Crim 371

South Dakota v Opperman

Inventory searches of lawfully impounded vehicles do not violate the fourth amendment if they are conducted according to standard police procedures

Camera v Municipal Court

Individuals have the right to refuse entry to government inspections without a warrant

Michigan Dept. of State v Sitz

allowed sobriety checkpoints, ruling that the state's interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed the minimal intrusion on individual privacy.

New Jersey v T.L.O

School officials can conduct warrantless searches of students if there is reasonable suspicion of rule violation

O’Connor v Ortega

Government employees have 4th amendment rights at work but the government can conduct reasonable searches based on needs

Brown v Mississippi

Coerced confessions cannot be used as evidence in court

Massiah v United States

Once criminal proceedings have started, the government cannot deliberately elicit statements from the defendant without their attorney present

Brewer v Williams

Right to counsel once proceedings have begun and established that police cannot question a defendant without their attorney present

Escobedo v McCarty

Suspects have the right to have an attorney present during interrogations once they are formally charged

Rhode Island v Innis

Only deliberate attempts to elicit incriminating responses from a suspect without their attorney present violate the 5th amendment

New York v Qaurles

allowed to police to ask questions without giving warnings if there is an immediate need to protect public safety

Michigan v Tucker

If police act in good faith, evidence can still be used if the full miranda warnings weren’t given if the statement wasn’t coerced

United States v Wade

Established the right to counsel during pretrial lineups, ensuring defendants have legal representation

Stovall v Denno

Established the standard for determining the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence, emphasizing fairness and reliability

Manson v Braithwaite

A case that refined the standard for the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence, focusing on reliability factors such as the witness's view of the suspect at the time of the crime.

Hayes v Florida

Only need reasonable suspicion to compel a suspect to participate in ID procedure

United States v Parhms

court rules that prosecutors can use a suspect’s refusal to take part in an
identification procedure can be introduced in court as evidence of the suspect’s guilt

Neil v Biggers

multi-factor test to prove the reliability of the eyewitness

Simmons v United States

The court does not like photo lineups but will still allow them if they include strong eyewitness id