This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Newport News Police Department - Operational Manual
OPS-403 - CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS & JUDICIAL GUIDELINES FOR
INVESTIGATIONS
Amends/Supersedes: OPS-403 (09/20/2007) Date of Issue: 02/07/2022
I. GENERAL
A. It is the responsibility of the Police Department to conduct investigations of crimes committed in its
jurisdiction. It is crucial that those investigations be appropriately conducted within the guidelines and
requirements set forth by the Constitution and the legislative and judicial branches of the U.S.
government.
B. During criminal investigations, department personnel will follow all constitutional requirements
pertaining to interrogations of individuals suspected of criminal offenses.
C. When conducting a criminal investigation, police officers shall be cognizant of Supreme Court rulings,
including those listed below. The test employed by state and federal courts for the admissibility of a
confession is, "A confession must be voluntary and trustworthy, and it must have been obtained by
civilized police practices."
1. Miranda v. Arizona: Inform the accused of their rights.
a. The suspect has the right to remain silent.
b. Anything the suspect says can and will be used against them in a court of law.
c. The suspect has the right to talk to a lawyer and have the lawyer present while the suspect is
being questioned. [1.2.3(c)]
d. If the suspect cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent the suspect
before any questioning if the suspect wishes one. [1.2.3(c)]
NOTE: For "Miranda" to apply, both elements of custody and interrogation must be present.
2. In Re Gault: Rights of juveniles. [44.2.2(c)]
a. Juveniles are entitled to due process under the 14th amendment.
b. The suspect juvenile has the right to have his parents or legal guardian present before making
any statement. [44.2.3(a)]
3. Escobedo v. Illinois: Continuous interrogation after accused request counsel.
The critical question, in this case, is whether, under the circumstances, the refusal by the police to
honor the petitioner's request to consult with his lawyer during the course of an interrogation
constitutes a denial of "the assistance of counsel” in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution as made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby renders
inadmissible in a state criminal trial any incriminating statement elicited by the police during the
interrogation.
4. Westover v. U.S.: Waiver of rights.
Once an individual is in police custody, they must knowingly and intelligently waive their right to
remain silent and their right to consult with an attorney prior to questioning.
5. Bram v. U.S.: Confession must not be extracted by implied promises.
OPS-403 - 1 of 2– 02/07/2022Jump to an indexed page (2 of 2)