Hoffa v. United States (1966)
The fourth amendment doesn't protect
a wrongdoer's misplaced belief that a
person whom he voluntarily confides
will not reveal it.
Sherman v. United States (1958)
Rule: A defense for entrapment exists
where the criminal plan originated with the law enforcement officer and defendant is not predisposed to committing the crime
Jacobsen v. United States (1992)
Rule: In order to successfully convict the
prosecution must bring evidence showing
that Defendant was predisposed beyond a reasonable doubt to violate the law by
receiving child pornography through the
mail
U.S. v. Warshak (2011)
Rule: A subscriber enjoys a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the contents of emails that are stored with, or sent or received through, a commercial ISP, and the government may not compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber's ema
Smith v. Maryland (1979)
Rule: Installation and use of a pen register at a telephone company offices did not violate the suspect's reasonable
expectation of privacy and did not require the authorization of a warrant.
U.S. v. Turk (1976)
Rule: The replaying of legally recorded
conversations does not constitute an
illegal interception.
Deal v. Spears (1992)
Rule: The Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 prohibits the
interception of electronic communications without a court order unless one part to the conversation consents.
Olmstead v. U.S (1928)
ruled that wiretapping
does not constitute a 4th Amendment search. (This case was subsequently overruled by Katz, and Berger v. N.Y.)
United States v. McCreary
the district court ruled that pager messages were inadmissible
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Rule: Confessions by custodial
interrogation are inadmissible unless the
suspect was informed of 1) his right to
silence, 2) the consequences of waiving
that right, and 3) his right to retained or
appointed counsel, and 4) waived those
rights knowingly an
Yarborough v. Alvarado
A reasonable person in the suspect's
situation should understand his ability to
terminate questioning and leave.
J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011)
Rule: The Supreme Court determined that
a child's age may be considered during
interrogation because (1) a reasonable
child subjected to police questioning will
sometimes feel pressured to submit when
a reasonable adult would feel free to go,
and (2) it b
Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)
Rule: Even if a suspect is in police
custody, police officers' statements are not deemed "interrogation" unless they are either express questions or equivalent
statements which are reasonably likely to
elicit an incriminating response, and in fact elicit
New York vs. Quarles
Police may ask questions reasonably
necessary to ensure public safety without
reciting Miranda warnings, and suspects'
replies are admissible (i.e. "Where did you
hide the gun?)
Minnick v. Mississippi
a suspect demanded counsel, the police allowed him to consult an attorney and then re-started questioning without the attorney present.
Maryland v. Shatzer
Rule: The Court held that if more than a 14
day break-in-custody between the first and second attempts at interrogation occurs it does not mandate suppression of statements.
Berghius v. Thompkins
Rule: A waiver "has two distinct dimensions": 1) waiver must be voluntarily given and not the product of a free and
deliberate choice rather than intimidation,
coercion, AND 2) made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and
Salinas v. Texas
Rule: Due process prohibits prosecutors
from pointing to the fact that a defendant
was silent after he heard Miranda
warnings, but that rule does not apply
where a suspect has not received the
warnings' implicit promise that any silence
will not be used a
Montejo v. Louisiana
Rule: A defendant who does not want to
speak to police without counsel present
need only say as much when he is first
approached and given the Miranda
warnings. At that point, not only must
immediate contact end, but badgering by
later requests are prohib
Moran v. Burbine
Rule: A confession is not rendered
inadmissible merely because the police
failed to inform the suspect that a lawyer
tried to contact him, or because the police
did not grant the lawyer access, although
egregious police misconduct may violate
constitution
Dickerson v. United States
Rule: Miranda v. Arizona announced a
constitutional rule, which Congress may
not supersede legislatively