⚖️7.1 - CASE LAW
Last updated
Last updated
These are some very basic court cases and definitions that have set the foundation for what is expected from law enforcement officers in the United States. Officers should be using these on a daily basis as they are what gives LEO’s the rights to perform such acts as searches, interrogations, and raids.
Reasonable suspicion is a step before probable cause. At the point of reasonable suspicion, it appears that a crime may have been committed. The situation escalates to probable cause when it becomes obvious that a crime has most likely been committed.
Terry v. Ohio-An officer can briefly detain a person, based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, long enough to dispel the suspicion or to allow it to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. The officer is also permitted to do a limited "frisk" search of the person without a warrant. Before the officer can frisk search the subject, he must: have articulable facts that the person could be armed with a weapon, limit the search to weapons, only confiscate after feeling such objects.
Carroll v. U.S.-Police may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle stopped on traffic if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence.
Chimel v. California-The arrest of a person in his home does not allow the warrantless search of the whole house incident to arrest.
Whren v. U.S.-Reasonable suspicion is a valid reason for a traffic stop. If a traffic stop was initiated for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity without a breach in traffic laws, the court has the right to review the evidence presented that allowed for reasonable suspicion and dismiss the charges if reasonable suspicion was not met.
Florida v. Bostick-A person's refusal to cooperate is not sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
Tennessee v. Garner-The use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is not justified unless it is necessary to prevent the escape, and it complies with the following requirements. The officer has to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Gideon v. Wainwright-Florida law only provided counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases. The USSC ruled that a defendant has the right to an attorney regardless of financial circumstance.
Miranda v. Arizona- The United States Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given. Miranda Rights are required to be read when all three conditions are met: there is police questioning, the suspect is in custody, questions lead to interrogation. Mapp v. Ohio-The US Supreme Court applied the "exclusionary rule" to the states. Any evidence illegally obtained by the government cannot be used in court against the accused. This includes any evidence gained from interrogation without the suspect being read his/her Miranda Rights.