What is Case Law for Law Enforcement?
The body of law that forms the basis for law enforcement guidance is derived from statutes as well as common law, a process known as stare decisis. Stare decisis, sometimes referred to as "judge-made" law, is a legal doctrine that compels courts to follow the precedents of established case law. In other words, stare decisis allows law enforcement agencies to rely on legal precedent as guidance in evaluating policies and procedures, and deciding whether a certain course of action is legally defensible .
In keeping with the new COPM paradigm of trust-based policing, officers, agencies and departments must possess a strong understanding of landmark cases that affect all law enforcement operations, such as Shepard v. Kime, 432 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2005), and Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Leading cases like these present examples of the outcomes that may be affected by case distinction – a tool that courts, officers, agencies and departments can utilize to separate between specific legal principles applicable to facts and circumstances of the case being conducted versus those of an establish precedent. Guidance derived from prospective case law becomes even important as legal challenges become more common.
Significant Law Enforcement Cases in US Supreme Court
The following is an overview of the key Supreme Court cases that have defined law enforcement practices as they exist today.
Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that established the Miranda warning, which requires verbal evidence of criminal suspects’ consent to interrogation, warnings must be given before any interrogation in police custody can be conducted with legal validity. The Miranda warning is a list of specific items of information with certain information must approved by the US Supreme Court.
Terry v. Ohio: The Supreme Court rejected a strict requirement of probable cause in "stop and search" cases. The Court upheld the practice of "stop and frisk," so long as officers observe "specific and articulable facts" that would justify a search. Police are allowed to "frisk" suspects who are reasonably believed to have weapons.
Search and Seizure Cases Relating to the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "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." The Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. It is intended to afford protection to an individual’s right to privacy in their home, papers and effects. In 1949, in Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court held that the federal exclusionary rule (the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from judicial proceedings) unmapped in the Constitution, did apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. However, in 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court took the next step in applying the exclusionary rule to the states. Since Mapp, a warrant must show probable cause as to both the place to be searched and items to be seized before a search can occur in a household. Further, searches must be made "in a way that a person of reasonable caution would believe that the search will uncover evidence of wrongdoing."
Searches and seizures of vehicles based on probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is contained in the vehicle is also subject to the probable cause requirement under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth maintains for movement of vehicles, however, probable cause is required so long as the officer’s probable cause exists to the extent that "they have sufficient knowledge to warrant a reasonable belief that the items would be found in the place to be searched." So, even if the warrant leaves out a place where items are kept, if the officer has reasonable belief that the items are also kept in the place listed on the warrant, the search is valid. For example, if a warrant existed for the search of a bedroom, and the officer had reasonable belief that the evidence had also been stored in the closet, the search would be valid so long as it was as specific as the officer could manage. Cross-referencing the warrant, versus the probable cause rule, is important because other nuances of searches and seizures can exist, beyond just what level of suspicion is necessary for a search or seizure.
The Right to Counsel Cases
The right to counsel is one of the most well-known provisions established by landmark Supreme Court decisions. In Gideon v. Wainwright, decided in 1963, in federal courts, the government would be required to provide counsel to criminal defendants. The case remains foundational for protecting the rights of criminal defendants in this country.
In the years since, other Supreme Court decisions have explicitly stated that defendants are entitled to counsel at all critical stages of the prosecution, including pre-trial investigation and interrogation. The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 required law enforcement officers to explicitly inform suspects that they had the right to counsel whether from a private attorney or a public defender.
Miranda-style warnings are now standard practice for law enforcement officers throughout the country.
While "custodial interrogation" is the trigger for the requirement to inform a suspect of their right to counsel, it’s not always clear whether a suspect is in fact in custody (and therefore entitled to counsel) or not. A non-exhaustive list of factors that would indicate a suspect is in custody include, among other things:
If a suspect is in custody, Miranda rights must be read after someone is taken into custody but before they are interrogated. However, it is still not uncommon for an officer to ask questions of an arrestee before reading them their Miranda rights, as long as the questions do not necessarily prompt the suspect to reveal information related to the crime.
However, once the defendant has requested their right to counsel, and arresting agency is required to cut off all questioning until an attorney can be provided. The right to counsel, like all criminal defense rights, is not absolute. Failing to provide counsel in all cases is only a Sixth Amendment violation only if the failure would be prejudicial to the suspect.
Use of Force Case Laws Establishing Standards
As with all constitutional provisions, courts decide what the Fourth Amendment’s "reasonableness" standard means when put in context. Police are continually faced with situations requiring quick judgments in the field. Courts thus examine police actions under the Fourth Amendment to determine whether a reasonable officer could have thought the actions to be appropriate at the time.
Policing choices are laden with conflicting constitutional rights. It is the balancing of constitutional rights that makes judicial decisions on the Fourth Amendment so important, and opportunities to mitigate risk through policy so imperative. Police agencies develop policies to align precisely with case law standards applied in their region. They provide training to their officers on those polices. Analysis of court precedent clarifies where those lines are drawn, and how the courts will view law enforcement use of force and other police conduct.
Decades of opinions have crystalized the application of reasonableness to police use of force cases. In Graham v. Connor, the U.S. Supreme Court held that analysis of whether a police officer used excessive force in making an arrest is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s objective "reasonableness" standard. Officers need not take the least intrusive course of action possible , but must instead analyze the facts and circumstances of each case to determine the amount of force commensurate with the need for the level of force employed.
Graham established an objective standard for courts to analyze, one which gives considerable leeway to officers who make split-second decisions in the field. Courts ask whether the amount of force used was "reasonable" given the facts and circumstances confronting the officer. Police must analyse the facts and circumstances in light of clearly established law. Where officers fail to train and both fail to consider the facts and circumstances, failure to "train is completely unreasonable." But if officers know the law, and costs of overreacting are high – as they so often are, well-trained officers can employ lethal force and will still comply with constitutional standards.
Several key decisions on use of force inform the application of Graham and help to determine where lines are drawn. These cases involve similar incidents in which officers’ conduct decided whether there was sufficient justification to warrant their actions. These cases include: Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis; Scott v. Harris; and Tatum v. Rodriguez (7th Cir. 2015).
Recent Case Law Impacts on Law Enforcement Today
Case law significantly affects modern policing practices. The following cases are some of the more recent cases to have impacted the way police officers conduct their duties and the scope of their authority today.
In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that officers’ use of force must be objectively reasonable, based on what a reasonable officer would do under similar circumstances. This decision, which was down to use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, helps shape how departments train their officers on when and how to use force, though the inquiry is often a subjective one that evolves over time.
In Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that what is known as the "exclusionary rule" does not apply to pretextual stops. In this case, the Court held that the stop and seizure of the van were valid because officers had knowledge of such an obvious traffic violation that the stop was founded independently of any other purpose. This ruling permits officers to make pretextual stops for minor offenses if they suspect that other crimes are being committed.
In Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless what they did was clearly prohibited by the law and their actions were unreasonable. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government officials from liability in civil suits when their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. This case is one of the primary decisions courts use to evaluate whether the qualified immunity defense will apply in Section 1983 actions.
In Connolly v. Thompson, 807 F.3d 686, 691-92 (1st Cir. 2015), the First Circuit declared that an officer can face liability for turning off a videorecording device in certain circumstances, and it held that a reasonable jury could conclude an officer did so in bad faith in the case before it. The court reasoned: "It is not ‘reasonable’ to admit and then turn off a person’s recording device during a stop while working with the other officers." In doing so, the court established parameters for liability in a case of malicious destruction of property. The decision clarifies how officers may confront civilians who video-record encounters with police, both in situations in which the Fourth Amendment is implicated and when only state tort law concerns are presented.
Overview: Future of Case Law in Law Enforcement
Courts are constantly interpreting and reinterpreting constitutional principles in the context of changing technologies and social norms. For example, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Navarette v. California in 2014, traffic cameras were a fairly new law enforcement tool and only the oldest iPhone had been on the market for eight years. In 2020, traffic cameras and smartphones are ubiquitous. Because SCOTUS relies on lower court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment to help define constitutional principles, the law in this area is constantly evolving. The holding in Navarette, that a 911 call reporting DUI-like behavior was an example of sufficiently reliable information to establish reasonable suspicion, demonstrates how the public’s belief that 911 calls are reliable can impact the law. If the public develops concerns about the reliability of the 911 system , the holding may be reversed or modified. Policing is also changing. The way that departments respond to crime and make arrest decisions is being altered as departments reform to become more community-oriented. And yet, as the boundaries of constitutional protections are always being pushed by new technologies and law enforcement uses of them, it will be important that these reforms don’t become the new normal without addressing fundamental constitutional protections. That is, we should continue to expect novel interpretations and applications of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that account for these reforms. In order to preserve constitutional protections while keeping up with policing innovations, the courts will need to balance competing societal goals regarding criminal justice reform, public safety, and privacy. As technology continues to advance, and as policing itself evolves, the law in both areas will continue to develop. While it is impossible to predict how the law will evolve, one thing is certain – law enforcement case law will shape policing for years to come.