Case Law
A United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
What is Pennsylvania v Mimms?
The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
What is Miranda v Arizona?
Determined that "objective reasonableness" is the Fourth Amendment standard to be applied in assessing claims of excessive force by police
What is Graham v Connor?
The US Supreme Court held that it is a reasonable search when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes could be armed.
What is Terry v Ohio?
Probable cause is needed for a search and arrest and only a tip is not sufficient to make an arrest of a suspect.
What is Beck v Ohio?
Found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
What is Tennessee v Garner?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the municipality was not liable, as the inadequacy of police training could not be linked to deliberate indifference by particular officers.
What is Canton v Harris?
The United States Supreme Court held that a police officer may order a passenger of a lawfully stopped car to exit the vehicle.
What is Maryland v Wilson?
the Supreme Court ruled that evidence uncovered and seized during an illegal arrest could not be used in court. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
Wong Sun v US
Police Officers cannot CREATE the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the fourth amendment.
What is Kentucky v King?
This case affirmed a persons right to free speech.
What is Duran v. City of Douglas?
United States Supreme Court decision that "declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop ."
What is Whren v United States?
the Supreme Court decided that law enforcement officers do not need to get a warrant to search an automobile or other movable vehicle. Law enforcement only needs probable cause to believe the automobile has evidence of a crime
What is Carroll v US?
Exigent circumstances such as breaking up a violent fight permit warrantless entry into dwelling without a warrant.
What is Brigham City, Utah v Stuart?
Prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest
What is Payton v New York?
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.
What is Arizona v Grant?
Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
What is In Re Gault v United States?
Consensual Encounters Permitted. Says LEOs don't violate the 4th Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place by asking them if they are willing to answer some questions. Must be voluntary; Citizens are not required to answer questions if the LEO and citizen are engaged in a consensual encounter
What is Florida v Royer?
The Court held that a person had been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that she was not free to leave.
What is United States v Mendenhall?
Where there is probable cause to search and there is a clear danger that the items which are the subject of the search may be removed prior to police obtaining a search warrant, a warrantless search of the area beyond an arrestee’s immediate control is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
What is Chimmel v California?
The Court ruled that a good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applied when, as in the instant case, an officer's reliance on the constitutionality of a statute was objectively reasonable, but the statute was subsequently declared unconstitutional.
What is Illinois v Krull?
This case established that criminal suspects have a right to counsel not just at trial but during police interrogations.
What is Escobedo v Illinois?
The court held that the warrantless search of defendant's shoulder bag, which was conducted pursuant to standard booking procedures as an inventory of defendant's belongings, was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
What is Illinois v Lafayette?
This case strengthened the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, making it illegal for evidence obtained without a warrant to be used in a criminal trial in state court.
What is Mapp v Ohio?
References the validity of statements and credibility of informants for basis of a search warrant.
In this case, the Court held that the police officers lacked any reasonable suspicion based on objective fact to allow them to detain the defendant and question him. Since the seizure was not lawful, the Texas statute requiring Brown to identify himself did not apply.
What is Brown v Texas?
The court case that deals with warning shots.
What is Jones v Wittenberg University?
When a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.
What is Minnesota v Dickerson?
Police, in a search extending only to a container within an automobile, may search the container without a warrant where they have probable cause to believe that it holds contraband or evidence.
What is California v Acevedo?
Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from suit as well as liability for civil damages, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known. A defendant official must affirmatively plead the defense of qualified immunity
What is Okonkwo v Fernandez?