Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Police Gamesmanship Dilemma in Criminal Procedure

The Police Gamesmanship Dilemma in Criminal Procedure

Ratings: (0)|Views: 125 |Likes:
Published by ali_winston

More info:

Published by: ali_winston on Sep 20, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/28/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676423
T
HE
P
OLICE
G
AMESMANSHIP
D
ILEMMA IN
C
RIMINAL
P
ROCEDURE
 
Mary D 
.
Fan 
 
A
BSTRACT
 
Poli 
ce 
ga 
ing o 
f  
 
rul 
a
nnial 
hall 
ng 
 
f  
or 
on 
st 
ional 
ri 
inal pro 
ce 
dur 
,
ading 
wi 
sts 
and hazard zon 
in 
la
h
 
 
ec
ec 
ion in 
Arizona v. Gant
and 
f  
a
f  
allou 
 
f  
ro 
 
Maryland v. Shatzer 
.
 
 
involv 
rul 
-pu 
hing and dodging 
f  
dubiou 
propri 
 y 
ha 
 
xploi 
blind 
po 
ts 
,
blurry r 
gion 
or gap 
in rul 
and r 
di 
.
Curr 
ly 
,
 
our 
ts 
rally 

 
ir 
ion o 
f  
 a pro 
ec 
ion b 
ec 
 
oo obviou 
 
o ignor 
and r 
quir 
st 
op-gap rul 
-pa 
ha 
 
f  
ur 
pl
 
 
az 
f  
 
on 
st 
ional 
ri 
inal pro 
ce 
dur 
.
Th
 approa 
h
av 
 
ur 
 y 
li
ee 
f  
air and 
f  
oul play and giv 
poli 
ce 
 
rv 
in 
ce 
iv 
 
o ga 
 
ov 
ly 
.
A
w approa 
h
ee 
,
 
f  
ound 
d on a 
tt 
r und 
st 
anding o 
f  
poli 
ce 
ga 
ing o 
f  
 
rul 
.
Th
a
 
ke 
up 
 
.
 Th 
ar 
ff  
axono 
 y
f  
 
 
hr 
ee 
 
ai
f  
or 
f  
probl 
 poli 
ce 
ga 
ing and propo 
an 
i-ga 
ing 
st 
andard 
and da 
a-d 
lop 
 
dial rul 
 
o addr 
ss 
 
.
Th 
 
axono 
 y di 
st 
ingui 
ee 
n
irabl 
 poli 
ce 
innova 
ion and probl 
rul 
 
ubv 
ion and divid 
probl 
poli 
ce 
 ga 
ing in 
hr 
ee 
varian 
ts 
ondu 
rul 
ga 
ing 
,
dial rul 
ga 
ing and 
f  
ra 
ing rul 
ga 
ing 
.
Th 
 
axono 
 y build 
on 
di 
st 
in 
ion b 
ee 
ondu 
 and d 
ec 
ion rul 
 
ga
ly adap 
d by Carol 
ke 
r and M 
ir Dan-Coh 
f  
ro 
 
 
Th 
ar 
argu 
 
f  
or
ploying an 
i-ga 
ing 
st 
andard 
 
uppl 
brigh 
-lin 
rul 
 
pow 
r adjudi 
or 
 
o blo 
ck 
un 
f  
air play 
and 
tt 
r in 
f  
or 
poli 
ce 
judg 
on
ss 
wh 
 
in 
ce 
iv 
 
o ga 
high 
ec 
au 
 
po 
ia
vid 
iary payo 
ff  
di
ec 
.
Th 
ar 
a
o argu 
 
f  
or 
or
ing 
pr 
do 
inan 
dial approa 
h wh 
n a viola 
ion i 
 
f  
ound 
in 
orpora 
da 
a-d 
lop 
di 
 
ha 
 
ur 
f  
ce 
probl 
 
oon 
r and giv 
 poli 
ce 
in 
ce 
iv 
 
oop 
ra 
in 
oni 
oring and r 
f  
or 
.
 
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law. Phone: (206) 685-4971. E-mail: marydfan@uw.edu. Thanks to Helen Anderson, Frank Elliot, Brandon Garrett, James Hardisty, JohnJunker, Ben Leff, Richard E. Myers, II, Steve Vladeck and Kathryn Watts for invaluable insights andPeggy R. Jarrett, Cheryl R. Nyberg, Adeen Poster and Reba C. Turnquist for superb librarian support.
 
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676423
2
T
HE
P
OLICE
G
AMESMANSHIP
D
ILEMMA IN
C
RIMINAL
P
ROCEDURE
 
Mary D 
.
Fan 
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
 I
3
I
.
T
P
I
P
A
C
7
.
U
P
P
G
.
T
A
S
D
R
C
 
 
T
HE
P
OLICE
G
AMESMANSHIP
D
ILEMMA
I
NTRODUCTION
 
Police gaming of the rules presents a recurring challenge for criminal procedure.Police gamesmanship in the

1
involvestactics of doubtful propriety that exploit blind spots, blurry zones or gaps in rules andremedies.
2
Examples of police gaming of the rules that have surfaced include suchtactics as:
 
interrogators asking suspects questions first and then administering
Miranda 
 rights later;
3
 
 
shipping suspects overseas to enable harsher interrogations, then relying on thestate secrets privilege

doctrine to avert judicial review of alleged constitutional violations;
4
 
 
disproportionately stopping and frisking Black and Hispanic men on theostensibly race-neutral ground

and creating a data bank of names to mine;
5
and
 
the use and abuse of the power to arrest for minor traffic violations and thensearch automobiles incident to arrest that the Supreme Court recently tried toaddress in
Arizona v 
.
Gan 
.
6
 The specter of police gamesmanship also haunts the terrain after rule changes. For example, initial indications suggest that the response to
Gan 

automatic ability to search incident to arrest for a minor traffic is a rise in inventorysearches and arguments that evidence invalidly seized would inevitably have beendiscovered in an inventory search.
7
Or, to take another recent example, the Supreme
1
The oft-recurring metaphor of police investigation in constitutional criminal procedure is the

ee 
in 
f  
ra 
, Part I.A and note26. 
2
 
ee 
M
ERRIAM
-W
EBSTER 
T
HIRD
 N
EW
I
 NTERNATIONAL
D
ICTIONARY
U
 NABRIDGED
933 (1993)

 propriety (as
 
 
3
 
Mi 
ss 
ouri v 
.
 
ib 
, 542 U.S. 600, 616 n.6 (2004) (plurality op.).
4
 
.
.
,
Arar v 
.
A
ro 
ft 
, 585 F.3d 559, 563 (2d Cir. 2009) (en banc),
ce 
.
ni 
__S.Ct. __, 2010WL 393010 (June 14, 2010) (affirming dismissal of 
Bi
suit regarding alleged extraordinary rendition
 
El-Ma 
ri
.
Un
, 479 F.3d 296, 302-307, 312 (2007) (affirmingdismissal of suit seeking redress for extraordinary rendition based on state secrets privilege).
5
Al Baker,
w Yor 
Minori 
Mor 
Li 
ke 
ly 
o B 
Fri 
ke 
, N.Y.
 
T
IMES
, May 13, 2010, at A1.
ee 
 al 
Al Baker & Colin Moynihan,
on 
ign 
Bill Li 
ing 
op and Fri 
D
, N.Y.
 
T
IMES
, July 16,2010 (stripping database of names and addresses of people stopped and frisked to end raging debate).
6
129 S. Ct. 1710, 1722-1723 (Apr. 21, 2009).
7
 
ee 
,
 
.
.
,
Un
.
Bruni 
ck 
, 2010 WL 1041369, at *1-*2 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2010)(unpublished) (upholding search invalid under 
Gan 
as a valid inventory search);
Un
.
.
 
,591 F.3d 935, 940-941 (7th Cir. 2010) (holding that notwithstanding
Gan 
, evidence would inevitably have been discovered in an inventory search);
Un
.
Ru 
cke 
, 586 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2009) (similar);
Un
.
 
and 
, 329 F.3d. Appx. 794, 798 & n.1 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (similar); Jack Ryan,
Arizona v 
.
Gan 
 
and Inv 
ory 
ar 
f  
Mo 
or
hi 
, Public Agency Training Council,
 http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/az_v_gant_inventory_searches.shtml (last visited July 1, 2010) (notingthat one of the most frequent post-
Gan 
questions concerns inventory searches and noting that
Gan 
has no

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->