Subscribe
Magazine + Enews
Enews
Command
Procedures & Policies
Technology
Training
Patrol
Point of Law
Investigations
Weapons
Vehicle Ops
Special Units
Directory
Search
Article
Blog
Event
Media Gallery
News
Podcast
Press Release
Product
Video
Webinar
Whitepaper
Command
Investigations
Patrol
Point of Law
Procedures & Policies
Special Units
Technology
Training
Vehicle Ops
Weapons
Enter search phrase
Search
217 Results
Patrol
SCOTUS Sides with LE on Illegal Searches
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of law enforcement officers who perform an illegal search in good faith, which wouldn't trigger the exclusionary rule for evidence that incriminated the subject.
June 15, 2011
Point of Law
Point of Law: The Good-Faith Exception in Probable Cause
The exclusionary rule may not apply where police relied in good faith on a warrant later found to be insufficient.
March 26, 2024
Patrol
A Short Cut to Termination?
Maybe one day the tide will change. Just this week, the Supreme Court made a long overdue clarification on the Miranda matter that is favorable to cops. And who knows? Perhaps one day they'll clean up the exclusionary rule, too.
June 3, 2010
Patrol
California Legislature's U-Turn On Law and Order
The California Constitution was amended in 1982 to bring evidence suppression limits in line with the U.S. Constitution. The present legislature has begun a concerted back door effort to undo the state's requirement to follow the federal exclusionary rule.
June 12, 2012
Patrol
Official Misinformation
What the exclusionary rule has actually meant in practice is that thousands (maybe millions) of criminals have been able to stop the prosecution from using critical evidence of their guilt to hold them accountable for their crimes.
February 28, 2009
Patrol
'Good Faith' Revisited
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is not absolute. In a number of decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that even where a police officer makes an unreasonable search or seizure, there may be compelling reasons not to exclude resulting evidence.
October 16, 2011
Patrol
The 5 Biggest Search-and-Seizure Myths
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court made the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule binding on the states in the 1961 decision in
Mapp v. Ohio,
thousands of published decisions from state and federal courts have applied the exclusionary rule to thousands of searches and seizures. It's no wonder the 50-year tidal wave of exclusionary decisions has left confusion and misunderstanding in its wake. Here are five areas of the law that seem to suffer the most in translation.
November 11, 2014
Patrol
Davis Rules
In a fairly common scenario, you obtain a valid Miranda waiver from a suspect in custody and begin interrogation. Part-way through your questioning, the suspect begins to feel uneasy about going forward and says something about remaining silent or talking to a lawyer.
December 31, 2005
Patrol
Obama's Election Victory and the Supreme Court
What is the likely consequence of the re-election of Barack Obama with respect to judicial appointments, as they bear on law enforcement and public safety issues? In our business, we're trained to look for the clues. There are plenty of those to examine.
December 26, 2012
Patrol
Fourth Amendment Supremacy
Evidence discovered during a search incident to an arrest supported by PC is not suppressible in the majority of state courts.
May 31, 2008
Patrol
Right to Counsel
Law enforcement officers are quite familiar with the court-created "right" to counsel established by the
Miranda
opinion, to protect the Fifth Amendment trial privilege against compelled self-incrimination. But it applies only during police custodial interrogation.
January 31, 2006
Patrol
The Crime-Charging Gap
Just because a prosecutor declines to file or a grand jury declines to indict does not necessarily mean there has been a bad arrest. Proving guilt in a criminal trial requires the prosecutor to meet a much higher burden than the arresting officers, by proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
March 31, 2008
Patrol
Exigent Entry
Warrantless entries are limited to those authorized by consent, probation or parole search conditions, or "exigent circumstances" involving some sort of emergency requiring immediate action. One category of exigency that may justify warrantless entry is the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.
July 6, 2011
Patrol
Officer Safety Searches
Obviously, no reasonable officer is going to risk his or her personal safety or the public safety in order to satisfy rules regulating the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial, or even to avoid personal civil liability.
October 31, 2003
Patrol
Unlawful Reaction to Unlawful Action
Let's face it—law enforcement officers sometimes make detentions, arrests, entries, or searches that run afoul of one or more of the hundreds of judicial decisions differentiating "reasonable" and "unreasonable" searches and seizures.
March 4, 2013
Patrol
Parole and Probation Searches
After pussyfooting around the issue for years, the U.S. Supreme Court has finally come to a decision on what justifies a probation or parole search.
August 31, 2006
Special Units
Reasonable Execution of Search Warrants
A search conducted under a valid search warrant can still violate the Fourth Amendment if it is conducted in an unreasonable manner. "It is incumbent upon the officer executing a search warrant to ensure the search is lawfully authorized and lawfully conducted." (Groh v. Ramirez)
July 31, 2007
Patrol
Understanding Fourth Amendment "Standing"
A defendant cannot suppress evidence if he cannot show that his own legitimate rights were violated in the way it was obtained.
December 3, 2014
Page 1 of 13
Next Page