Law Enforcement Landmark Cases (Case Law)

A collection of key legal cases and principles related to law enforcement practices, including standards for use of force, search and seizure rules, and rights of suspects.

Terry \text{ v. } Ohio \text{ (1968)}

The landmark case establishing that police may conduct a brief, investigatory stop and a limited frisk for weapons based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.

Graham \text{ v. } Connor \text{ (1989)}

The Supreme Court decision that established the 'objective reasonableness' standard for evaluating an officer's use of force under the Fourth Amendment.

Tennessee \text{ v. } Garner \text{ (1985)}

The ruling that prohibits the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.

Miranda \text{ v. } Arizona \text{ (1966)}

The case that established the requirement for law enforcement to advise suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before custodial interrogation.

Gideon \text{ v. } Wainwright \text{ (1963)}

The case that ruled state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide legal counsel for defendants who cannot afford an attorney.

Harlow \text{ v. } Fitzgerald \text{ (1982)}

The case that defined the standard for qualified immunity, shielding officials from civil liability unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Mapp \text{ v. } Ohio \text{ (1961)}

The landmark decision that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, preventing evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being used in a criminal trial.

Katz \text{ v. } United States \text{ (1967)}

The case that defined the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy, establishing the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' standard and ruling that the Amendment protects people, not places.

Brady \text{ v. } Maryland \text{ (1963)}

A landmark case requiring the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence—evidence favorable to the defendant—to the defense to ensure due process.

Chimel \text{ v. } California \text{ (1969)}

The ruling that established that a search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the arrestee's person and the area within their immediate control (the 'wingspan' rule).

Whren \text{ v. } United States \text{ (1996)}

The decision stating that the subjective intent of an officer does not invalidate a stop for a traffic violation as long as there is an objective, legal justification for that stop.

United States \text{ v. } Leon \text{ (1984)}

The case that established the 'good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule, allowing evidence collected with a defective search warrant if officers acted in reasonable reliance on it.

Weeks \text{ v. } United States \text{ (1914)}

The Supreme Court decision that first established the exclusionary rule, though it originally only applied to federal law enforcement.

Carroll \text{ v. } United States \text{ (1925)}

The landmark case that created the 'automobile exception' to the search warrant requirement, based on the inherent mobility of vehicles.

Illinois \text{ v. } Gates \text{ (1983)}

The case that replaced the rigid Aguilar-Spinelli test with the 'totality of the circumstances' standard for evaluating probable cause based on informant tips.

Arizona \text{ v. } Gant \text{ (2009)}

The ruling that restricted vehicle searches incident to arrest to situations where the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance or there is reason to believe evidence of the crime of arrest is in the vehicle.

Escobedo \text{ v. } Illinois \text{ (1964)}

The case that extended the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to criminal suspects during police interrogations when they have become the focus of an investigation.

Georgia \text{ v. } Randolph \text{ (2006)}

The ruling that a warrantless search of a shared residence is unconstitutional if one co-occupant consents but another physically present co-occupant objects.

Minnesota \text{ v. } Dickerson \text{ (1993)}

The case that established the 'plain feel' doctrine, allowing an officer to seize contraband discovered during a frisk if its identity is immediately apparent by touch.

Schneckloth \text{ v. } Bustamonte \text{ (1973)}

The Supreme Court ruled that while consent to a search must be voluntary, the government is not required to prove that the person giving consent knew they had the right to refuse.

Riley \text{ v. } California \text{ (2014)}

The landmark decision stating that police must generally obtain a warrant before searching the digital data on a cell phone seized during an arrest.

Pennsylvania \text{ v. } Mimms \text{ (1977)}

The case that held that a police officer may order a person to exit their vehicle during a lawful traffic stop, regardless of whether there is specific suspicion of a weapon.