Provide student officers with United States Constitution and Massachusetts Constitution legal standards relevant to policing operations.
Constitutional Law Course Purpose
Identify U.S. Constitution Amendments that apply specifically to policing operations.
Constitutional Law Learning Objective
Identify Articles of Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which apply to policing operations.
Constitutional Law Learning Objective
Define seizure and search.
Constitutional Law Learning Objective
Define reasonable suspicion and probable cause and demonstrate how these legal standards apply to police decision making.
Constitutional Law Learning Objective
Define voluntary encounter.
Constitutional Law Learning Objective
Identify the following legal standards for conducting searches and seizures:- with a warrant and without a warrant- investigate stops / Terry Stops / threshold inquires- searches incident to arrest- consent searches- plain view- on people, places (curtilage) and vehicles- exigent circumstances- inventories
Identify U.S. Constitution Amendments that apply specifically to policing operations.
Define frisk and demonstrate when and how a frisk can be used during an investigation.
Identify U.S. Constitution Amendments that apply specifically to policing operations.
Define police powers of arrest in Massachusetts and apply to specific crimes
Identify U.S. Constitution Amendments that apply specifically to policing operations.
Identify circumstances where officers may conduct extraterritorial stops
Identify U.S. Constitution Amendments that apply specifically to policing operations.
Identify Commonwealth laws for citizen arrests and merchant detentions.
Identify U.S. Constitution Amendments that apply specifically to policing operations.
Define jurisdiction as it relates to policing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Identify U.S. Constitution Amendments that apply specifically to policing operations.
Define civil liability and identify how it can apply to individual police officer conduct.
Identify U.S. Constitution Amendments that apply specifically to policing operations.
What governs the relationship between the government and its citizens, specifically individual rights, and freedoms?
The Constitution
What is the basic law of the land? This legal document provides fundamental principles for government, including grants and limitations of power.
The Constitution
What is the supreme law of the land written in 1787 and ratified in 1788? Its 7 Articles and 27 Amendments establish basic principles of government and individual rights of all citizens. Every law enacted in the United States must comply with this.
The Constitution
The first ten Amendments are known as what?
The Bill of Rights
What provides protections for individual liberties, specific prohibitions on government power, and is relevant to policing operations.
The Bill of Rights
Which Amendment establishes freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition?
1st Amendment
Which Amendment establishes the right to keep and bear arms. It was intended to protect the individual's right to possess personal firearms for lawful purpose?
2nd Amendment
Which Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government?
4th Amendment
What are physical invasions or intrusions of privacy by police on people, homes, or personal property to obtain information or gather evidence called?
Searches
What is it called when police take possession of property, make an arrest, or restrict a person's ability to move freely?
Seizure
Which Amendment prohibits citizens from being punished for the same offense twice (double jeopardy); from being compelled to testify against themselves (self-incrimination) provides the right to indictment for certain types of offenses by a grand jury and guarantees due process of law?
5th Amendment
Which Amendment requires all persons charged with a crime be informed of charges against them. People charged with a crime have a right to counsel and speedy public trial by an impartial jury. People charged with a crime also have a right to confront witnesses against them and to compel witnesses to appear and testify on their behalf?
6th Amendment
Which Amendment protects people from excessive bail or fines and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment?
8th Amendment
Up until what year did the US Constitution and it Amendments not apply to the states? Prior to this courts applied one standard for the federal government and another standards to states.
1868
Which part of the 14th Amendment provided the people of all states the right to "due process" and "equal protection under the law.
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment
Which Amendment is critical for policing because it applied individual protections found in the Bill of Rights to all states?
14th Amendment
What is about fairness and protects people from government actions by ensuring that there is a system in place and rules that must be followed before the government can infringe on someone's rights? It also means there is a system in place for people to have an opportunity to be heard when they believe their Constitutional rights have been violated.
Due Process
What is the Commonwealth's document that describes how state government is structured and articulates the rights of all residents?All laws enacted in the Commonwealth must comply with this.
Massachusetts Constitution
What sets the "floor" for individual rights and cannot be infringed upon by what provides the "ceiling?
The Constitution
What provides the "ceiling" for individual rights in Massachusetts? In some cases this provides greater protections than what sets the "floor" for individual rights.
The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
What was written before the Constitution? Some parts of the Constitution were based on this.
The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
What document outlines how state government is organized and establishes rights which in some circumstances are greater than rights granted under the U.S. Constitution?
The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
.
Article XII of the Massachusetts Constitution
.
Article XIV of the Massachusetts Constitution
What are laws written and enacted by legislative branches of state or federal governments? These laws declare, command, or prohibit something.
Statutory Laws
What are laws written by local city and town governments called?
Ordinances and by-laws
What consists of decisions by Federal and Massachusetts courts, primarily the Supreme Court, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and the Massachusetts Appeals Court?
Case Law
When constitutional and statutory laws cannot always cover every potential circumstance the courts are used to interpret laws. In that case what does their decision become?
Case Law
What standards are think "others" - what a reasonable person would do, act or believe?
Objective
What standards are think "self" - what an individual person did or believed?
Subjective
The more a police action infringes on a person's rights, the more of what do they need for the action?
Justification
Where can you find what does and does not constitute a search and seizure under?
- Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights- 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Under the 4th Amendment, the court's analysis on the reasonableness of any search will be based on the what?
Totality of the Circumstances
Which Amendment states. "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 persons or things to be seized?
4th Amendment
The more intrusive the action, the more proof police need of what?
Criminal Activity
What do police need to arrest someone?
Probable Cause
What do police need to detain a person temporarily to investigate a possible crime?
Reasonable Suspicion
[A]n investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Similarly, the investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time.
Florida v. Royer
The following are questions that must be considered when determine whether a search was what?- Was a search warrant required?- Was the warrantless search permissible by law?- Was search based upon probable cause?- Was frisk lawful?- Was the suspicion specific to a particular person or place?
Reasonable
What are levels of proof that are needed to assure that a police action is lawful?
Legal Standards
What is the information police needs to know for a Voluntary Encounter to be permissible action?
None / Hunch / Rumor
What is the information police needs to know for a Investigatory / Terry Stop to be permissible action?
Reasonable Suspicion
What is the information police needs to know for an Exit Order to be a permissible action?
Reasonable Suspicion + Reasonable fear for officer safety
What is the information police needs to know for a Frisk to be a permissible action?
Reasonable Suspicion + Armed + Dangerous
What is the information police needs to know for an Arrest and/or Search to be a permissible action?
Probable Cause
What is LESS than Probable Cause, but more than a hunch? This is the legal standard that applies to temporary investigative stops or detentions that do not amount to an arrest.
Reasonable Suspicion
What is the purpose of a stop?
To determine whether or not probable cause exists
What is the legal standard required for frisks or limited searches of a person's outer clothing for weapons?
Reasonable suspicion with specific and articulable facts that the person may be armed and dangerous
Why don't Frisk require probable cause?
They are not evidentiary searches
What must Reasonable Suspicion be based on?
Specific and Articulable Facts
What is this case? "A very important case for police officers and is key to understanding the law of threshold inquiries/ investigative stops and the law regarding frisks. In this case, an experience Cleveland detective watch two men outside a jewelry store walk back and forth in front of the store while looking inside. They were joined by a third man. Between the three, they made over 24 passes by the window looking inside. Based on his training and experience, as well as his specific knowledge of the area, the detective believed that they were casing the store for an armed robbery. He approached two of the men and patted down the outside of their clothing, finding guns in their coat pockets. The USSC ruled that the officer had reasonable suspicion that they were about to commit a crime, which allowed him to stop them for a threshold inquiry, and further that there was reasonable suspicion that they were armed which permitted the frisk of their outer clothing.''
Terry v. Ohio
Reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" which, when taken together, would convince a person of reasonable caution to believe that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
Terry v. Ohio
Under which case did the court state "reasonable suspicion is based on specific and articulable facts upon which reasonable inferences can be drawn, that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, or is armed and dangerous. The Court stated "[a] hunch will not suffice?
Commonwealth v. Wren
Which case involved police investigating a van which had been driving slowly around a quiet residential neighborhood at night then parked with the engine on near a vacant lot. When the engine stopped, someone appeared to get out of the van. The engine started up again, and the van slowly went down another dead-end street. Police stopped the van, leading to an arrest of the occupants. The SJC ruled that there was reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct to stop the van?
Commonwealth v. Wren
All arrests and evidentiary searches must be supported by what?
Probable Cause
What is the trustworthy facts and circumstances sufficient to convince a person of reasonable caution to believe that it is more likely than not that in the case of a search, a specific item subject to seizure will be found in the place to be search?
Probable Cause
What is the trustworthy facts and circumstances sufficient to convince a person of reasonable caution to believe that it is more likely than not that in the case of an arrest, a crime has been committed and the person to be arrest has committed it.
Probable Cause
Which case determined that probable Cause for an arrest, the question is whether, at the moment of arrest, the facts and circumstances known to the police were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the individual had committed or was committing an offense?
Beck v. Ohio
Using their own personal observations or from information received from other sources (e.g., victims, witnesses, anonymous tips, etc.) police officers may establish what?
Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause
What means knowledge of one is knowledge of all? Where officers are involved in cooperative investigation, information held by one may be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause even if not witnessed firsthand by or communicated to the other officer making the stop, search, or arrest.
Collective Knowledge
When information is received from a source other than personal observations or collective knowledge of the police, what rule developed by the USSC requires that police establish the source's "basis of knowledge" and "veracity?" Each prong must be separately considered. Either or both prongs may be met with independent police corroboration.
Aguilar/Spinelli Rule
What is whether the source is reliable or believable?
Veracity
When the source is identified by name which prong of the Aguilar/Spinelli rule is satisfied because there are consequences for lying to the police?
The Veracity Prong
A report from an anonymous source usually lacks what? Because there is no evidence of their reputation for honestly, past reliability, or motivation.
Veracity
When the source is "identifiable" the veracity prong can be satisfied if the tipster has placed their anonymity at risk. For example, when a citizen approaches a police officer on the street with information, but the officer does not get a name. This can be seen in what case when..."A young woman yelled to officers passing by on patrol that, the boy in the hoody had a gun. Officers were justified in relying on this information to follow and ultimately stop and frisk the 2 boys on bicycles that were in the same area?
Commonwealth v. Stoute
Some unnamed 911 callers may be found reliable if they are what?
Identifiable
Some unnamed 911 callers may be found reliable if they are "identifiable." This can be seen in what case when... "a 9111 call was found to satisfy the veracity prong where the caller knew the call was being recorded and that the dispatcher had her cell phone number.
Commonwealth v. Costa
A vehicle stopped at a trooper barracks to report a car chasing a truck in excess of 80 MPH. The witness described the vehicles and their location. Even though the trooper did not obtain the passenger's name, the Court held that the veracity prong was satisfied because the witness put his anonymity at risk because he did not decline to identify himself, and the car he was in was parked in was in view of the desk officer.
Commonwealth v. Love
Reliability of an anonymous caller can be established through what?
- Independent Police Corroboration- Observation- Investigation of details provided by the caller
In this case the State Police received an anonymous 911 call reporting erratic operation on Memorial Drive in Cambridge and provided police with the plate number and a description of the vehicle. The dispatcher ran the plate, which matched the vehicle description and revealed that the registered owner was on probation for OUI. The Trooper went to the registered owner's house and a short time later watched the defendant turn into the driveway and stopped the defendant. The SJC ruled that the erratic operation report established the basis of knowledge of the caller the police corroboration and investigation (trooper seeing the same car pull into the owner's driveway within a reasonable timeframe and the status of the defendant being on probation for OUI) confirmed the veracity of the information. The trooper had reasonable suspicion for the stop.
Commonwealth v. Depiero
If the caller provides information about something that will happen in the future, can police corroboration satisfy the veracity prong?
Yes, but the information provided cannot be general, non-specific information. The veracity prong will only be satisfied if some, "specificity of nonobvious facts" are given.
In this case police received an anonymous tip that 2 males, one named "Wayne" just bought drugs in Chelsea and were on the way to Bridgton, Maine. The caller gave a description of the car and license plate. Officers pulled the car over 45 minutes later on Route 95. The SJC said that the information received was not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion as neither the veracity nor basis of knowledge prong were satisfied. The details the officers were able to corroborate were too obvious and did not show familiarity with the suspect or the specific facts to establish the veracity or basis of knowledge of the informant's information.
Commonwealth v. Lyons
In this case a trooper at the Greyhound bus terminal was called to the dispatcher's booth where he was provided with a note. The note was handwritten on a New Jersey newspaper that said, "New York to Boston. Please get the Boston Police. Bus Terminal Boston Greyhound. 1 Man Armed & Dangerous. Black. Blue hat. Brown Paper Bag. Important! Has Narcotics. This is No Joke." The note had been dropped into a toll booth and provided to another Greyhound Bus. That bus passed the original bus and provided the note to the dispatcher. The trooper saw the defendant exit the Greyhound bus when it arrived at the terminal. The defendant matched the description in the note. The defendant noticed the trooper, walked briskly through the terminal, and looked over his shoulder at the trooper. The threshold inquiry was justified because the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant based upon the trooper's observations that matched the information in the note and the suspicious behavior of the defendant.
Commonwealth v. Anderson
What is how the source or witness acquired the information?
Basis of Knowledge
What prong addresses how the provider of information learned what he/she claims to know and has related to the officer? Generally, if the provider of the information gained his/her knowledge through direct, personal, or sensory observation this prong will be satisfied. A spontaneous report of an event usually satisfies this prong (e.g., "he hit me" or "a car crashed into mine.) When the report contains a high degree of detail it shows the source's personal knowledge, but a high level of detail does not satisfy the veracity prong.
The Basis of Knowledge Prong
What must officers include in their report to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
Specific and Articulable Facts
What are the following?- Area of encounter- Reason for encounter- Officer training and experience- Familiarity/lack of familiarity with defendant- Defendant's nervousness or evasive conduct toward the police- High Crime area
Factors the SJC has recognized as relevant to establishing reasonable suspicion and probable cause (Rarely is just one factor sufficient)
What will the court consider when considering a suspects nervous or evasive behavior when encountered by the police?
The Suspect's Race
What is considered with some caution because many honest, law-abiding citizens live and work in here and are they are entitled to the same protections of the Federal and State Constitutions as everyone else, despite the character of the area?
High Crime Area
Just being in a high crime area is not enough to justify a stop.
Commonwealth v. Holley
If a search or seizure is not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion, it is unreasonable under the 4th Amendment; the evidence is excluded. This rule makes any evidence obtained by police in an unreasonable search or seizure inadmissible in court. This means the evidence will not be allowed in any hearing at court and the finder of fact will not be able to rely on it to make a decision of guilt or innocence.
Exclusionary Rule
Commonly referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, any evidence directly derived from the illegal search or evidence found incidental to the unlawful search will, generally speaking, be suppressed. This rule applies to statements made and evidence seized after an unlawful interrogation as well.
Exclusionary Rule
The purpose of this rule is to deter police officers from conducting searches and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment and to provide a remedy for defendants whose rights have been violated.
Exclusionary Rule
What are the following requirements that must be satisfied to invoke?- Government Action (Police)- Standing (defendant must claim a violation of his/her Constitutional rights)
Exclusionary Rule
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies only to searches and seizures taken by or at the direction of the State; and, consequently, evidence obtained illegally by private parties and turned over to the police is not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment
Commonwealth v. Storella
In what case did the defendant write a letter to his 16-year old former girlfriend. The letter was opened by her mother and turned over to police. The defendant moved to suppress the letter. There was no violation of the Fourth Amendment because there was no State action. The mother was not employed by the state and the police did not direct or encourage the mother to open the letter and turn it over to the police so she was not a state actor.
Commonwealth v. Richmond
Automatic Standing - "When a defendant is charged with a crime in which possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search is an essential element of guilt, the defendant shall be deemed to have standing to contest the legality of the search and the seizure of that evidence.
Commonwealth v. Amendola
The purpose of this rule is to deter police misconduct and provide a remedy for individuals whose constitutional rights were violated. The court has made exceptions for situations in which the suppression of evidence would not deter police misconduct.
Exclusionary Rule
What are the following exceptions to?- Attenuation/purging the taint- Independent source- Inevitable discovery- Defective warrant- Invalid Arrest
Exclusionary Rule
Where unlawful police action leads indirectly to discovery of evidence or subsequent events reduce the impact of the unlawful action the court may decide that the evidence was so removed from the misconduct that it will not be suppressed. Means the connection between the wrongful police action and the resulting evidence is weakened. Remember, the exclusionary rule (meaning evidence is suppressed/cannot be used against the defendant) was created to discourage police misconduct. If the link between the police misconduct and the evidence is too weak, the court will not suppress the evidence.
Attenuation/purging the taint
In this case the police sought an arrest warrant for the defendant for murder. The warrant was issued by a clerk and the defendant was arrested. The defendant was interviewed 3 hours after his arrest after being Mirandized for the 5th time. The defendant confessed. The court found that the arrest warrant was not supported by probable cause. The court did not suppress the statements because the police misconduct (arresting defendant on a bad warrant) was not deliberate, three hours lapsed between arrest and confession, the defendant was given Miranda warnings multiple times and the statements were found to be voluntary.
Commonwealth v. Fielding
Where evidence comes from two sources-one legal and one unlawful the evidence need not be suppressed just because one was unlawful. For example, officers arrest a defendant for murder. While being questioned without the benefit the benefit of Miranda Warnings, the defendant admitted he threw the murder weapon in the bushes in his neighbor's back year. At the same time defendant is being questioned, his neighbor calls and informs police he saw the defendant toss a handgun in the bushes in his backyard. If all police had was the information unconstitutionally received from the defendant, the gun will be admissible.
Independent Source
Where evidence is found illegally but would have been found legally later, they need not be suppressed. There is a 2-step analysis:First: the court must determine whether the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means if the illegal search did not happen. In order to be admissible, it must be clear that the evidence would have been found eventually if the illegal search had not happened.Second: the court must consider the severity of the alleged constitutional violation. For the second prong, the court will look at any bad faith of the police.
Inevitable Discovery
In this case, the defendant was placed into protective custody. During a pat frisk, officers felt an object in the pocket that could not have been a weapon. The officer took the object out and found a baggie with pills. The court found that the police would have inevitably found the drugs because the defendant would have been searched at the station as authorized by statue. Therefore, the evidence was not suppressed. (NOTE: This exception does not apply if the argument is that officers would have obtained a search warrant Commonwealth v. Benoit & Officers should never rely on inevitable discovery to save their case.)
Commonwealth v. O'Connor
If police execute a search warrant and thewarrant is later determined to be defective, the evidence will not necessarily be suppressed. The court will consider whether the violation was substantial and prejudicial.
Defective Warrant
In this case, the search warrant failed to properly state the items sought. The court did not suppress the evidence because the search was conducted in the same way as it would have if the warrant were not defective. The court found that suppression was not appropriate in this case where the defendant was not harmed by the defective warrant because the police did not exploit the illegality of the warrant.
Commonwealth v. Sheppard
Evidence obtained during an illegal arrest may besuppressed. If evidence is seized during an arrest and the arrest is later found to be invalid, the court will consider whether the violation was substantial and prejudicial and whether suppression of theevidence will deter future similar violations.
Invalid Arrest
In this case, officers checked WMS at 1PM and found a default warrant for the defendant. Officers were looking for the defendant throughout the afternoon and 2 officers set up surveillance outside the defendant's home at 2:40PM. At 4:15PM the defendant was observed driving up to the apartment and entering it. By 4:30 at least 7 officers were on scene, all with mobile access to WMS. At 5PM the defendant exited his home and entered his vehicle. Officers stopped the car and placed the defendant under arrest for that default warrant. Asearch of the trunk revealed a firearm. The defendant had removed the default at 3PM that afternoon and a default removal form was found on his person during booking. The court suppressed the firearm because none of the officers checked WMS despite having ample access and time to do so in violation of a Boston Police Department policy that requires officers to confirm outstanding warrants immediately before arresting someone on a warrant. Thecourt found the actions of the officers were not reasonable and thatthe actions were a substantial violation of the defendant's rightsand the evidence seized was plainly prejudicial.
Commonwealth v. Maingrette
Officers are free to greet, talk with and ask person questions. Person is not required to respond and is free to leave. (Legal Requirements: None)
Voluntary Encounter
Duration cannot be longer than reasonably necessary. Scope is limited to gathering information. Absent safety issue, officers should not move person from one location to another. (Legal Requirements: Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to determine if probable cause exists for a specific crime.)
Investigative Stop (non-arrest)
Officers may also issue this based on pragmatic reasons such as ordering a passenger to exit a vehicle that is being towed or when conducting their community caretaking function. (Legal Requirements: Reasonable suspicion or reasonable fear for officer safety.)
Exit Order
This is a limited search of outer clothing and other areas in person's immediate control for weapons only, not evidence. Also, applies to motor vehicles. (Legal Requirements: Reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that person may be armed and dangerous.)
Frisk
Limited, warrantless searches to conduct a cursory check of a premise for people only, not evidence. (Legal Requirements: Reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that third parties on a premises present danger to officers or will destroy evidence.)
Protective Sweeps
In most cases police must have a valid reason for this or search warrant. Where warrantless arrest is permitted police may arrest on probable cause. (Legal Requirements: Probable cause that suspect committed crime; or probable cause that a specific item subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched.)
Arrest
To build trusting community relationships, officers must interact regularly with citizens. Most police-citizen interaction is voluntary, non-criminal in nature, and not a seizure under the 4th Amendment. Regarding voluntary encounters, police have the same rights as other citizens.Police do not need any legal justification to approach, talk with, or ask questionsof any citizen in a public place, so long as the citizen is willing to listen and voluntarily answer. However, during voluntary encounters, police cannot compel cooperation or seize a person without legal justification.
Voluntary Ecounters
Police-citizen encounters remain voluntary and consensual as long as officershave not communicated by words or actions that the officer will compel theperson to stay. These interactions can range from general engagement withcommunity members (e.g., saying hello to a business owner or greeting a citizenon the street) to posing questions to a person without generating a reasonablebelief that the person's freedom is being restricted. If a reasonable person couldbelieve that his freedom is being restricted because the officer has in some waycommunicated that the officer will coerce the person to stay, police should do thefollowing to comply with 4th Amendment seizure protections during otherwisevoluntary or consensual encounters with citizens.Communicate to cite send that they..."... are not under arrest.""... are free to leave at any time.""... do not have to answer any questions."(NOTE: These strategies are for officers conducting investigations or seeking specific information from a person. They are not needed when officers are simply trying to strike up a friendly conversation.)Avoid using language that reasonably infers they are not free to leave. This includes, but is not limited to the following:"... stop.""... come over here.""... I need you to stay here."- Do not touch or make physical contact with person.- Do not confine or otherwise restrict a person's ability to move about freely (e.g., block a doorway, surround with multiple officers, etc.).
Best police practices for voluntary encounters
Street encounters between citizens and the police vary greatly and are incredibly rich in diversity. Police officers do not violate the 4th Amendment by merely approaching people in a public place and asking them questions if the person is willingto listen and voluntarily answer. The person approached, however, does not need to answer any question. The person can decline to listen and go on their way. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)
Voluntary encounters: Cases of interest
Encounters are initiated by police for a widevariety of purposes, some of which are wholly unrelated to a desire toprosecute for crime".
Terry v. Ohio
In what case, the event began as an encounter and became a seizure when the officer asserted ashow of authority when defendant started to flee. In, this case two police officers were on routine patrol at 12:30AM. They noticed a blackmale walking on the sidewalk. Both officers were familiar with gang members in the area, but neither recognized the defendant. The male'sright hand was in his pants between his waist and crotch; however, there was no visible bulge. One officer asked to speak to the male twice. Bothtimes the officer was ignored. The male quickened his pace. The officers got out of the unmarked car, one called out, and "wait a minute" in a loudvoice. The male started jogging and the officers gave chase. The male was seized at the point the officer called out, "wait a minute" and began the chase. It was at that point that the male was being compelled to comply with officer's requests and he was not free to leave.
Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell
Police investigate a report of shots fired and got a description of a group of young black males that ran into a courtyard immediately after the shots were fired. During a voluntary encounter between police and a group ofyoung men following the report, officers asked for consent to frisk for "officer safety." When the defendant was argumentative and backed away from the officers, the court held that a seizure occurred when the officer advanced towards the defendant and yelled, "Stop, Police!" as the defendant turned and ran away. The SJC ruled that the defendant had the right to break away from the frisk because police lacked reasonable suspicion at the moment the seizure occurred, so evidence found after the chase was suppressed.
Commonwealth v. Meneus
Police can approach a parked vehicle to check on occupants without it turning into a seizure as long as there is no show of authority. For example, a well-being check of a vehicle parked in a rest area did not constitute a seizure.
Commonwealth v. Murdough
A seizure occurs if during a voluntary encounter an officer requests and then takes a defendant's identification without his consent to run a warrant check because a reasonable person would not feel free to leave without it. (Note: The return of the documents may be viewed as an act removing the command and therefore ending the seizure. Commonwealth v. Mathis)
Commonwealth v. Lyles
When police take possession of property, make an arrest, or restrict a person's ability to move freely.
Seizure
A person's subjective belief that an officer would compel them to stay is not automatically a seizure unless the officer has "through words or conduct, objectively communicated that the officer would use his or her police power to coerce that person to stay." The court will look at the actions of the officer to determine if a 'seizure' has occurred. The appropriate question is "whether, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that an officer would compel him or her to say
Commonwealth v. Matta
Not every encounter between law enforcement official and a member of the public constitutes an intrusion of constitutional dimensions requiring justification.
Commonwealth v. Stoute
The age of a juvenile suspect, if the age is known to the police officer or if their age is objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, will be considered when determining whether the individual was seized. This means that if the suspect is 15 years old and the officer either knew the suspect was 15 years old or it was objectively apparent the suspect was 15 years old, the questions the court will ask is not: would a reasonable person believe the officer would compel them to stay if they tried to leave. The question the court will ask is: would a reasonable 15-year-old believe the officer would compel them to stay if they tried to leave.
Commonwealth v. Evenlyn
A seizure that begins as a brief detention and becomes increasingly intrusive or lengthy will be considered an arrest and therefore unreasonable if not supported by probable cause.
Dunaway v. New York
Under which article of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights is the pursuit of a fleeing subject is a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion?
Article 14
Investigative stops or threshold inquires are short-duration, warrantless seizures used to determine if probable cause exists, specifically if a crime has or will be committed. To conduct these investigative stops, police must have reasonable suspicion based on "specific and articulable facts" that the individual has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
Terry Stops
[F]irst, whether the initiation of the investigation by the police was permissible under the circumstances, and, second, whether the scope of the search was justified under the circumstances.
The 2-step inquiry used to determine the validity of a Terry Stop
[F]irst, whether the initiation of the investigation by the police was permissible under the circumstances, and, second, whether the scope of the search was justified under the circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Helme
A field interview or consensual encounter becomes an investigative stop when an officer, through words or conduct, objectively communicated that the officer will use their police power to coerce the person to stay. Those words and actions can include taking a person's identification card, using an authoritative tone, or activating blue lights.
Commonwealth v. Matta
In this case, police received an anonymous call that an individual walking away from a bus or station had a gun in his backpack. They did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. Instead, they conducted a voluntary encounter during which the defendant became nervous, stepped back, and appeared to be looking for an escape route. When the defendant started to take off the backpack, which would make it easier to access a gun inside, the officers seized the backpack and felt the gun inside it. The SJC concluded that "the police had reasonable suspicion to conclude both that the defendant was armed and dangerous and that he was about to draw the gun and was inclined to use it against them." ()
Commonwealth v. Famania
A report of someone with a gun is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed; however, officers can demand to see a license to carry (LTC) by statute. MGL c. 140 sec. 129C, "gives an officer the right to demand production of a proper licenses from anyone carrying a firearm" however, it is an open question whether officers can stop someone in order to make such a demand.
Commonwealth v. Barros
A routine motor vehicle stop is a seizure. A seizure occurs when police issue a show of authority, including activating a patrol car's blue lights and siren. This means that police must have either observed a civil motor vehicle infraction or have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to support the stop before signaling for a motorist to stop.
Commonwealth v. Smigliano
In this case, a police officer observed a car driving erratically and then pull over on its own. The officer pulled up behind the stopped vehicle and activated his blue lights to investigate whether the defendant was intoxicated. Activation of blue lights initiated a constitutional seizure. There is an exception if the officer is acting as a community caretaker. Officer pulling behind a car in the breakdown lane and activating blue lights for purposes of community caretaking is not a seizure.
Commonwealth v. Smigliano
Under which Amendment, the force used to effect a stop must be reasonable and proportionate to the reason for the stop? One example of a use of force is handcuffing someone. A lesser degree of force would include placing unhandcuffed persons in police car where officer is outnumbered or to prevent flight. Where unnecessary force is used to stop or detain a suspect, the court may suppress any evidence found because an unlawful arrest without probable cause has occurred.
4th Amendment
Several factors must be considered in determining whether the scope of the seizure was justified, including the length of the encounter, the nature of the inquiry, the possibility of flight, and the danger to the safety of the officers.
Commonwealth v. Williams
Handcuffing a defendant does not automatically change a threshold inquiry into an arrest. It depends on the facts of the case. In this case, the defendant was seized in a constitutional sense when officers exited their cruiser and began to chase the defendant. At that time, police were justified in conducting a threshold inquiry because the defendant was running down a busy street in broad daylight (not in response to officer pursuit), he was sweating, had a strained expression on his face and had taken off his shirt and discarded it without slowing dow, and a bystander gave police a beeper that the defendant had dropped. When approaching the defendant on foot, the defendant was behind a house trying to scale a fence and officers noted he was covered in blood. When told to stop, the defendant ran at which point the officer pulled his weapon. The defendant stopped and said, "I didn't mean it, didn't mean it, I don't want to go back to prison." As a backup officer arrived, the defendant tired to run away. Officer pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him. The actions of the officers were proportional to the facts and circumstances of this case and did not transform the valid stop of the defendant into an arrest.
Commonwealth v. Williams
In this case, a Wilmington police officer on patrol without a partner at 11:20PM saw the defendant's car, which was running, stopped on the fog line with one headlight out and the front driver's side tire was "completely blown away." The officer activated his emergency lights, at which point the defendant, who was sitting in the driver's seat, got out of the car, and started walking toward the officer. The defendant ignored repeated commands to get back into his car and was described as frustrated and aggressive. The officer told the defendant that he was going to be placed in handcuffs for safety reasons. Temporarily handcuffing the defendant based upon these facts was appropriate to address the safety concerns of the officer and did not transform the encounter into a formal arrest.
Commonwealth v. Vellucci
In this case, officers stopped a car based on reasonable suspicion that the occupants had been involved in drug activity and the driver had committed a traffic violation. Based on information that a passenger in the car had past involvement with firearms, four police vehicles boxed in the car and at least two of the officers approached with drawn guns, subsequently finding a loaded gun in the vehicle. The court ruled that the level of force the police used was disproportionate to the level of suspicion, resulting in an unlawful arrest without probable cause. As a result, evidence of the loaded firearm was suppressed.
Commonwealth v. Santiago
There is no specific length of time police must detain a person. However, investigative stop duration must not be longer than what is reasonably necessary to determine if probable cause exists that a crime was committed. Generally, the courts tend to allow officers more time when conducting investigative stops for serious crimes or dangerous offenders.
Duration
The scope of an investigative stop is limited to gathering information to determine probable cause for a specific crime committed by a specific suspect. The scope of the stop must be reasonable and proportionate to the reason for the stop.
Scope
During investigative stops, police should not move suspects against their will from one location to another absent strong justification (e.g., safety; eyewitness identification). For example, moving a suspect to the police station during an investigatory stop, without probable cause to arrest, is an unreasonable seizure that will result in the suppression of evidence. (Dunaway v. New York)
Location
Police are not required to administer Miranda warnings during investigative stops and suspects are not required to answer questions.
Questioning
An inference of criminal activity may be unreasonable in situation where many alternative, innocent reasons for the circumstances exist. Commonwealth v. Helme, 399 Mass. 298 (1987). In Helme police approached a car parked with interior lights on and engine running in a bar parking lot. The Court found that there were many innocent explanations why the car may be there and therefore no reasonable suspicion to stop existed.
Inferences
not every encounter between a law enforcement official and a member of the public constitutes an intrusion of constitutional dimensions requiring justification.
Commonwealth v. Stoute
Police can use information they gain from witnesses in order to establish reasonable suspicion. Before police can rely on information provided to them, it must meet the 2 prong requirements set out in the previously discussed Aguilar/Spinelli test. What are the two prongs?
1. Basis of knowledge - how does the informant know what they know?2. Veracity - is the informant credible or the information provided reliable?
If police are face with an emergency situation posing a risk of life or serious injury that requires action, they may act on an anonymous tip without first establishing what?
Veracity
In what case, did police receive information from an anonymous caller that a man who appeared to be drunk getting into a blue automobile with New Hampshire license plates in front of a package store with three small children in the vehicle. The police responded to the call and when they arrived at the location, they stopped the vehicle as they saw it approaching the entrance to Route 128, a high-speed highway. The stop was reasonable based on the facts because it presented "an emergency situation requiring immediate action for the protection of life and property.
Commonwealth v. Hurd
In this case an unidentified motorist reported via a 911 call that a pickup truck was traveling on the wrong side of the highway. The caller provideddispatchers with the truck's registration plate. The motorist called back to say the truck was now driving on the correct side of the highway. Astate trooper ran the license plate and found that it was registered to the defendant. The trooper drove to the address and stopped a vehiclematching the motorist's first description. The trooper did not make any observations concerning the operation of the vehicle. The trooperarrested the defendant for O.UI. The stop of the vehicle was suppressed because the veracity prong was not satisfied. The information provided lacked specific details about the defendant; they were details easily obtainable by an uninformed bystander. Additionally, the Court found that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was not justified under emergency doctrine because the emergency was over. The last report from the caller was that the car wasoperating on the correct side of the road and when the officer observedthe car, it was being driven in a normal manner. (NOTE: This case is different from Hurd because it was ananonymous report of a past motor vehicle infraction. In Hurd the callerreported an ongoing dangerous situation.)
Commonwealth v.Lubiejewski
To conduct an investigative stop, police must have reasonablesuspicion based on "specific and articulable facts" that the individualhas committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. What are the following?- Time of day- Officer's training and experience, which should be recited in thearrest report including years of experience, special assignments,specialized training, and relevant arrest record.- Officer's corroboration of facts provided by witnesses- Officer observations of suspicious conduct- Officer's knowledge of location- Suspect's description and proximity to crime scene- Suspect's reactions to police presence
Best police practices for investigative stops