Brower v. Inyo County
A seizure occurs when governmental termination of a person's movement is effected through means intentionally applied.
Court held that a violation of the 4th Amendment requires an intentional acquisition of physical control.
California v. Hodari
In order for "seizure" to have occurred, there must either be some application of physical force, even if extremely slight, or a show of authority to which the subject yields; a show of authority, without any application of physical force, to which the su
Map v. Ohio
All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment is, by that same authority, in admissible in a state court.
U.S. v. Leon
Court held that exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in a reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that was subsequently held to be defective.
Herring v. U.S.
Where an officer relies upon the validity of a warrant from another law enforcement agency and made an arrest, evidence seized incident to that arrest is admissible even if it turns out out that due to a negligent omission by the agency holding the warran
Wong Sun v. U.S.
Evidence obtained after illegal government action will be excluded from evidence. This pertains not only to the exclusionary rule but also including confessions, admissions, and other intangible evidence.
Berghus v. Thompkins
After Thompkins had been administered his Miranda Rights and demonstrated he understood them, his brief and infrequent answers during a 3 hour period did not fall under his right to remain silent.
Florida v. Powell
Ruled that the warnings that a suspect has been advised of their right to speak to a lawyer before questioning and that they can invoke that right at anytime sufficiently made clear that the suspect was advised of their Miranda Rights.
Montejo v. Louisiana
Miranda warning adequately informs suspect of their right to have counsel present during questioning and makes him aware of the consequences of a decision to waive his 6th Amendment rights.
Oregon v. Haas
A state can impose greater restriction on police activity than federal law.
Heitman v. State of Texas
The federal constitution sets the floor on an individual's rights State constitution sets the ceiling.
U.S. v. Mendall
To determine whether an arrest has taken place, the person should believe they are not free to leave.
Ramirez v. State of Texas
Following situations constitute custody:
1.) Suspect physically deprived of his freedom of action
2.) When law enforcement states he cannot leave
3.) When law enforcement creates a situation where someone feels restricted.
4.) When there is probable cause
Rhodes v. State of Texas
Handcuffing a defendant during investigative detention for safety reasons was reasonable and justified, given circumstances surrounding detention, and did not convert detention to arrest.
Stansbury v. California
A traffic stop does not constitute "custody" for Miranda purposes. Subsequent events may cause a noncustodial encounter to escalate into custodial interrogation. Custody determination is based on objective circumstances.
Florida v. Royer
Law enforcement officers do not violate the 4th Amendment if they have a consensual encounter with a person because they are free to leave or not answer questions.
Crain v. State
A reasonable person would not feel free to leave after being told by an officer, "Hey you, come over here!"
The officer's lack of reasonable suspicion for that detention made his finding of a weapon and drugs on the suspect thereafter inadmissible.
Katz v. U.S.
A person exhibits an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
The expectation must be one that society is prepared to accept as reasonable (objective)
What someone seeks to keep private even in a public setting may be constitutionally protected.