Case Laws Applicable to San Andreas LEO Operations
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) | Fleeing Felon Rule
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, unless it has been threatened.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) | Stop And Frisk
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) | Officer Safety
The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State’s proffered justification for such order – the officer’s safety – is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent’s personal liberty occasioned by the order, being at most a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer’s safety.
Under the standard announced in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, whether “the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search `warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate” – the officer was justified in making the search he did once the bulge in respondent’s jacket was observed.
TLDR;
The request of the driver to exit the car is a mere inconvenience compared to the officer’s safety. Additionally, paired with Terry v. Ohio, a frisk can be conducted on the driver if a bulge is seen upon exiting the vehicle.
Example: An officer initiated a traffic stop on the side of a busy, high traffic roadway. The officer requests that the driver step out and onto the sidewalk while being issued a citation in order to ensure the officer’s safety.
Example: An officer initiates a traffic stop with a known felon for driving through a red light. Because of the driver’s record, the officer asks him to step out of the vehicle to avoid any hidden weapons or dangers. While the driver is stepping out of the car, a large bulge can be seen in his waistband. The officer does a pat down of the driver and discovers that the bulge he saw was a concealed handgun. The officer places the driver under arrest for carrying a firearm as a felon, negating any potential danger he may have posed to the officer or the public.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) | Automobile Exception
In Carroll, the court established the “automobile exception” to 4th Amendment protections against warrantless searches. In this prohibition-era case, the court noted the inherent difference between buildings and vehicles – buildings remain stationary, while cars and other vehicles can be moved and hidden before a warrant can be issued. The court held that if Officers have probable cause that an automobile contains evidence of a crime, the vehicle in question can be searched without a warrant.
TLDR;
Known as the “automobile exception”, you’re allowed to search a vehicle without a warrant if you have probable cause to believe its concealing evidence of a crime. This is because cars can be moved and houses can’t.
**Includes but not limited to: cars, mobile homes, motorcycles, vans, trucks, trailers, etc. Or any vehicle that can become mobile
Example: A group of robbers flee the City Bank and are able to get away. A few minutes later, you see the same vehicle parked outside a house in Mirror Park. Rather than applying for a warrant that may take time to be approved, you can seize and search the vehicle for anything related to the robbery. You can do this because the suspects may move the vehicle to an unknown location before the warrant can be processed and served.
Maryland v. Wilson – 519 U.S. 408, 117 S. CT. 882 (1997) | Passenger Must Obey
An Officer conducting a Traffic Stop holds the right to order a Passenger out of the vehicle pending completion of the Traffic Stop.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | Statements of Suspects
Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started and the rights were either exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.
Miranda Rights
LEOs will advise subjects of their Miranda Rights prior to conducting any questioning that may lead to the individual self-incriminating. This applies to both individuals that have been detained and individuals that have been placed under arrest. Failure to advise an individual of their Miranda Rights may lead to their statement, or portions of their statement, being inadmissible in a court of law.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything that you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present if available. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you free of charge by the State. Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you, Sir/Ma’am?”
LEOs must ensure that the subject/s understand their rights. LEOs will clarify any confusion to the subject/s and repeat their rights as necessary. Individuals that are purposely failing to acknowledge their rights or who refuse to answer will be properly annotated in their arrest report.