Fluent Essays

PLEASE SEE DETAILS INSIDE STUDENT REPLIES STUDENT REPLY #1 David Givens There are many things over the years that have changed in police work. In the beginning they were known as night watchmen and the job was made of volunteers or was not a full-time position much like a neighborhood watch. As time passed and populations grew in size and cities expanded full time police forces were implemented to maintain order within a city. The officers in those time had little formal education and the position was open to all those who wanted to apply. Today, the job of a police officer has become one of a highly trained professional and more and more departments throughout the country are moving for formal education in higher learning as a requirement for employment. Police practices have also changed with prior models being intelligence led with the statistics of risk and how it is managed. Earlier police adopted a model of community policing which used community relationships with citizens to identify and solve crimes. Even the look of officer has changed with moving from foot patrols to automobile to make patrolling an area more widespread. Just like the automobile modern day police are gaining new technology to assist them in their duties and ensure the accountability of officers to maintain a positive public image. This has been accomplished by using body cameras and dash cameras by police officers to assist in proper procedure and accountability. Modern day policing today has become harder due to recent events and just like many times in the past will continue to evolve to maintain integrity and provide safety to the citizens they police. Reference Cox, S.M, Marchionna, S., & Fitch, B.D. (2017). Introduction to policing (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications STUDENT REPLIES STUDENT REPLY #2 Lynsey Simmons This week we learned about how the modern era of policing. During this time, the goal was to centralize police administration, enhance the quality of police personnel, and destroy the power of the political bosses (Cox,2017). Prior to this there was no official civil service system in place and policing provided a wide spectrum of services to the public often overseed by various volunteers with political affiliations. One obvious distinction between the traditional and modern era was the shift in focus to crime control and criminal apprehension. Also, standards pertaining to officer qualification pulled away from political parties and started creating their own set of rules and regulation. The modern era established policing as a profession and focused on training and qualifications. Recent strategies in policing could not be effective without strong police–community partnerships (Cox,2017). Accountability is vital to be effective in modern day policing too. Reference Cox, S. M., Marchionna, S., & Fitch, B. D. (2017). Introduction to policing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. PROFESSOR REPLY PROFESSOR REPLY: FROM THE DISCUSSION QUESTION YOU PUT TOGETHER If departments across the US more closely aligned with and followed Peel's principles of policing, to what degree would there be citizen complaints? PLEASE FOLLOW ALL THE DIRECTIONS TO PUT THIS ASSIGNMENT TOGETHER I HAVE ATTACHED THE READING MATERIALS AND A REWRITE FOR YOU TO USE AS YOUR GUIDE TO HELP BUILD YOUR WORK. YOU ALSO CAN USE OUTSIDE REFERENCES FOR THE ASSIGNMENT THANKS........ DO NOT USE ANYTHING IN THIS REWRITE AT ALL USE SOMETHING ELSE IN YOUR OWN WORDS THIS JUST A GUIDE TO HELP YOU TO FORMAT THE PAPER….. Assignment: Annotated Bibliography When writing a paper, among your goals are the articulation of credible and critical analysis. You want your reader to understand your position or idea but also to see that it is grounded in previous research and facts. Research takes time, from the standpoints of time spent searching and critical reflection. One tool that can help you focus these aspects of research is the annotated bibliography. In this Assignment, you create an annotated bibliography to help you begin your research process for the Week 2 Assignment. To prepare: · Review the sample annotated bibliography found on the Walden Writing Center website listed in the Learning Resources. · Review the Week 2 Assignment. · Locate three sources for your Week 2 Assignment paper. Write an annotated bibliography for three resources that you will use in your Week 2 Assignment paper. Your annotated bibliography should contain the following: · A brief introduction of about 100 words that summarizes your Week 2 paper topic. · Note: This topic may evolve between now and Week 2, which is acceptable. However, attempt to stay within the same focus area so that you have enough time to adapt before the Week 2 Assignment is due. · An APA-formatted reference for each of the three sources you find for your Week 2 Assignment. · Note: The reference formatting itself is not worth a significant amount of points; however, do attempt to create the most accurate APA reference possible with the goal of practicing your referencing skills. · A 150- to 300-word annotation that includes the following: · A brief summary · An analysis of the source · An explanation of how you plan to use the source 1 Week 1 Assignment Annotated Bibliography Johnny Williams III Walden University CRJS 3003: Law Enforcment Dr. John Walker September 5, 2020 This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from CourseHero.com on 09-02-2021 21:29:10 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/69604601/WK1AssgnWilliamsJdocx/ Th is stu dy re so ur ce w as sh ar ed v ia C ou rs eH er o. co m Annotated Bibliography The contemporary issue that I believe will affect how law enforcement is applied in the future is that of the use of excessive force by police officers which has cause the trust and respect of law enforcement to decline. The issue is not a new issue that has just starting to happen. Technology is what is being used to shine on a light on the brutality that some people have suffered by the hands of those that were sworn to serve and protect the very public that has been terrorized, now we have such technology as cell phones, social media and various other outlets that is being used as a way to reach out and show people the other side. I believe that the use of such technology is important for protection of all parties and I feel that the officer should be able to execute their job without fear of scrutiny. Annotated Bibliography Sondel, J., & Knowles, H. (2020, June 10). George Floyd died after officers didn’t step in. These police say they did — and paid a price. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/10/police-culture-duty-to- intervene/ In this article about George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police officers after trying to use a counterfeit $20 bill could have been prevented. There were three other officers who were present at the time. The article features officers who tried to step in on fellow officers and paid the price of losing there jobs by trying to step in and do the right thing like former Buffalo officer name Cariol Horne who back in 2006 tried to intervene as one of her fellow officers chocked a handcuffed black male by trying to move his arm from choking the detained suspect. Now because she tried to intervene the 2 This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from CourseHero.com on 09-02-2021 21:29:10 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/69604601/WK1AssgnWilliamsJdocx/ Th is stu dy re so ur ce w as sh ar ed v ia C ou rs eH er o. co m officer accused her of fighting against him while he was trying to detain the suspect, she was fired because at the time there were no camera footage and the other officers that were present did not speak up for her. The same officer three years later committed a similar abuse to four teenagers and this time was convicted and sent to prison which could have been prevented if the first incident were looked more into. The use of this source will be to show why some police officers are not easily to intervene when something is happening during an arrest to make them look like they are going against a fellow officer which they should be able to speak up or intervene in a way that will not warrant retaliation for doing so or maybe even face being fired. Sondel & Knowles (2020) shows in this article why the officers present did not step in on the George Floyd arrest this is something that has been happening not just there but really all of the United States and now with the use of footage being captured on cell phones and shared on social media shines the light on this. Ly, L. (2014, November 19). Can cell phones stop police brutality? CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/us/police-cell-phone- videos/index.html Ly discussed will cell phone cameras be enough to stop police brutality? At the time of this article it was after the death of Eric Garner who at the time was choked to death by police officer after complaining that he could not breathe and did not put up any resistance all of what was captured by a cell phone video. Ly talks about various accounts of incidents that were captured on cell phones by civilians showing incidents of police encounters that turned out to be abuse of authority around New York city. 3 This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from CourseHero.com on 09-02-2021 21:29:10 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/69604601/WK1AssgnWilliamsJdocx/ Th is stu dy re so ur ce w as sh ar ed v ia C ou rs eH er o. co m The source will be used to show that when law enforcement agencies initiate the use of body cameras from officers and to embrace this technology. What has been noticed by the agencies that uses this technology there has been noted a significant drop of complaints by the public regarding officers. The technology not only protects the public, but it will very well protect an officer who may have dealt with someone that just want to cause a problem because they may have gotten a ticket or arrested. Alang, S., McAlpine, D., McCreedy, E., & Hardeman, R. (2017, May). Police brutality and Black health: Setting the agenda for public health scholars. PubMed Central (PMC). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388955/ Alang et al. provided a investigation into the link of police brutality with poor health in the black community. The article looks at five different pathways and those are fatal injuries and mortality rates, adverse physiological response, racial public reactions and stress, oppressive structures last incarcerations along with financial strains. I plan to use the article to show why there is such a tension with law enforcement when it comes to dealing with black people. Everyone sees it now because of the technology of today with the use of cells phone, body cameras amongst other things. The interactions have been this way since the beginning of policing which has been a very long time and allowed for plenty of tension to be build up between the two. You have a group of people that feel like they are always being targeting while on the other hand you have the officers who feel like every time that they are doing their jobs they are being disrespected when trying to fulfill their duty. 4 This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from CourseHero.com on 09-02-2021 21:29:10 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/69604601/WK1AssgnWilliamsJdocx/ Th is stu dy re so ur ce w as sh ar ed v ia C ou rs eH er o. co m Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) p.23 Police Accountability With accompanying changes in the political leadership, the hiring and firing of police chiefs in different communities continues, as do attempts on behalf of politicians to influence the daily activity of police officers, chiefs, and sheriffs.31 Such attempts to control the police raise the issues of how to control the police in a democratic society, how to hold them accountable in ways that are not politically motivated, and how to ensure that they are responsive to the concerns of the citizens they are meant to serve and not beholden to the interests of politicians. (These issues are explored in more depth in Chapters 10 and 11.) The suggestion that police agencies be directly supervised by elected municipal executives conjures up the image of police administrators beholden to various interests— including criminal elements—on whose continued support the elected mayor, their boss, may depend . . . is this not one of the costs of operating under our system of government?32 ■ THE REFORM ERA Serious attempts to reform and professionalize the police began to materialize in the late 1800s and early 1900s, ushering in the Reform Era, or Re- form Movement. The Reform Era involved radical reorganization, including strong centralized administrative bureaucracy, highly specialized units, and substantial increases in the number of officers. Police professionalization was recognized as an important issue at least as early as 1909 by the father of modern police management systems, August Vollmer, who served as chief of police in Berkeley, California, from 1905 to 1932. In part because of the Depression, policing as a profession became more attractive to young men who in better times might have sought other employment, thus making it possible to recruit and select qualified police officers. Positive results began to show due to the efforts of Vollmer, Arthur Niederhoffer, William Parker, and O. W. Wilson, among others, to promote professionalism and higher education for police officers. Various reform movements were under way also, the goal of which was to centralize police administration, improve the quality of police personnel, and destroy the power of the political bosses.33 As reformers attempted to define policing as a profession, the service role of the police changed into more of a crime- © Diannaa August Vollmer, the father of modern police management systems. fighting role. The passage of the 18th Amendment in 1920 and the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 placed the police under a new public mandate for crime control and public safety. As a result, police stopped providing a wide range of services, including assisting the homeless, babysitting, and helping people locate employment. Concern about the police reached a national level with the appointment by President Hoover of the Wickersham Commission in 1931. The commission was formed to investigate rising crime rates, and it directed police away from the service role, challenging them to become law enforcers and to reduce the crime rate. p.24 Reformers adopted military customs and created specialized units, including vice, juvenile, and traffic divisions.34 The historical development of large, bureaucratically organized police departments can be attributed in part to a larger movement by government to obtain legitimacy for their agencies by adopting the rational–legal formal structure that placed more emphasis on impersonal rules, laws, and discipline.35 Reformers rapidly infused more technological advances into policing through improved record keeping, fingerprinting, serology, and criminal investigation. Training academies to teach these and other subjects became more common, and agencies emphasized promotion and selection based on merit (often through the use of civil service testing). Video Link Can police reform happen in Phil- adelphia? CLICK TO SHOW The onset of World War II and the Korean War made recruitment of well-qualified officers more difficult during the 1940s and 1950s. During this period, observers of the police, and sometimes the police themselves, seemed to equate technological advances and improved administration with professionalism. ■ THE ERA OF SOCIAL UPHEAVAL (1960s AND 1970s) The 1960s proved to be one of the most challenging eras in U.S. policing. The crime rate per 100,000 persons doubled, the civil rights movement began, and antiwar sentiment and urban riots brought police to the center of the maelstrom.36 At the same time, the social disorder of this period produced fear among the public, because it appeared that family, church, and the police were losing their grip on society.37 One result of this fear was that legislators began to pass laws that provided substantial resources to police agencies. In the 1960s and into the 1970s, there was a rapid development of two- and four-year college degree programs in law enforcement and an increased emphasis on training. These changes were in large part due to the 1967 report of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, which was partially responsible for Congress passing the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. This act established the Law Enforcement As- sistance Administration (LEAA) and provided a billion dollars each year to improve and strengthen criminal justice agencies. With funding available, social scientists began to test the traditional methods of police deployment, employee selection, and education and training and to question the appearance of racial discrimination in arrests and the use of deadly force.38 Audio Link Vietnam War Protests Speeches and Audios CLICK TO SHOW Federal and state funding was available to police officers who sought to further their educations, and potential police officers began to see some advantage in taking at least some college-level courses. Although there were vast differences in the quality of college programs, they did create a pool of relatively well-qualified applicants for both supervisory and entry-level positions. These developments—coupled with improvements in police training, salaries and benefits, and equipment—helped to create a more professional image of the police. At the same time, police came under increasing scrutiny as a result of their roles in the urban disorders of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Challenges to both authority and procedure were common, and public criticism continued into the 1980s. The police were seen as partially responsible for continued high crime rates and civil unrest, and the number of complaints and civil actions brought against the police skyrocketed. It is becoming ever clearer that underlying social and economic conditions are spawning crime and that society’s unwillingness to do anything meaningful about them has really sealed the fate of the police effort to cope with the symptoms. Society wants to fight crime with more cops, tougher judges, and bigger jails, not through such scorned “liberal” schemes as social welfare programs. . . . Police executives believe that today’s unattended problems, concentrated in our urban centers, will only get worse, eventually resulting in riots and heightened violence.39 p.25 There is clearly a discrepancy between what the public assumes the police can accomplish and what the police can actually accomplish. Although the expectation may be that more police will solve the problems referred to in the quote above, the reality is that merely increasing the numbers of police officers will not produce the desired result. The discrepancy was highly problematic and impacted not only police administrators’ decisions concerning operations, but also the type of personnel who applied for police positions and the type of preparations for the jobs they received. At the same time, collective bargaining and unionization in police departments considerably changed the complexion of relationships between police administrators and rank-and-file officers. Though police unions have undoubtedly helped improve police salaries and working conditions, they remain controversial because of their emphasis on seniority and their opposition to reform. Research on Police Effectiveness This period saw a wave of bureaucratic responses, fueled in part by research on the police, the amount and quality of which improved drastically beginning in the 1960s. The 1967 President’s Commis- sion on Law Enforcement and Adminis- tration of Justice, the National Adviso- ry Commission on Civil Disorders in the same year, and the 1973 National Advi- sory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals represented major efforts to better understand styles of policing, police–community relations, and police selection and training.40 Many other private and government-funded research projects contributed to the field. However, police still carry the burden of over 180 years of conflict and attempts at reform. Most chiefs continue to be selected against a political backdrop, which may be good or bad for the agency, as we have seen. There has been some consolidation and standardization of services, but not a great deal. In general, the U.S. police appear to have become more concerned about social responsibility, but they still have difficulties interacting with some segments of society. Diversity remains the key characteristic of municipal police and local control the key to such diversity. Progress in policing has been made on many fronts. Progressive police chiefs, concerned academics, and other involved citizens have helped push the boundaries of traditional policing and shared their thoughts and findings at both national and international levels by publishing, teaching or training, and promoting exchange programs. Research on and by the police has increased dramatically in the past several years. © Bettmann/CORBIS Officers should show restraint even when their personal beliefs differ from those of the citizens they serve. Of course, as illustrated here, not all officers act in accordance with that philosophy. p.26 Exhibit 2.3 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies A noteworthy development in policing occurred in 1979. In response to repeated calls for police professionalism, the Commission on Accreditation for Law En- forcement Agencies (CALEA) was established, through the efforts of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum. CALEA became operational in 1983 and accepted applications for accreditation, conducted evaluations based on specific standards for law enforcement agencies, and granted accreditation. By 2012, one-quarter of law enforcement officers in the United States worked for agencies that have CALEA accreditation. Most states have their own agencies to oversee law enforcement standards. California is among the most professional and formalized of such agencies. Many police departments have now been through a reaccreditation process, and numerous others are awaiting either accreditation or reaccreditation. [P]olice leaders have been under considerable pressure to manage personnel and operations as efficiently as possible. This pressure may help explain why police administrators have apparently been even more willing than leadership in other criminal justice areas to question traditional assumptions and methods, to entertain the conclusions of research, and to test research recommendations.41 “Essentially, what the [police] literature describes about the policing role in the United States is that it is unsettled, subject to ongoing societal change, and continually evolving.”42 A panel of experts found that “the boundaries of the police are shifting on a number of dimensions.”43 Those shifts were perceived to be in terms of intelligence and privacy, jurisdiction, engagement with other criminal justice agencies, cultural and normative dimensions, and reach of social control. In all of these areas, the shift was perceived in terms of an expansion of the police function. One of the major challenges confronting the police in the 21st century involves dealing with these changes. ■ THE COMMUNITY-POLICING ERA (1980–2000) The 1980s ushered in numerous technological advances in policing. Increased use of computers enabled departments to institute crime analysis programs to track crime incidents, analyze their common factors, make predictions concerning crime trends, and develop strategies to apprehend offenders.44 Also during this time, departments began to use newly developed record management systems to store and retrieve information in addition to computer-aided dispatch and 911 systems. Together, these advances enabled communications personnel to receive calls for service, determine and dispatch the closest police officer, and inform the officer who was answering the call. As the use of computers and wireless communications grew, mobile data terminals allowed officers to immediately access information that the communication center had received and relayed.45 p.27 Police administrators in the second half of the 1900s attempted to maximize the use of this technology, increase specialization, provide better training, and expand educational opportunities in an attempt to enhance the image of the police and create a more effective police force. However, in doing so, they created some unanticipated problems, including increasing the proverbial gap between officers and the other citizens they served. One obvious example of this was the use of patrol officers who policed the streets in vehicles that served as offices on wheels. Patrol cars effectively isolated the officers from the public, and community members often did not know the officers patrolling their neighborhoods. Although understanding the need for speed and mobility, many citizens preferred to have recognizable officers walking the beat. Research on foot patrol suggested that it contributed to city life, reduced fear among citizens, increased citizen satisfaction with the police, improved police attitudes toward citizens, and increased the morale and job satisfaction of police officers.46 Community relations programs, developed in the 1960s, were initially an experiment in bridging the gap between the police and the community. Such programs were later to become a revolution in policing. Speaking at community centers and in schools was one of the first attempts to improve community relations. These programs eventually expanded to include neighborhood storefront offices, ride-along programs, fear- reduction programs, police academies for citizens, cultural diversity training, police–community athletic programs, and Drug Abuse Resistance Educa- tion (DARE).47 2 . 12 . 1 Commander Dan Koenig, LAPD Retired For decades, the Hollenbeck area of Los Angeles was home to most of the city’s Mexican American community. Many of its residents were undocumented immigrants who avoided contact with the police at any cost. Hollenbeck also had four public housing developments where many of the community’s gang members lived. Officers had always suspected that the gang members were victimizing the immigrants, but there was no way to know for sure the extent to which it was occurring. In 1968, Captain Rudy DeLeon was assigned as the Hollenbeck commanding officer. Rudy had grown up there and was well aware of the problems facing the law-abiding, albeit undocumented, community. Rudy soon opened up a storefront on Brooklyn Avenue, which was the community’s main thoroughfare. He named the storefront Estofadores and staffed it with officers fluent in Spanish. Soon, members of the immigrant community began stopping in to report crimes, which allowed us to address their crime problems. But Rudy wasn’t willing to settle for that success. Soon he decided to assign foot beats to each of the housing developments. The foot beats were not well received by the gangs, who believed they “owned” the developments, and there were several violent confrontations. But after a while, the officers could walk the beats safely and eventually became welcome members of the communities they served. This was the first time a “walk in” satellite police station had been tried in a major U.S. city, with the goal of encouraging undocumented immigrants to report crime. From this flowed a policy at the Los Angeles Police Department not to inquire into a person’s immigration status when he or she is reporting a crime. That was a big deal when it was adopted in Los Angeles. Because it was effective, most major cities soon followed suit. p.28 By the early 1980s, there was a gradual movement away from the crime-fighting model and toward a community-policing model. By the mid-1980s, it was clear that the police by themselves were unable to deal with increasing crime and violence. Recognizing that performance in the areas of crime control and order maintenance could only improve with public cooperation, progressive police administrators turned to community- oriented or community-based policing as a possible solution to their problems. Community policing was intended to counter enhanced technology, specialization, and paramilitary organization and restore relationships that the police had lost with the citizenry they were sworn to serve and protect.48 This move represented a return to the principles of policing originally specified by Sir Robert Peel. However, embedded in the more modern version of Peel’s principles was enhanced professionalism and better communication with neighborhood residents. At the same time, problem-oriented policing began to attract increased attention. This approach to policing emphasized the interrelationships among what might otherwise appear to be disparate events. For example, police officers often report that the same families continue to account for many crimes over the years and across generations. Rather than dealing with all of these calls as separate incidents to be handled before clearing the calls and going on to other calls, problem-oriented policing focuses attention on the underlying difficulties that create patterns of incidents.49 It allows officers to take a holistic approach, working with other citizens and other agency representatives to find more permanent solutions to a variety of police and neighborhood problems. Both community-oriented and problem- oriented policing emphasize the importance of the police–community relationship and the fact that police work consists in large measure of order maintenance through the use of negotiations among the police and other citizens. Police education programs should emphasize the consideration of value choices and ethical dilemmas in policing and should “include comprehensive treatment of the most commonly performed police work, which falls outside of the criminal justice system.”50 Audio Link Wisconsin City Serves as Model for Community Policing CLICK TO SHOW Policing organized around perspectives that not only emphasize crime control and order-maintenance, but also emphasize more diverse approaches such as crime prevention, proactive policing, community problem-solving, improvement of police–community relations by reducing the social distance between the police and the public through increased police accountability and improved service to the public, empowerment of front-line officers, and a flatter organizational power structure that promotes team work and a collectivist spirit among all.51 In a study of some 281 municipal departments that serve populations of 25,000 or more, researchers found that police departments that prioritize homeland security planning are associated with fewer officers devoted solely to community policing and smaller or static departmental budgets.52 Nonetheless, homeland security planning was positively associated with community-policing programs and activities. And, police departments that emphasize community policing are more likely to have a website, to exhibit greater transparency in the display of data, and to provide more opportunities for citizen input.53 Not all observers of the police see a continuing role for community policing. Some predict a return to the professional model of policing driven by centralization, technology, and sophisticated surveillance.54 Even though some argue that community policing has taken a backseat to other policing strategies, it continues to play an important role. Many of the more recent strategies in policing could not be effective without strong police–community partnerships. ■ THE HOMELAND SECURITY ERA (2001–PRESENT) The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, set in motion a new era of policing in the United States called “the era of homeland security.”55 The nation responded to 9/11 by launching a “war on terrorism” and enacting the USA PATRIOT Act (discussed in Chapters 9 and 14). Many other countries also strengthened their antiterrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. p.29 Police in the era of homeland security have to be more familiar with information technology and the gathering, processing, and disseminating of information. The police also need enhanced skills that pertain to weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons), events involving mass casualties, and methods of preventing terrorism.56 Although all law enforcement agencies have a more heightened awareness of homeland security in this new era, it is mostly federal law enforcement agencies and police in larger metropolitan areas that have concentrated their investigative efforts and resources on homeland security. It is debatable whether such investigations—and the interrogations and detention that sometimes result—are the most effective means of protecting the country from further terrorist attacks. It is certain, however, that infringing inappropriately on the civil rights of certain target groups can lead to hostility among those groups, whose assistance with developing intelligence concerning possible terrorists is essential. Collecting intelligence was a standard aspect of local policing that disappeared in most respects during the 1960s and 1970s, largely as a result of the fear of abuse of powers by the police. Bringing back this intelligence- gathering component means that safeguards need to be put in place to protect against the abuse of authority. It was for this very reason that intelligence gathering was eliminated. Undoubtedly, the risk to civil liberties still exists, and safeguards are necessary to protect against such abuse. Video Link Are We Safer? CLICK TO SHOW It is therefore critical that police officers treat targeted groups with respect, help ensure that their liberties are not unduly trampled on, and help them to maintain their sense of dignity.57 Community- oriented policing efforts that develop partnerships with diverse groups in the community represent perhaps the best way of accomplishing these goals. Communication between police administrators and line officers, lateral communication between the police and other governmental agencies, and communication among local, state, and federal agencies is critical in this new era of policing. A summary of these four eras is included in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 ■ The Four Eras of Policing Source: National Institute of Justice p.30 ■ SOME CONTEMPORARY POLICING STRATEGIES As the review of the history of policing indicates, policing is dynamic and constantly changing. Based on analysis of the effectiveness of past police practices, numerous contemporary strategies have emerged. Time and evaluation will help determine the relative effectiveness of each of these strategies, which are briefly mentioned here and discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. Intelligence-Led or Intelligence- Based Policing Intelligence-led or intelligence-based policing is a policing model that originated in Britain and focuses on risk assessment and risk management. The approach involves identifying risks or patterns associated with groups, individuals, and locations to predict when and where crime is likely to occur. Many agencies now conduct crime analyses on a regular basis, thus identifying reported crime patterns. An effective records management system allows frontline officers to easily obtain this information on a timely basis prior to or while responding to a call. This may assist officers in proactively identifying and anticipating problems they may encounter rather than reacting to them at the scene. The approach has gained momentum globally following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.58 Terrorism-Oriented Policing As previously mentioned, the events of 9/11 led to new duties and strategies for police at all levels in the United States. Now, in contrast to much of the history of policing, some of the public wants to trust the government and the police as agents of government to protect them from criminals both domestic and foreign. Terrorism and homeland security are among many important issues that currently face police agencies, but homeland security issues are of such extreme concern that agencies must question whether their existing strategies are adequate to the task.59 What might be termed terrorism-oriented policing requires changes at all levels of policing, most of which add new duties and strategies to existing ones. For example, “the workload of already busy departments has significantly expanded to include identifying potential terrorists, protecting vulnerable targets, and coordinating first response.”60 In addition, whether the police are operating in a small town or a large city, it is now their “responsibility to ensure that plans are in place to prevent attack and to respond quickly should an attack occur.”61 © AP Photo / Matt Gentry Today, police have found that crime mapping and other technology-based methods have a significant impact on the prevention and investigation of crime. p.31 2.22.2 In March 2009, the Peoria Police Department launched a crime- mapping program known as “CrimeView Community.” The service, developed by The Omega Group, is billed as “intelligence-led policing.” CrimeView enables law enforcement agencies to map and analyze their own data for a more informed approach to police functions such as investigations, deployment of officers, and emergency management. It allows public web users to check crime trends for 90- day periods in user-designated areas of the city. Such programs are already in hundreds of departments and in most states. It is believed that the program will help the public make educated decisions about crime in the areas in which they live, work, go to school, and shop. When users log on to CrimeView in Peoria, they will be able to search 16 different types of crime by location within the city. The website is scheduled to be updated daily. 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages to “CrimeView Community” and other programs that map and analyze neighborhood crime data? 2. Do you think that access to crime data may cause citizens to be unnecessarily fearful of becoming crime victims? 3. Is it possible for criminals to use programs like “CrimeView Community” to their benefit? How? Source: From “Tool tracks city crime,” by G. Childs, 2009, Journal Star, pp. A1, A8. Some observers insist that partnerships with citizens and problem-solving principles are essential to successful and sustainable crime-reduction and terrorism-prevention strategies that are consistent with U.S. democratic values. Community partnership and problem solving in policing are as relevant and modern as the war on terror.62 In addition, terrorists often commit ordinary crimes such as robbery, drug dealing, and fraud to sustain themselves. Thus, “from a policing point of view, there is much to be said for regarding terrorists as criminals with political motives.”63 Exhibit 2.4 How the Long Beach Police Department Has Adapted to the Terrorism Threat • Created a counterterrorism unit and appointed terrorist liaison officers. • Reassigned officers to assess and protect critical infrastructure, such as the port, airport, and water treatment facilities. • Sent officers to train in new skills, such as WMD [weapons of mass destruction] response and recognizing signs of terrorism. • Established a port police unit equipped with small boats. • Reassigned officers to respond to areas with high population growth. • Increased visibility and response times by switching officers from two- to one-person cars. • Reduced staffing on lower priority programs, such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE). • Reduced foot patrols and staffing in the narcotics division. • Requested additional resources to cover demand, both from the city for local needs and from the federal government for national needs. Source: Raymond, B., Hickman, L., Miller, L., and Wong, J. (2005). Po- lice personnel challenges after September 11: Anticipating ex- panded duties and a changing la- bor pool. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. p.32 “Local police can identify potential terrorists living or operating in their jurisdictions, they can help … p.192 9 The Law of Search, Seizure, and Self- Incrimination ©iStockphoto.com/-Oxford- Media Library CHAPTER 9 Media Library P R E M I U M V I D E OP R E M I U M V I D E O S AG E N E W S C L I PS AG E N E W S C L I P Supreme Court Hints OK on Ari- zona Immigration Law Sharpton Hopes to Meet Soon With New NYPD Head C A R E E R V I D E OC A R E E R V I D E O Case Manager O P E N AC C E S S V I D E OO P E N AC C E S S V I D E O Probable Cause in Police Reports Working the “Grid” – Interviewing a nd Interrogation AU D I OAU D I O After SCOTUS DNA Ruling, What C hanges For Police? It Ain’t Me, Babe: Researchers Find Flaws In Police Facial Recognition T echnology W E BW E B Should Law Enforcement Have a W arrant to Know Where You've Been ? The Plain View Doctrine J O U R N A LJ O U R N A L Perceptions of Police Disrespect Du ring Vehicle Stops: A Race-Based A nalysis From Police Interrogation to Prison: Which Sex Offender Characteristics Predict Confession? p.193 Objectives After reading this chapter you will be able to: • Discuss the chain of custody, its purpose, and why it is important • Explain the role of arrest warrants and search warrants in the criminal investigation process and detail when they are necessary • Discuss the importance of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution • Identify the situations in which a search warrant is not necessary in order to conduct a search • Differentiate between a frisk and a search incident to arrest • Discuss the impact of the exclusionary rule on criminal investigations and the criminal justice process • Evaluate the importance of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution • Identify the Miranda warnings and the circumstances under which the police must notify suspects of their Miranda rights • Assess the impact of the Miranda decision Fact or Fiction To assess your knowledge of police and the law prior to reading this chapter, identify each of the following statements as fact or fiction. (See page 216 at the end of this chapter for answers.) 1. In order for the police to make a valid arrest, they need reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred and that the person they are about to arrest committed it. 2. If a subject is in the custody of the police, that person is also under arrest. If a subject is under arrest, that person is also in custody of the police. 3. The police need either the owner’s consent or a search warrant in order to conduct a search of a vehicle. 4. The most common circumstance in which the police conduct a search without a warrant is the crime scene exception. 5. Pretext traffic stops are not legal according to the U.S. Supreme Court. 6. In a traffic stop, the police need probable cause to search occupants I for evidence. 7. Pat-down searches are conducted to discover weapons. If nonthreatening contraband is discovered in the process, it must be ignored. 8. One of the primary purposes of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct in search and seizure cases. 9. There are circumstances in which the police do not have to provide subjects their Miranda warnings even when subjects are in custody of the police and prior to questioning. 10. Research has shown that telling suspects they have the right to remain silent keeps most suspects from answering questions of the police. n the previous chapter, we examined police discretion and learned that while it is unrealistic to eliminate officer discretion, it is important that it be controlled. Several methods of controlling officer decisions were discussed, including departmental rules and standards of ethical conduct. Another important way discretion may be controlled is through laws, which is the topic of this chapter. This discussion focuses on issues related directly to the identification and apprehension of offenders—the goal of crime control. Other legal issues relating to such topics as police use of force, entrapment, and equal employment opportunity are discussed in related chapters. p.194 Police Spotlight: ARIZONA V. GANT (2009) On August 25, 1999, police in Tucson, Arizona, went to investigate a house suspected of illegal drug activity after receiving an anonymous complaint. Rodney Gant answered the door, identified himself, and explained to the officers that the owner of the house was away but would be returning later. The officers left the house and performed a warrant check on Gant; they found he had an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. Officers returned later in the day and saw a woman in a car parked in front of the house. The woman consented to a vehicle search, during which the officers found drug paraphernalia. The woman was arrested. A man in the back of the house was questioned by officers and arrested for providing false information. At about this time, Gant drove up to the house and was arrested for driving with a suspended driver’s license. Officers handcuffed Gant and placed him in a squad car. They then searched Gant’s vehicle and found a plastic bag of cocaine and a gun. Gant was subsequently convicted of cocaine possession.1 Gant appealed his conviction. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, and the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with this ruling. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the police can legally search the passenger compartment and containers in a vehicle without a warrant as a result of a motorist’s arrest in order to protect officers’ safety or to preserve evidence, but the search of Gant’s vehicle when Gant was away from it was not reasonable. In a 5–4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court. It ruled that the police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle when the occupant of the vehicle is arrested only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might have access to the vehicle at the time of the search or if the vehicle contains evidence associated with the arrest. Since Gant was secured in a police vehicle at the time of the search he did not have access to anything in the vehicle. In addition, his arrest was related to a suspended driver’s license, and the police could not reasonably expect to find evidence of that offense in the vehicle. Therefore, the search of the vehicle without a warrant was unreasonable. 2 Basic Legal Terminology and Concepts STANDARDS OF PROOF AND PROBABLE CAUSE Proof is necessary to legally justify certain police actions and to obtain certain criminal justice outcomes. Proof results from evidence. The police need proof (in the form of probable cause) that a crime occurred and that a certain person committed that crime in order to make an arrest. An officer needs proof (reasonable suspicion) in order to stop and frisk a person. A prosecutor needs proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) in order to obtain a conviction in court. Not all proof is equal. Probable cause is one of the most important and relevant standards of proof for the police. It is what is needed in order to make an arrest or, in some cases, to conduct a search and seizure. Simply stated, probable cause exists when it is more likely than not a particular circumstance exists—generally speaking, the degree of certainty is greater than 50%. The Supreme Court has ruled probable cause is to be determined by the “totality of the circumstances” (Illinois v. Gates, 1983) of a particular situation. As a practical matter, establishing probable cause can be thought of as a process in which some evidence can lead to other evidence, which can lead to still more evidence. The accumulation of evidence may eventually provide a basis on which to establish probable cause. It is also important to note probable cause (or any other standard of proof) is subjective; there is no absolute formula that can be used to determine if it has been established. One person (police officer, judge, or jury) may believe it has been demonstrated; another may not. OPEN ACCESS VIDEO Probable Cause in Police Re- ports CLICK TO SHOW p.195 ARREST, CUSTODY, STOPS, AND ENCOUNTERS There is often confusion about what constitutes an arrest, what is meant by custody, and what encounters and stops are. An arrest occurs when the police take a person into custody for the purposes of criminal prosecution and interrogation (Dunaway v. New York, 1979). When a person is under arrest, that person is in custody of the police; however, it is possible to be in custody of the police and not be under arrest. When a person is deprived of his or her freedom, even if only the freedom to leave, that person is under arrest and/or in custody of the police. If an officer places handcuffs on a person, that person is not necessarily under arrest but is probably in custody. All of this is to say there is sometimes a blurry line between arrest and custody. The surest way to know if a person is under arrest is if that person is told by the police he or she is under arrest. The surest way to know if a person is in custody is if that person is not free to leave. One dimension of an arrest that is clear is the arrest must be based on probable cause that a crime occurred and the person under arrest committed it. SAGE NEWS CLIP Supreme Court Hints OK on Ari- zona Immigration Law The distinction between arrest and custody is important because citizens have certain rights when they are in custody of the police (e.g., the right to remain silent), even if they are not under arrest. In addition, citizens in custody have certain protections from the police that people who are under arrest do not have. To make things even more complicated, a person who is stopped by the police is also not free to leave but is not necessarily under arrest or in custody. And, along with arrests and stops, there are also encounters, or nonstops. A nonstop is an encounter, confrontation, or questioning of a subject by a police officer that requires no justification. However, during a nonstop, the subject is legally free to leave. JOURNAL Perceptions of Police Disrespect During Vehicle Stops: A Race-Bas ed Analysis CLICK TO SHOW ARREST WARRANT In some cases an arrest warrant is requested by the police. The arrest warrant must name the accused or provide a specific description of the person so that his or her identity is not in question. An arrest warrant typically specifies the crime committed, the evidence of the crime, and the evidence pointing to the person named Mikael Karlsson/Alamy Stock Photo PHOTO 9.1 An arrest warrant is required when the police enter a home unless it is an in the warrant as the perpetrator of the crime. The arrest warrant must be approved by a neutral and detached magistrate, most often a judge. As with an arrest, the standard of proof necessary to justify the issuance of an arrest warrant is probable cause. The overwhelming majority of arrests made by the police are made without an arrest warrant because they are made in public. An arrest warrant is required when the police must enter a home to make an arrest, unless there are exigent circumstances (Payton v. New York, 1980) or consent is given (Steagald v. United States, 1981). WEB Should Law Enforcement Have a Warrant to Know Where You've B een? CLICK TO SHOW emergency situation or the police have consent to enter. SEARCH A search can be defined as a governmental infringement into a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy for the purpose of discovering things that could be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution (Katz v. United States, 1967). A reasonable expectation of privacy exists when a person believes that his or her activity will be private and that belief is reasonable (Katz v. United States, 1967). A seizure involves the police taking control of a person or thing because of a violation of a law. What is seized may constitute evidence and could include items such as contraband (e.g., drugs), fruits of a crime (e.g., stolen goods), instruments of the crime (e.g., weapons), or evidence of the crime (e.g., bloodstained clothing). Depending on the circumstances, searches may or may not need to be based on probable cause. p.196 SEARCH WARRANT In the absence of an exception to the search warrant requirement (see below), a search warrant may be required when the police wish to seize evidence. A search warrant specifies the person, place, or vehicle to be searched and the types of items to be seized by the police. It must be based on probable cause, issued by a judge or magistrate, and served immediately. Most searches are actually conducted without a warrant because an exception to the warrant requirement applies; this will be discussed in detail later in the chapter. CHAIN OF CUSTODY When the police collect physical evidence —tangible objects that relate directly to a crime—the chain of custody must be maintained. The chain of custody refers to the record of individuals who maintained control (custody) over evidence from the time it was obtained by the police to when it was introduced in court. At a minimum it would include details about the collection of the evidence from the crime scene, the storage of the evidence in the police evidence room, and the transfer of the evidence to court for trial. The chain of custody is to ensure the security of physical evidence. If a chain of custody is not established, or if it can be questioned, the value of the evidence itself may be questioned. The Law of Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment In order for evidence to be admissible in court, the police have to follow certain legal rules in collecting it. These laws are intended to protect citizens from unwarranted governmental intrusion into their lives; they represent the civil liberties of citizens and relate to the protections offered by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (see Appendix). The procedures associated with arrests, searches, and seizures relate to the Fourth Amendment and various legal interpretations of it. The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: mark reinstein/Alamy Stock Photo PHOTO 9.2 A search warrant is required to search a home unless one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement applies. p.197 TECHNOLOGY ON THE JOB GPS and United States v. Jones (2013)The global positioning system (GPS) has many applications, including criminal identification, apprehension, and evidence collection. Using satellite-to-ground communication, GPS can monitor the location and movements of suspects, suspects’ vehicles, and contraband. However, the use of GPS, or of any technology oriented toward crime control, can raise questions about reasonable expectations of privacy. One example of this can be found in the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Jones (2013). Antoine Jones was being investigated for narcotics offenses by the FBI and the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department. During the investigation a GPS device was installed on Jones’s vehicle that tracked the vehicle around the clock for four weeks. A warrant was not obtained for the GPS tracking. Jones was eventually arrested, convicted of drug trafficking, and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal it was argued the GPS evidence was collected in violation of Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights and, as a result, should be excluded from the proceedings. The appeals court agreed and overturned the conviction. The case was then brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court agreed that the installation of a GPS device on a vehicle to monitor that vehicle’s movements constituted a search. The Court ruled the GPS evidence was illegally collected and should be excluded from trial. In a retrial of the case, prosecutors used cell site data for which no warrant was required instead of the illegally collected GPS tracking information. The case resulted in a mistrial, and Jones accepted a plea bargain of fifteen years to avoid yet another trial. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. Over the years a multitude of legal cases have defined and redefined the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In essence, the intent of the Fourth Amendment is to protect individuals’ privacy and protect against arbitrary intrusions into that privacy by government officials. As such, as interpreted by the courts, the Fourth Amendment offers protection in a variety of situations. REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY According to Katz v. United States (1967), searches are restricted wherever individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy, then there is no need for the police to restrict a search and no need for a warrant. In the case of Katz, a reasonable expectation of privacy was found to exist in a public telephone booth used by the defendant. In the case of O’Conner v. Ortega (1987), an expectation of privacy was found to exist in the defendant’s desk and filing cabinets. The use of surgery to recover evidence has been found to constitute a search and seizure (Winston v. Lee, 1985). The use of a thermal-imaging device to detect criminal activity in a home also represents a search (Kyllo v. United States, 2001), as does attaching a global positioning system (GPS) device on the undercarriage of a car (United States v. Jones, 2013; see Technology on the Job feature). p.198 A Question to Consider 9.1 The Value of Privacy The Fourth Amendment and all of the court cases associated with it relate in some manner to the expectation of privacy. Some people think that privacy is disappearing and are deeply troubled. The question is this: What is so great about privacy? Why do people care about privacy and about losing it? Is it only criminals who should be concerned about their privacy? Explain your answer. GPS monitoring of sex offenders also constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment when such a device is attached to a person’s body without consent (Grady v. North Carolina, 2015). A police dog sniffing for drugs on a subject’s front porch is considered a search (Florida v. Jardines, 2013). However, a dog sniff of the outside of an automobile during a valid traffic stop is not a search that requires a warrant or consent (Illinois v. Caballes, 2005) as long as that action does not “prolong the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual” (Rodriguez v. United States, 2015). THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT AND ITS EXCEPTIONS The general rule is that when and where citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the police need probable cause and a search warrant to conduct a legal and valid search. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. In fact, most searches conducted by the police are conducted without a search warrant, just as most arrests are made without an arrest warrant.3 Generally speaking, probable cause (or reasonable suspicion, in some cases) is required in nearly all searches, regardless if conducted with or without a warrant, unless the search is conducted with consent. When there is consent to do a search, probable cause or reasonable suspicion is not necessary. When a search is conducted without a warrant, the burden is on the police to establish a valid and lawful reason for the search. Specifically, when a search is conducted without a warrant, police actions must relate to one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement. These exceptions can be grouped into the following categories: • Exigent circumstances • Vehicles • Other places/things not covered by the Fourth Amendment • Hot pursuit Connecticut State Police via Getty Images PHOTO 9.3 Even if a house is a crime scene, the police must still have a warrant to conduct a search or one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement must apply. • Incident to arrest • Stop and frisk • Plain view • Consent Notice that there is not a crime scene exception to the search warrant requirement. For the police to conduct a search of a crime scene, such as a house, they either need a warrant or their actions must relate to one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement listed above. Exigent Circumstances Exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, allow the police to conduct a search without first obtaining a warrant. In general, the rationale for the exigent cir- cumstances exception is that without immediate police action, the suspect may destroy evidence or may pose danger to herself or himself, the police, or the public, or someone else may be in further danger of harm.4 Several Supreme Court cases define the exigent circumstances exception. For example, consider the case of Schrember v. California (1966). Schrember was hospitalized as the result of an automobile accident during which he had apparently been driving. A police officer smelled alcohol on Schrember’s breath and noticed symptoms of intoxication at the scene of the accident as well as at the hospital. Schrember was placed under arrest and informed of his rights. On the officer’s direction, and despite Schrember’s refusal, hospital medical staff took a blood sample. An analysis of the blood revealed a blood- alcohol level indicative of intoxication, and this evidence was admitted at trial. On appeal the Supreme Court ruled exigent circumstances existed in this situation because the alcohol in a person’s bloodstream may disappear in the time required to obtain a warrant. Thus, obtaining evidence in this manner, under these circumstances, and without a warrant did not constitute a violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights. Missouri v. McNeely (2013) challenged the Schrember decision. This case also involved a blood draw from a motorist suspected of being intoxicated. The motorist was taken to a hospital, where an involuntary blood draw was performed without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled exigency must be determined on the totality of the circumstances and a warrant should be required for blood draws in routine DUI situations. In some circumstances, such as the ones present in the McNeely case, technology has provided the potential for officers to obtain warrants without delay. Therefore, exigency in blood draws is not automatic or present in all cases. p.199 Another recent case that relates to the prevention of the destruction of evidence is Kentucky v. King (2011). Here, the Supreme Court ruled if the police reasonably believe a subject is destroying evidence, officers can take immediate action without a warrant. In this case, the police had kicked in the door to an apartment after pursuing a subject into the apartment building, smelling marijuana outside of the apartment door, and announcing their intent to forcibly enter the apartment. The search was ruled as an exigent circumstances exception and the seized evidence was admissible. The Supreme Court case of Michigan v. Fisher (2009) relates to the emergency aid rationale of the exigent circumstances exception. The Court ruled that when the police encounter a situation in which a subject is injured, may be about to be injured, or is in need of aid, exigent circumstances exist and a warrant is not necessary to enter a home, even if the police do not have “iron-clad proof” a subject has life-threatening injuries (also see Brigham City v. Stuart, 2006). In Payton v. New York (1980), the Supreme Court ruled there were no exigent circumstances and, correspondingly, the warrantless search in question was unconstitutional. In this case, police intended to arrest Payton for murder and went to his apartment without a warrant. After knocking on the door and receiving no answer, they used crowbars to gain entry into the apartment. No one was there. In plain view was a shell casing that was seized and later admitted into evidence at Payton’s murder trial. Payton was convicted and appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances, the police may not enter a suspect’s home to make a routine felony arrest or to conduct a search without a warrant. As a result, the evidence seized from the search was not admissible. Vehicle Exception People have a lesser expectation of privacy in vehicles (including motor homes; see California v. Carney, 1985) than in their homes. Moreover, vehicles are mobile and it is therefore more difficult for the police to collect evidence contained in them. Searches of vehicles may also be conducted to minimize the dangers to officers associated with vehicle stops. Several cases have defined this vehicle ex ception to the search warrant requirement and provided guidelines for stopping and searching vehicles (see Table 9.1). In Chambers v. Maroney (1970), the police stopped the car of Chambers and three other men for an armed robbery that had just occurred at a service station. The men were arrested and the car was driven to the police station, where it was searched. During the course of the search, the police found concealed in a compartment under the dashboard two .38-caliber revolvers, a glove containing change, and cards bearing the name of a different service station attendant who had been robbed a week earlier. In conducting a warrant-authorized search of Chambers’s home the day after the arrest, police found and seized .38- caliber ammunition. At the trial the evidence found in the car and the bullets seized from the home were introduced, and Chambers was convicted of the robbery of both service stations. On appeal the Supreme Court held that if probable cause exists that a vehicle contains evidence, and if that vehicle is Photo by Steve Osman/Los Angeles Times via Get- ty Images PHOTO 9.4 A warrant is not required for a dog to sniff the outside of a car. mobile, an officer may search the vehicle at the scene or at the police station without a warrant. The search was valid and the evidence admissible. p.200 TABLETABLE 9.1 Guidelines for Stopping and Searching Vehicles In South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), the Court ruled that when the police tow and impound a vehicle, even for a parking violation, a routine inventory search is reasonable without a warrant or probable cause. This procedure protects the owner’s property, protects the police against claims that the owner’s property was stolen while the car was impounded, and protects the police from potential danger. In addition, during an inventory search, it is reasonable for the police to search closed containers, such as a backpack, without a warrant (Colorado v. Bertine, 1987). However, inventory searches conducted solely for the purpose of discovering evidence are illegal regardless of what is discovered during the course of the search. In Michigan v. Long (1983), the Supreme Court spoke of the dangers associated with roadside encounters with suspects and stated this can justify searches of vehicles. In this case, two police officers observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. When the car swerved into a ditch, the officers stopped and were met by Long, the only occupant of the car, at the rear of the car. The door on the driver’s side of the vehicle was open. Long did not respond to initial requests to produce his license and registration. When he began walking toward the open door of the car, the officers followed him and saw a knife on the floorboard of the driver’s side of the car. At that time the officers subjected Long to a pat-down search, but no weapons were found. One of the officers shone a light into the car and saw something protruding from under the armrest of the front seat. Upon lifting the armrest, the officer saw an open pouch that contained what appeared to be marijuana. Long was then arrested for possession of marijuana. A further search of the car revealed no additional contraband, but the officers decided to impound the vehicle. As a result of the subsequent search, more marijuana was found in the trunk. The marijuana was introduced at trial, and Long was convicted of possession of marijuana. On appeal the Supreme Court held that if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a motorist who has been stopped is dangerous and may be able to gain control of a weapon in the car, the officer may conduct a brief warrantless search of the passenger compartment even if the motorist is no longer inside the car. Such a search should be limited to areas in the passenger compartment where a weapon might be found or hidden. If contraband is discovered in the process of looking for a weapon, the officer is not required to ignore it. However, in order to look inside a closed container in a vehicle without a warrant for reasons other than an inventory search, there must be probable cause to suggest evidence is present in the container (California v. Acevedo, 1991). p.201 Important differences between the Long case and Arizona v. Gant (2009), which was discussed in the introduction to the chapter, involve when the suspect was arrested—before or after the search—as well as the reason why the subject was arrested. Gant relates most closely to the searches of vehicles after an …