Ch1 PP1 Order Maintenance (Graciano) (1.21.08)

Ch1 PP1 Order - Ch 1 Why We Have Law Order Maintenance Legal Reading Case Arizona v Graciano Court Arizona Supreme Court Lesson One reason we have

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Ch. 1 Why We Have Law Order Maintenance Legal Reading Case: Arizona v. Graciano Court: Arizona Supreme Court Lesson: One reason we have law is order maintenance Facts Leading to the Case Graciano was driving a Ford 4 x 4 pickup truck on Interstate 19, approximately 18 miles north of the Arizona-Mexico border, near Nogales, Arizona An officer stopped Graciano and learned that the vehicle was stolen Graciano was arrested, convicted of theft of a vehicle valued at more than $1,000, and placed on five years' probation Why did the officer stop Graciano? At the pretrial hearing, the arresting officer testified that Graciano had not driven the vehicle in an improper or suspicious manner If that is true, why did the officer stop him? Issue Presented at Appeal Whether the officer's stop violated Graciano's right against unreasonable search and seizure which is guaranteed by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Graciano argues that the stop was investigatory in nature without probable cause, and thus violated his 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by the government 4 th Amen d AZ Supreme Court's Analysis: Even though an investigatory stop of a pedestrian falls short of a technical arrest, it is a restraint on the person's freedom of movement = a "seizure" of the person under the 4th amendment cont. on next slide Similarly, an investigatory stop of a motor vehicle constitutes a seizure for 4th Amendment purposes But investigatory stops do not need a showing of full probable cause, because such stops are less intrusive than actual arrests So when are investigatory stops permissible? When the search is based upon what is described as a "particularized" or "founded" suspicion by the officer, who must be able to state an "articulable reason" for the stop I stopped the vehicle because.... How do you create an "articulable reason" for Investigatory Stops of motor vehicles ? 2prong (i.e., 2 part) Totality of the Circumstances Test Totality of the Circumstances Test 1 Assessment of all Circumstances 2 Justifiable Suspicion Of Criminal Activity 1st Prong: Assessment of all the circumstances based on: Subjective factors Objective factors: May not include a weighing of the officer's "unparticularized suspicions" or hunches about a suspect or situation 2nd Prong: The above assessment must raise a justifiable suspicion that the particular individual is involved in criminal activity Test Applied to Facts of This Case Officer was a patrolman in the Nogales area for 14 years Subjective factor in favor of 1st Prong Officer Hopke testified that: From past experience he knew that numerous Ford 4 x 4 trucks and Broncos were stolen and transported to Mexico Test Applied to Facts of This Case As a result of "meetings" with Pima County officials, he was under the impression that the majority of these vehicles were being stolen by young, Mexican males These are subjecti factors (e.g. based o officer's experience) t may be in favor Test Applied to Facts of This Case Officer Hopke also knew that in 1980 the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) had compiled statistics concerning vehicles registered in Arizona that were most often stolen: (in descending order) Ford 4 x 4 pickups, Ford 4 x 4 Broncos, Chevrolet Camaros, and Ford Vans This could be considered an objective factor (e.g., modes or patterns of certain lawbreakers) in favor of first prong Was this information enough to justify the stop? Let's delve in further to the facts Test Applied to Facts of This Case Officer Hopke, who patrolled northbound on Interstate 19, observed Graciano's vehicle traveling south South I19 North bjective factor prong because observe criminal avior Test Applied to Facts of This Case The vehicle was not being driven in any suspicious or unlawful manner The pickup was, however, a Ford 4 x 4 The license plate indicated that the vehicle came from a point farther north than Tucson Type of vehicle driven matched the statistics or most stolen in AZ. s, it is an objective factor in favor of first prong North of Tucson Test Applied to Facts of This Case Driver appeared to be Mexican, but Hopke could not tell whether the driver was young or old, male or female When asked how he knew whether the driver was Mexican "rather than Armenian or Syrian," he admitted that he did not know. All he was sure of was that the driver had dark skin tive factor prong ? ? ? ? ? ? So what was the totality of knowledge the officer had before the stop? Some darkskinned person Driving toward the Mexican border in a lawful and unremarkable manner, In a vehicle of a type most desired by thieves, with license plates from farther north in Arizona Were these reasons sufficient to meet the 2nd prong of the test (i.e., raise a justifiable suspicion)? Court's Holding The reasons were not sufficient to raise a justifiable suspicion that Graciano was involved in criminal activity The facts known by the police officer applied to a large group of innocent drivers Court's Holding However, race or ethnic background can be a part of the totality of circumstances used to justify a stop Issue is how race or ethnic background is used Continued on Next Slide There was no written profile Problem with using race in this case: Not clear what the elements of the socalled profile were The statistics: Concerned only the type of vehicle "preferred" by thieves, Contained no information with regard to the type of thief likely to be found with such a vehicle Conclusion There was no justified, founded suspicion that Graciano was engaged in criminal activity As a result, the stop and subsequent arrest of Graciano violated his 4th Amendment rights Issues to Consider The police power of the government permits law enforcement to restrain personal freedom and property rights in order to protect the public safety, morals and health of its citizens Thus, one goal of the lawimeto maintain is , bit cr ality i mor pr oh sociallistructure social order and the pub c or ce enf Two prominent concepts that emerge out of a state's police power are social control and order maintenance Governmental Social Control refers to governmental mechanisms to regulate social (typically criminal) behaviors E.g., Fines, I mprisonment Order maintenance refers to protecting the public safety Stopping dangerous behavior to others and self Deterring future criminal behavior Specific deterrence General deterrence Q: What went wrong with law enforcement's exercise of its police power in Graciano? There was an inappropriate profile This can result in faulty identifications Type I errors: False positive identifications E.g., I dentifying and arresting an innocent person Type I I errors: False negative identifications E.g., Not identifying and arresting the guilty person Questions Q: What should be the appropriate standard for false positive and false negative identifications in a democratic society? Q: Do you think legal actors could have sufficient bias in the pursuit of their roles that they might commit a Type 1 error? Questions Q: Are there conditions under which you be willing to give legal officials unlimited discretion in law enforcement? Q: What rules would you create to regulate the exercise of discretion? ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/03/2008 for the course PSYC 277 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '07 term at University of Arizona- Tucson.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online