CHAPTER 6POLICE AND THE CONSTITUTION:THE RULES OF LAW ENFORCEMENTLEARNING OBJECTIVESAfter reading this chapter, students should be able to: Outline the four major sources that may provide probable cause. Explain the exclusionary rule and the exceptions to it. Explain when searches can be made without a warrant. Describe the plain view doctrine, and indicate one of its limitations. Distinguish between a stop and a frisk, and indicate the importance of the case Terry v. Ohio. List the four elements that must be present for an arrest to take place. Explain why the U.S. Supreme Court established the Miranda warning. Indicate situations in which a Miranda warning is unnecessary.Lesson Plan Correlated to PowerPointsI. The Fourth AmendmentLearning Objective 1: Outline the four major sources that may provide probable cause.Learning Objective 2: Explain the exclusionary rule and the exceptions to it.A. Reasonableness i. Fourth Amendment prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures ii. Relative term indicating logic, practicality, sensibility, intelligence, and plausibilityB. Probable Cause i. Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to issue a warrant ii. Burden of probable cause requires more than mere suspicion on a police officer’s part iii. Probable cause cannot be retroactively applied iv. Sources of Probable Causea. Informantsb. Personal observationc. Information d. Evidencee. Association v. The Probable Cause Frameworka. Allows the police officers to do their job effectivelyb. Limits the situations in which police officers can make arrests, but also gives the officers ability to act within the frameworkc. Once an arrest is made, the arresting officer must prove to a judge that probable cause existedC. The Exclusionary Rule i. Prohibits the use of illegally seized evidencea. Any evidence obtained by an unreasonable search or seizure is inadmissible against a defendant in a criminal trial b. Any physical or verbal evidence that police are able to acquire by using illegally obtained evidence is known as the fruit of the poisoned tree and is also inadmissible ii. The “Inevitable Discovery” Exceptiona. The inevitable discovery exception states that evidence gathered illegally is admissible if police, using legitimate means, would have discovered it anyway1. Brewer v. Williams (1977)2. Nix v. Williams (1984) iii. The “Good Faith” Exception a. States that evidence gathered illegally is admissible if it was collected in good faith by police1. United States v. Leon (1984)2. Herring v. United States (2009) Media Tool “Video Glossary: The Exclusionary Rule” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNJczuTgr1A A short clip about the Exclusionary Rule. II. Lawful Searches and SeizuresLearning Objective 3: Explain when searches can be made without a warrant.Learning Objective 4: Describe the plain view doctrine, and indicate one of its limitations.A. The Role of Privacy in Searches i. By definition, a search is a governmental intrusion on a citizen’s reasonable expectation of privacy ii. Katz v. United States (1967)a. The individual must prove that she or he expected privacyb. Society must recognize that the expectation was reasonable iii. A Legitimate Privacy Interesta. California v. Greenwood (1988)b. Lowered the expectation of privacy in certain circumstancesc. Garbage bags left on a curb are no longer protected by a reasonable expectation to privacy iv. Privacy and Satellite Monitoringa. United States v. Jones (2012)b. The government cannot attach a GPS device or other technology on a person for the purpose of monitoring their suspected criminal behaviorsc. The government cannot physically occupy private propertyB. Search and Seizure Warrants i. To protect against charges that they have infringed on privacy rights during a search, law enforcement officers can obtain a search warrant ii. A search warrant is a court order that authorizes police to search a certain area iii. Before a search warrant will be issued by a judge or magistrate, the law enforcement officer must provide the following: a. Information showing probable cause that a crime has been or will be committedb. Specific information on the premises to be searched, suspects to be found, and the illegal activities taking place at those premises, and the items to be seized iv. Particularity of Search Warrants a. The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant describe with “particularity” the place to be searched and the things to be seizedb. Before going to a judge to get a search warrant, the officer must provide an affidavit listing specific, written information on the property that they wish to search and seize1. Must know specific address of any place they wish to search2. Vague descriptions of goods are frowned uponc. A seizure is the act of taking possession of a person or property by the government because of a (suspected) violation of the lawd. Categories of items that can be seized by use of a search warrant1. Items that resulted from the crime2. Items that are inherently illegal for anybody to posses3. Items that can be called “evidence” of the crime4. Items used in committing the crime What If Scenario What if. . .the police came to your house with a search warrant for the garage. You let them into the garage and from there they walk into your house and start searching your house. Would you object to the search of the house? Would evidence found in the house be admissible in court? Explain why or why not. v. Reasonableness During a Search and Seizurea. The law gives law enforcement the ability to act “reasonably” during a search and seizure in the event of unforeseeable circumstancesb. Contraband that is in “plain view” can be seizedc. Officers are restricted in terms of where they can look, by the items they are searching forC. Searches and Seizures without a Warrant i. Exceptions exist to the search warrant rule ii. Most searches take place in the absence of a judicial ordera. Warrantless searches and seizures can be lawful when police are in “hot pursuit” of a subjectb. Warrantless searches and seizures are allowed in “border areas” iii. Searches Incidental to an Arresta. Most frequent exception to the warrant requirement involves searches incident to arrestb. Almost every time a police officer makes an arrest, he or she searches the suspect c. Searches are valid for two reasons1. Need for a police officer to find and confiscate any weapons a suspect may be carrying2. Need to protect any evidence on the suspect’s person from being destroyedd. Police may search any area within the suspect’s “immediate control” to confiscate any weapons or evidence that the suspect could destroy due to Chimel v. California (1969) iv. Searches with Consenta. Second most common type of warrantless searchb. Takes place when individuals give law enforcement officers permission to search their persons, homes, or belongingsc. Consent given must be voluntary and without any threats and the following factors must be taken into consideration1. The age, intelligence and physical condition of the consenting suspect2. Any coercive behavior by the police3. The length of questioning and its locationd. Standard set in Schneckcloth v. Bustamonte (1973)e. Critics argue that searches are rarely voluntary because suspects are intimidated by police and do not know they have the right to refuse the search v. Recent Developmentsa. Digital devices on the border – warrantless searches of electronic devices of people crossing the border are not permittedb. Blood used as evidence in drunk driving cases – forced blood tests are not permissible simply because of the natural dissipation of alcohol; they are permitted if the suspect shows a slurred speech and the smell of alcoholc. Cell phone location data – government can access records of cell phone locations to trace the movement of suspectsD. Searches of Automobiles i. The Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search automobiles or other movable vehicles when the police have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity; this is known as the movable vehicle exception, or the Carroll Doctrine.a. Requiring a search warrant would put a heavy burden on the police officerb. By the time the officers could communicate with a judge and obtain the warrant, the suspects could drive away and destroy any evidencec. A vehicle does not have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as someone at home or even in a phone booth ii. Warrantless Searches Of Automobilesa. In New York v. Benton (1981), the courts seemed to allow the search of the front and back compartments of a vehicle incident to the arrest of the driverb. In Arizona v. Gant (2009) the court announced its Benton decision had been misinterpreted and that such warrantless searches are only allowed when1. The person arrested is close enough to the car to grab or destroy evidence2. The arresting officer reasonably believes that the car contains evidence pertinent to the same crime for which the arrest took place iii. Pretextual Stopsa. Law enforcement officers have a great deal of leeway in making automobile stops and searchesb. As long as an officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic law has been broken, her or his “true” motivation for making the stop is irrelevantE. The Plain View Doctrine i. No probable cause is needed for search and seizure of contraband in plain view ii. According to Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), law enforcement officers may make a warrantless seizure of an item when four criteria are meta. Item is positioned so as to be detected easily by an officer’s sight or some other senseb. Officer is legally in a position to notice the item in questionc. Discovery of the item is inadvertentd. Officer immediately recognizes the illegal nature of the item What If Scenario What if . . . you, a police officer, suspect that there is illegal drug activity going on in a home surrounded by thick shrubbery. The shrubbery is located outside the suspect’s property. You decide to take a closer look to see what you can find. As you contort your body into a position around and under a thick shrub, you are able to see, with the aid of binoculars, an actual hand-to-hand drug deal going down. Immediately, you jump over the short chain-link fence and make an arrest. Is the arrest and seizure of the drugs under the “plain view” doctrine lawful? Does it matter that you had to contort your body to get into a position to see the drugs? Does it matter that you had to use binoculars to see the drug deal? F. Electronic SurveillanceDuring the course of a criminal investigation, law enforcement officers may decide to use electronic surveillance or electronic devices such as wiretaps or hidden microphones to monitor and record conversations, observe movement, and trace or record telephone calls i. Basic Rules: Consent and Probable Causea. Recorded conversations are inadmissible as evidence unless certain procedures are followed1. Consent is given by one of the parties to be monitored2. There is a warrant authorizing the use of such devicesb. A warrant is required in most cases before engaging in electronic surveillance, meeting specific conditions1. Detail with “particularity” the conversations that are to be
overheard 2. Name the suspects and the places that will be under surveillance3. Show with probable cause that a specific crime has been or will be committed ii. Force Multiplying CCTV and traffic cameras are examples of force multipliers. These earn that name because these forms of electronic surveillance allow law enforcement agencies to expand their capabilities without a significant increase in personnel.a. More pervasive forms of electronic surveillance are allowed under the theory that people who are in public places have no reasonable expectation of privacy1. Law enforcement are increasing their use of closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV)Images are transmitted in real time from the targeted area2. The growing use of traffic cameras3. Critics of CCTV systems contend that they are easily abused to infringe on individual privacyG. Homeland Security and the Fourth Amendment i. The Patriot Act and Search Warrantsa. Has made it easier to conduct searchesb. Warrants for terrorism do not require that FBI agents provide any proof of criminal activity ii. The Patriot Act and Surveillance a. More leeway for surveillanceb. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – allows surveillance without a warrant as long as the “primary purpose” of the investigation was to investigate foreign spying and not to engage in criminal law enforcementc. Federal agents have “roving surveillance authority” iii. The NSA and Surveillancea. After criticisms on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) practices, Congress passes a revised FISA in 2008b. Supervising FISA courts have more control over the NSAc. Despite the new oversight, the NSA collected phone calls of millions of Americans and monitored social media, e-mails, and other communications across the world Media Tool “NSA Admits it Routinely Breaks Rules to Spy on U.S. Citizens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY86ZBLiHtY A short clip about the NSA’s metadata collection. III. Stops and Frisks Learning Objective 5: Distinguish between a stop and a frisk, and indicate the importance of the case Terry v. Ohio.A. Defining Reasonable Suspicion i. When reasonable suspicion exists, police officers are well within their rights to stop and frisk a suspect ii. Police Discretiona. Terry v. Ohio (1968)b. Detective Mc Fadden observed two men acting strangely in downtown Clevelandc. The detective believed that they were planning to break into a convenience store based on his observations, and he approached the mend. After hearing mumbled responses from the men, the detective frisked them and found handguns on two of them, who were tried and convicted of carrying concealed weapon iii. “Totality of the Circumstances” Test a. An officer must have “specific and articulable facts” to support the decision to make a stop. The facts may be considered together resulting in a rational inference.b. Because of their practical experience, law enforcement agents are in a unique position to make such inferences and should be granted a good deal of freedom in doing so.c. The need to prevent terrorist attacks is part of the “totality of the circumstances,” and therefore, law enforcement agents will have more leeway to make stops near U.S. borders. d. Today the courts rely on a “totality of the circumstances” test to determine whether the stop was based on reasonable suspicion.B. A Stop i. Takes place when a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion that a criminal activity is about to take place ii. There are limits to the extent police can detain someone who has been stopped iii. In 2004, the court ruled that officers can require suspects to identify themselves during a stopC. A Frisk i. Should be a protective measure ii. Police officers cannot conduct a frisk as a “fishing expedition” simply to try to find items besides weapons, such as illegal narcotics, on a suspect Media Tool “Stop and Frisk: Search and Seizure – the Fourth Amendment” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VBxNcfM0ow A short clip about preventive policing and stop and frisk procedures. D. Race and Reasonable Suspicion i. Racial Profilinga. In general, a person’s race or ethnicity alone cannot provide reasonable suspicion for stops and frisks. To stop a person for either of these constitutes racial profiling. When racial profiling is evident, he remedies include:1. A civil lawsuit against the law enforcement agency for violating provisions of the U.S. Constitution that require all citizens to be treated fairly and equally by the government2. Law enforcement agency policies designed to stop the practice ii. Stop-and-Frisk and the NYPDa. Aggressive stops by police in New Yorkb. Between 2004 and 2012 police made 5 million stops; 83% involved African-Americans and Hispanicsc. In 2014, a federal judge ruled New York’s practice unconstitutional as it violated the Fourth Amendment Media Tool “Supreme Court Rules on Arizona’s Immigration Laws” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFg-Egyb69w A short clip about Arizona’s immigration law. IV. Arrests Learning Objective 6: List the four elements that must be present for an arrest to take place.An arrest is the taking into custody of a citizen for the purpose of detaining him or her on a criminal charge. Unlike a stop that is relatively brief based on reasonable suspicion, an arrest involves deprivation of liberty and is deserving of a full range of constitutional protections and requires probable causeA. Elements of an Arrest i. The state of being under arrest depends not only on the actions of the law enforcement officers but also on the perception of the suspect ii. Four elements are necessary for an arrest to take placea. The intent to arrestb. The authority to arrestc. Seizure or detentiond. The understanding of the person that he or she has been arrestedB. Arrests with a Warrant i. When law enforcement officers have established probable cause to arrest an individual who is not in police custody, they obtain an arrest warrant for that persona. An arrest warrant contains information such as the name of the person suspected and the crime he or she is suspected of having committedb. Judges or magistrates issue arrest warrants after determining that the law enforcement officers have indeed established probable cause ii. Entering a Dwellinga. An arrest warrant does not give law enforcement officers the authority to enter a dwelling without first announcing themselvesb. Police officers must be known and announce their identity and purpose before entering a dwellingc. Under exigent circumstances, law enforcement officers need not announce themselves1. Suspect is armed and poses a strong threat of violence to the officers or others inside the dwelling2. Persons inside the dwelling are in the process of destroying evidence or escaping because of the presence of the police3. A felony is being committed at the time the officers enter iii. The Waiting Perioda. Hudson v. Michigan (2006) weakened the practical impact of “knock and announce” when the court required officers to adhere to procedure and wait the full 15 to 20 seconds before enteringC. Arrests Without a Warrant i. Arrest warrants are not always required ii. Most arrests are made on a scene without a warrant iii. Officers can make a warrantless arrest if one of the following situations exists:a. The offense is committed in the presence of the officer.b. The officer has knowledge that a crime has been committed and probable cause to believe the crime was committed by a particular suspect.c. The time lost obtaining a warrant would allow the suspect to escape or destroy evidence, and the officer has probable cause to make an arrest. iv. Officers can make a warrantless arrest for a crime they did not see if they have probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed v. For misdemeanors, the crime must have been committed in the presence of the officer for a warrantless arrest to take place What If Scenario What if . . . you are a police officer and you make a good probable cause arrest of a bank robbery suspect as he flees from the bank with a gun into his home. The important details are that you were in hot pursuit, and you followed him as he jumped in his car and fled to his house. You arrested him with the loot and pistol still stuffed into his shirt. Immediately next to him, you find a locked footlocker. You suspect it might have money from another, similar bank robbery, so you seize it and bring it down to the station house where you apply bolt cutters to the lock. As you open the footlocker, you see thousands of dollars in the footlocker, most likely the stolen money from previous bank robberies. Was the search and seizure of the footlocker valid without a warrant under the “search incident to lawful arrest” doctrine? Why or why not? V. The Interrogation Process and MirandaLearning Objective 7: Explain why the U.S. Supreme Court established the Miranda warning.Learning Objective 8: Indicate situations in which a Miranda warning is unnecessary.A. The Legal Basis for Miranda i. Fifth Amendment guarantees protection against self-incrimination ii. A defendant’s choice not to provide information cannot be interpreted as an admission of guilt iii. Concept of coerciona. Physical and/or psychological coercion of confessions is not allowedb. Psychological coercion can be difficult to prove iv. At the time of Miranda v. Arizona, the Court was mainly concerned about the treatment of suspects during the process of interrogation v. Today Miranda is mostly know for its procedural requirements Media Tool “The Central Park Five” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntjt1McTZw8 A news clip about five juveniles who were convicted of raping a female jogger and later exonerated. B. When a MirandaWarning is Required i. When a suspect is in custody and being interrogated ii. If the suspect feels that s/he cannot leave then Miranda applies even if the suspect has not been officially arrested C. When a MirandaWarning is Not Required i. Six Circumstances Under which Miranda is Not Requireda. When the suspect is not being asked questions that are testimonial in nature.b. When the police have not focused on a suspect and are questioning witnesses at the scene of the crime.c. When a person volunteers information before the police have asked questions.d. When a suspect has given a private statement to a friend or some other acquaintance. Miranda does not apply to these statements so long as the government did not orchestrate the situation. e. During a stop and frisk, when no arrest has been made.f. During a traffic stop. ii. Public Safety Exceptiona. 1984 – Supreme Court ruled that the protection of the public is more important than a suspect’s Miranda rights What If Scenario What if . . . you are a defense attorney representing a client who raped a woman at gunpoint. The discovery reveals that your client was seen in a supermarket by police. The police gave chase, and caught the defendant a few blocks away. When your client was stopped he was found to be wearing an empty gun holster on his belt. Without reading your client his Miranda warning, the police officer asks your client where the gun is. Were your client’s Miranda rights violated? Is the gun going to be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree? iii. Waiving Mirandaa. Suspects can waive the Miranda rightsb. The waiver must be voluntaryc. Silence does not mean that the Miranda protections have been relinquishedd. To ensure a suspect’s rights are upheld, prosecutors are required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspect “knowingly and intelligently” waived his or her Miranda rights1. Police can ask two questions to make it clearDo you understand your rights as I have read them to you?Knowing your rights, are you willing to talk to another law enforcement officer or me?2. If the suspect does not want speak to a law enforcement officer, then the police must immediately stop the questioningD. The Future of Miranda i. Voluntary Statementsa. A suspect who voluntarily told the police where the gun or other weapon is, is permissible even if the police did not read the suspect the Miranda warning ii. Recording Confessionsa. New trend in law enforcement to monitor interrogationsLecture NotesChapter 6 introduces students to the legal aspects of law enforcement actions involving search and seizure procedures. Whether making an arrest or searching for criminal evidence, officers must be familiar with the concept of probable cause. Probable cause can be established through personal observation, from information gathered by victims and witnesses, through the presence of criminal evidence, or even from contact between the suspect and known offenders. Probable cause is particularly necessary when conducting search and seizures. Officers who lack probable cause are behaving in a manner that violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. In order to prevent law enforcement from using illegally obtained evidence, the exclusionary rule prohibits the admission of such items in court. This is a controversial issue for many students. Should compelling evidence against criminal suspects be disallowed, even if it results in a lack of criminal conviction? There are a number of exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the good faith exception. In these circumstances the Supreme Court has found that law enforcement acted in good faith, and the exclusionary rule would serve no purpose in preventing unethical and illegal behavior. This is a good time to introduce students to some of the changes made to law enforcement practices in the USA PATRIOT Act. While this topic is covered more thoroughly in Chapter 14, students can begin the discussion of balancing individual freedoms with community safety.Students also are introduced to both stop-and-frisks and criminal arrests in Chapter 6. It is important that students be able to distinguish between the two. This is a great time to invite a local law enforcement officer to visit the classroom and discuss how reasonable suspicion and probable cause are formulated. What factors can a law enforcement officer offer to initiate a stop? Students might also appreciate an inside look at how an officer uses his or her discretion when determining if he or she will make an arrest.Once an arrest is made and custodial interrogation begins, interaction between civilians and law enforcement are governed by the Fifth Amendment. To protect individual rights, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that suspects being held in custody must be advised of their rights prior to questioning. In certain circumstances Miranda rights do not have to be administered. For example, Miranda is not necessary during stop and frisks, traffic stops, or during booking. While Mirandahas become part of our cultural landscape, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings since 1980 that erode Miranda’s protections. Ask students to weigh in on this topic, discussing whether they feel Mirandais necessary in today’s crime-fighting environment.Key TermsAffidavit – a written statement of facts, confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it and made before a person having the authority to administer the oath or affirmation. (p. 176)Arrest – to take into custody a person suspected of criminal activity. (p. 189)
Arrest warrant – a written order, based on probable cause and issued by a judge or magistrate, commanding that the person named on the warrant be arrested by the police. (p. 190)Coercion – the use of physical force or mental intimidation to compel a person to do something – such as confess to committing a crime – against her or his will. (p. 192)Consent searches – searches by police that are made after the subject of the search has agreed to the action. In these situations, consent, if given of free will, validates a warrantless search. (p. 178)Custodial interrogation -the questioning of a suspect who has been taken into custody. In this situation, the suspect must be read his or her Miranda rights before interrogation can begin. (p. 193)Custody – the forceful detention of a person ,or the perception that a person is not free to leave the immediate vicinity. (p. 193)Electronic surveillance – the use of electronic equipment by law enforcement agents to record private conversations or observe conduct that is meant to be private. (p. 182)Exclusionary rule – a rule under which any evidence that is obtained in violation of the accused individual’s rights as well as any evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence, will not be admissible in criminal court. (p. 173)Exigent circumstances – situations that require extralegal or exceptional actions by the police. (p. 190)Frisk – a pat-down or minimal search by police to discover weapons. (p. 187)Fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine – evidence that is acquired through the use of illegally obtained evidence and is therefore inadmissible in court. (p. 173)“Good faith” exception – the legal principle, that evidence obtained with the use of a technically invalid search warrant is admissible during trial if the police acted in good faith when they sought the warrant from a judge. (p. 174)“Inevitable discovery” exception – the legal principle that illegally obtained evidence can be admitted in court if police using lawful means would have “inevitably” discovered it. (p. 174)Interrogation – the direct questioning of a suspect to gather evidence of criminal activity and try to gain a confession. (p. 179) Miranda rights – the constitutional rights of accused persons taken into custody by law enforcement officials, such as the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. (p. 179)Plain view doctrine – the legal principle that objects in plain view of a law enforcement agent who has the right to be in a position to have that view may be seized without a warrant and introduced as evidence. (p. 182)Probable cause – reasonable grounds to believe the existence of facts warranting certain actions such as the search or arrest of a person. (p. 171)Racial profiling – the practice of targeting people for police action based solely on their race, ethnicity, or national origin. (p. 187)Search – the process by which police examine a person or property to find evidence that will be used to prove guilt in a criminal trial. (p. 175)Searches and seizures – the legal term, as found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that generally refers to the searching for and the confiscating of evidence by law enforcement agents. (p. 171)Searches incidental to arrests – searches, for weapons and evidence that are conducted on persons who have just been arrested. (p. 178)Search warrants – a written order based on probable cause and issued by a judge or magistrate, commanding that police officers or criminal investigators search a specific person, place, or property to obtain evidence. (p. 176)Seizure – the forcible taking of a person or property in response to a violation of the law. (p. 177)Stop – a brief detention of a person by law enforcement agents for questioning. (p. 186)Warrantless arrest – an arrest made without first seeking warrant for the action. (p. 191)Assignments1. Imagine the police send a drone over your property and discover drugs stacked in front of your house, which are not visible otherwise. Following, the police arrest you and use the evidence from the drone pictures. Discuss whether the evidence is admissible. In your discussion you should include a discussion of the exclusionary rule. What is the reasoning behind this particular rule? What exceptions exist and why does the court grant these exceptions? Would these exceptions apply in this case? (LO 2)2. Consider situations where the “plain view” doctrine exception to the warrant requirement might or might not apply. For example, would law enforcement need a warrant to send a drone to take pictures of a suspected drug dealer’s back yard? Can the government utilize vision enhancement equipment that helps them see better, such as flashlights and binoculars, and still fall within the “plain view” doctrine? Can a police officer, who initially could not smell marijuana in a suitcase, squeeze air from the suitcase (and then smell marijuana) without implicating the safeguards of the 4thAmendment, or would the situation still fall within the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement? (LO 4)3. Research the racial profiling policies of New York and the decision made by Judge Scheindlin at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html. Following, research the reactions to the court ruling. Prepare a class presentation about racial profiling policies, the decision of judge Scheindlin, and the reactions to her decision. (LO 5)4. Imagine that the police want to make an arrest of a person who is suspected of dealing drugs. Research the requirements that the police officers must fulfill. Describe what they need to do to make a lawful arrest. (LO 6)5. Write a paper regarding the concepts of coercion and inherent coercion in relation to interrogation. What is the difference between coercion and inherent coercion? Is the process of being interrogated by police intimidating enough that most citizens require the protections afforded by Miranda? On the other hand, has popular culture become so familiar with the Mirandawarning and its content that it is no longer necessary to read it prior to police questioning? (LO 7)Answers To Critical Thinking Questions In The Text What are the two most significant legal concepts contained in the Fourth Amendment, and why are they important?ANS: This amendment contains two critical legal concepts: a prohibition againstunreasonable searches and seizures and the requirement of probable cause to issue a warrant. These concepts are important because they protect the privacy of individuals. Without these protections, police could walk into anyone’s house and search their belongings at any time. They could also listen in to phone calls, read private e-mails, and hack into Facebook accounts. This could result in a state of constant surveillance. Should law enforcement agents be required to get a search warrant before accessing records that reveal a cell phone user’s location? Those who think a warrant is unnecessary in this situation argue that once users turn their phones on, they have decided to waive their expectations of privacy by “voluntarily” transmitting their locations. What is your opinion of this argument?ANS: I would not expect that I have waived my expectation of privacy when I use a cell phone. What is the difference between using a cell phone and a home phone? The purpose of using a phone is typically to communicate and those communications are expected to be private, unless I talk loudly near other people. The fact that the cell tower records my location is not something I can influence and not something I intend to do. Thus, my expectation would be that my conversation and location constitute private information. As described on page 182, the Supreme Court has ruled that the plain view doctrine does permit police to use thermal imagers to “see” the heat of marijuana “grow lights.” How does this ruling support the Court’s decision in Florida v. Jardines, the case discussed in the opening of the chapter?ANS: The Court has ruled that something is not in “plain view” if the police need technical or other devices to “see it.” Thus, evidence from thermal imagers does not justify a warrantless search. This is similar to Florida v. Jardines, where the Court ruled that the alarm by drug sniffing dogs does not justify a search. Suppose that a police officer stops a person who “looks funny.” The person acts strangely, so the police officer decides to frisk him. The officer feels a bulge in the suspect’s coat pocket, which turns out to be a bag of cocaine. Would the arrest for cocaine possession hold up in court? Why or why not?ANS: The evidence should not be permissible because the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed by the suspect. “Looking funny” is not a crime. Many people with mental disorders may “look funny” and “act strangely.” That doesn’t give police officers the right to stop and frisk them at all times. If, during questioning, a suspect says, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer,” should police immediately stop the interrogation? Why or why not? (To see how the Supreme Court ruled on this matter, search for Davis v. United States  online.)ANS: No, the police must not stop because the suspect did not clearly assert his right to an attorney. The word “maybe” does not imply a request.