruling that improperly obtained evidence can be

used when it would later have been inevitably discovered by the police. (p. 211)

inventory search –

meaning that it is in police custody so that police can make a record of the items contained in

the vehicle. (p. 203)

61

– Exception to Miranda requirements that permits police to

immediately question a suspect in custody without providing any warnings, when public safety

would be jeopardized by their taking the time to supply the warnings. (p. 205)

search –

a manner that intrudes on reasonable expectations of privacy (p. 189)

seizures – Situations in which police officers use their authority to deprive people of their liberty

stop –

duration that typically lasts less than one hour and only rarely extends for as long as several

hours. (p. 190)

Chimel v. California (1969) – Chimel v. California (1969) Supreme Court decision that

endorsed warrantless searches for weapons and evidence in the immediate vicinity of people who

are lawfully arrested. (p. 198)

Illinois v. Gates (1983) – Illinois v. Gates (1983) U.S. Supreme Court decision that established

the flexible totality of circumstances test for determining the existence of the probable cause

needed for obtaining a search warrant. (p. 192)

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – Supreme Court decision that applied the exclusionary rule as the remedy

for improper searches by state and local officials. (p. 210)

62

Nix v. Williams (1984) – Legal decision in which the Supreme Court c

Tennessee v. Garner (1985) – Deadly force may not be used against an unarmed and fleeing

suspect unless necessary to prevent the escape and unless the officer has probable cause to

believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officers or

others (p. 190)

Terry v. Ohio (1968) –

frisk suspects on the streets when there is reasonable suspicion that they are armed and involved

in criminal activity. (p. 196)

Assignments

1. Research the history of the precedents leading the historical and foundational ruling by the

2. Research the context of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012) and the U.S.

ruling compare with your expectations or views? [LO3]

3. –

and a stop-and-frisk search. [LO1 and LO2]

63

5. Break students into groups. Each group should write down the variety of warrantless searches that

6. After completing the Media Tool on the Exclusionary Rule, have students research the