From doing the crime to doing time: How just is our criminal justice system?
In the story at the beginning of this chapter, police officers took you and your friends into custody shortly after a crime took place. In many criminal cases, however, the arrest would take place later, after a police investigation.
When police learn of a crime, typically the first thing they do is gather evidence and talk to witnesses to identify likely suspects. They then present this information to a government prosecutor, who decides whether a suspect should be arrested and charged with a crime. For serious or complicated crimes, a criminal investigation can take weeks, months, or even years.
After stopping you and your friends outside the mall, the police officers searched the shopping bag your friend was carrying to look for evidence. They found clothing and some jewelry, which your friend insisted had all been paid for with a credit card.
The officers had a right to search the bag based on probable cause. In other cases, however, suspects may have a legal right to refuse a police search. That right is based on the Fourth Amendment, which says that Americans have the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. ”The Fourth Amendment also prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
This Search and Seizure Clause means police officers must have good reason to arrest a suspect or to seize a suspect’s property. They also must have a strong legal basis for carrying out a search of someone’s property or possessions. In most cases, this means police must obtain a search warrant from a judge to carry out a legal search.
Before prosecutors file a criminal charge, they try to make sure they have a viable case against the suspect. To do this, they must try to get as clear a picture as possible of what happened before, during, and after the crime. This requires an examination of both direct and circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence is information provided either by a witness who saw the crime occur or by a video or audio recording of the crime. Circumstantial evidence is information that can be inferred from other facts. For example, if a suspect’s fingerprints are found on the steering wheel of a car, police can infer that the suspect was present in that car at some point. The fingerprints thus become circumstantial evidence. If a neighbor actually saw the suspect in the car, however, that is direct evidence. For law enforcement officers to gather these kinds of evidence, they must conduct searches.
Although the Fourth Amendment is meant to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, it also implicitly allows for “reasonable ”police actions. But how do law enforcement officers know when a search is reasonable?
Several Supreme Court decisions in the past few decades have helped law enforcement officials answer this question. Two cases that helped officials determine when searches are reasonable include Katz v. United States (1967) and Terry v. Ohio (1968). In Katz, the Court determined that a search was not permitted under the Fourth Amendment whenever a person had a “reasonable expectation of privacy. ”In Terry, however, the Court held that a “stop and frisk ”search was reasonable when police had cause to be suspicious of a suspect’s behavior.
The Court has found other searches and seizures without warrants to be reasonable when the invasion of privacy is minimal or when special circumstances apply. Here are some examples:
The Fourth Amendment sets out certain conditions under which warrants can be issued. This portion of the amendment is known as the Warrant Clause.
The Warrant Clause first states that any search warrant issued must be based on probable cause. Probable cause is more than just a gut feeling or suspicion. In the case of Brinegar v. United States (1949), the Supreme Court noted,
To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement officials must present evidence of probable cause to a judge. If the evidence is convincing, the judge will issue a warrant. The warrant describes the exact place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized. This exactness keeps officers from carrying out generalized searches without a clear idea of what they are looking for.
It is not always feasible for police to obtain a warrant before performing a search, however. In certain situations, searches may be made without a warrant. Here are some examples:
During an investigation, police officers must be careful to obtain all evidence legally. In the 1914 case of Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the seizing of evidence illegally would result in the exclusion of that evidence during trial. This exclusionary rule has been tested many times since then. One notable instance was the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio.
The Mapp case began when police in Cleveland, Ohio, arrested Dollree Mapp after a search of her home turned up books and photographs judged to be obscene. Although the police did not have a valid search warrant, Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Mapp’s conviction on the grounds that the Fourth Amendment’s protections did not apply to state law enforcement.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court’s decision. A Court majority concluded that “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is ... inadmissible in a state court. ”This meant that all levels of the criminal justice system-local, state, and federal-had to enforce rules against the use of evidence that was illegally obtained.