NCJ Number
161879
Journal
Crime to Court Police Officer's Handbook Dated: (March 1996) Pages: complete issue
Date Published
1996
Length
16 pages
Annotation
Legal issues relevant to police policy pertain to the admissibility of evidence observed in a car by an officer viewing through the car windows, the use of the Miranda warning, officer accountability in executing a defective warrant, and police protective procedures when transporting suspects.
Abstract
In United States v. Hatten (U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, 1995), the court held to be admissible as evidence a handgun and marijuana seized from a vehicle by an officer who observed them through the vehicle window with the aid of a flashlight. The vehicle was parked in a lot patrolled by a police officer "moonlighting" as a security officer. James Hatten, the driver, was sitting in the vehicle with a male companion. The court held that the officer complied with the elements of the plain-view doctrine. At issue was the officer's prior justification to look in the vehicle. The court held that as a security officer responsible for securing the parking lot, the officer had a right to be in close proximity to the vehicle so as to observe what was inside. Further, the court held that statements made by Hatten while in police custody were not subject to Miranda warnings, because the statements were made voluntarily and not within the context of a police interrogation. The section on legal commentary advises that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that a magistrate has issued a warrant (arrest or search) does not protect the officer who applied for the warrant if the warrant is obviously defective. The concluding section presents the circumstances and lessons of an incident in which a police officer failed to confiscate a gun hidden in the pillow of a wheelchair used by the suspect, based upon the officer's belief that the pillow had been searched by a security officer at the scene.