Arizona vs. Evans
Seizures made in "good faith" based on computer information at the time of the arrest are valid even if the computer information is later found to be an error
U.S. vs. Mendenall
A person has been siezed within the meaning of the admendment only if "in view of all circumstances surrounding the incident a person would think he couldnt leave
Chimel vs. California
Search incident to an arrest
- Searches incident to an arrest are limited to the person arrested and whats in the immediate reach of the person
Silverthorne lumber company vs. U.S.
Fruit of poisonous tree doctrine" (evidence taken from illegally siezed evidence cannot be used in court
Weeks vs. U.S.
Warrentless seizure of items from a private residence cannot be used in a criminal conviction
U.S. vs. Leon
Exclusionary rule/good faith exception
-allowed evidence that officers seized in " reasonable good faith" to be used in court
Mapp vs. Ohio
Applied the exclusionary rule at the state level
Georgia vs. Randolph
Officers may not conduct a search of a home if a resident says they may and a different resident says they may not
Harris vs. U.S.
Plain view doctrine
-objects that fall into the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subjet to siezure and may be used in court or arrest
U.S. vs. Irizarry
Law enforcement officers cannot move objects to gain a view of objects otherwise hidden from view
Terry vs. Ohio
Emergency searches of persons, property, and emergency entry
-established officers may stop and frisk for weapons based on reasonable suspission
Smith vs. Ohio
Individuals have the right to protect their personal belongings from unwarrented police inspection
U.S. vs. Sokolow
A person may be held for a brief detention for investigation purposes are evaluated according to the totality of the circumstances
California vs. Hodari
Suspects who run from police and throw away evidence, that evidence can be used for an arrest based on the evidence and its incriminating nature
Wilson vs. Arkansas
Officers must generally knock and announce their entry before entering the building even if they have a search warrent
Richard vs. Winsconsin
A no knock entry is justified if officers have a reasonable suspision that it would be dangerous or inhibit gaining evidence
Moran vs. Burbine
Suspects may legally waive their miranda rights through a voluntarally/knowingly educated decision
Doyal vs. Ohio
Suspects post miranda silence cannot be used against him/her in trial
Nix vs. Williams
Inevitable discovery rule
-evidence even if gathered inappropriatly can be used if it would have inevitably been discovered in the normal course of events
New York vs. Quarels
Public saftey rule
-Considerations of public safety override the need for rights advisement before limited questioning that focuses on the need to prevent future harm
Rock vs. Zimmerman
Excited utterance of voluntary statements are admmisable(can be used) in court
Hayes vs. Florida
Right to refuse finger printing
Winston vs. Lee
Law enforcement cannot make you get surgery unless its a life threatening circumstance
Scherbur vs. California
Warrents must be obtained for body intrustions
U.S. vs. Montoya De Hernandez
Warrants are required for suspect body cavity searches
Olmstead vs. U.S.
Conversations overheard through a wire tap without a warrant cannot be used in court
Lee vs. U.S. / Lopez vs. U.S.
Evidence obtained by recording devices on the body of an undercover agent or informant can be used in court
Berger vs. New York
Wiretaps and bugs authorized under state law require a warrant
Katz vs. U.S.
Electronically listening to and recording conversations at a public phone booth without a warrant violates the right to privacy
U.S. vs. Scott
Requires that officers must make every reasonable effort to mentor conversations specifically related to the criminal activity investigation
Lee vs. Florida
Applied the federal communication act to state cases (evidence of phone conversations obtained by wiretap without a warrant cannot be used in court
Brighams city vs. Stuart
As an officer if you believe someone is injured you can enter a building without a warrant
U.S. vs. Grubbs
Allows officers to get an anticipatory search warrant meaning you have enough information to believe evidence of a crime will be present on that specific date
Emergency searches of a person without a warrant
Probable cause at the time of the search to believe there is/was evidence concealed on the person, believe an emergency threat of destruction of evidence of search, officer no prior opportunity to obtain a warrant, the action was no greater necessary to e
Carrol vs. U.S.
Warrentless searches of vehicles
- Warrentless searches of a vehicle is authorized based on reasonable suspision if an immediate risk exist
Preston vs. U.S.
Searches of impounded vehicles require a warrant unless the search is undertaken for inventorring or safe keeping of possessions
U.S. vs. Ross
If probable cause justifies the serch of a lawfully stopped vehicle it justifies the searching of every part of that vehicle and everything in it
Illinois vs. Caballes
Drug sniffing dogs used during routine and lawful traffic stop can be used during the stop and what the dog finds can be used for arrest/ in court
Michigan State vs. Sitz
Highway sobriety check points are able to be used in court
Indiannopolis vs. Edlun
Narcotic checks on the highway cannot be used in court
National treasure emploee union vs. Van Robb / Skinner vs. Railway labor executives
The need to ensure public saftey provides a compelling intrest that overrides individual rights to privacy permitting suspisionless searches
Kyllo vs. U.S.
High techonology services
- The use of a device that is not in general public use to explore the details of a private home in which those details would otherwise be unknown without physical intrustion is a 4th admendment search and must have a warrant
Agular vs. Texas
1) The source of the informants information must be clear
2) Law enforcement officer has reasonable believe that information is true
U.S. DOJ vs. Landon
The identity of an informant can be kept secret but only if the informant has been told explicitly by officers it will be
Interrogation
Is only behavior by the police that the police should know is likely to illicet incriminating responses from the suspect
Brown vs. Mississippi
Physical abuse cannot be used to illicit a confession
Ashcraft vs. Tennesse
Tactics used by law enforcement officers that fall short of physical abuse but none the less pressure subjects into devulging information is allowed
Leyra vs. Donno
Use of professional skills and psychological manipulation to gain confessions are banned from the U.S.
Miranda vs. Arizona
Miranda requires law enforcement officers to advised suspects of their rights to council and rights against self-incrimination