Case Laws/ Police

Tennessee v. Gardner

Fleeing Felon Law- Cannot shoot a fleeing felon- Can only use deadly force if your life or someone else's life is in immediate danger

Graham v. Connor

Established the Reasonable Standard regarding use of force. Reasonable Standard can be measured by SIRF: Severity of the crime, Immediacy of threat, resistance, and fleeing/escape.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms

a U.S. Supreme Court decision which allows an officer to order the driver out of a vehicle following a lawful traffic stop. The Court decided this case on the basis of officer safety.

Terry v. Ohio

stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion

Carroll v. US

also known as the "automobile exception" police may stop and search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is carrying individuals or articles that violate the law. The search is limited to the probable cause obtained.

Chimel v. California

Incident to arrest an officer may search the person and the "area within the immediate control"

Hot Pursuit Exception

police in hot pursuit of a fleeing felony offense may pursue into a home without a warrant, when they have probable cause to make an arrest, and when the arrest was set into motion in a public place (US v. Santana).

Miranda v. Arizona

Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police when placed under arrest.

Mapp v. Ohio

Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court)

Katz v. US

reasonable expectation of privacy

The fourth amendment provides constitutional protection to persons and not too particular places. The person must exhibit an actual expectation of privacy and second the expectation must be reasonable.

Illinois v. Gates

totality of the circumstances can establish probable cause

Brady v. Maryland

the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant (exculpatory evidence)

US v. Leon

Created the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule

5th Amendment

Criminal Proceedings; Due Process; Eminent Domain; Double Jeopardy; Protection from Self incrimination

4th Amendment

Protection against Unreasonable Search and Seizure

6th Amendment

The right to a Speedy Trial by jury, representation by an attorney for an accused person

Exclusionary Rule

A rule that provides that otherwise admissible evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial if it was the result of illegal police conduct

Utah v. Strieff

-if an officer illegally stops someone THEN finds an arrest warrant, the stop is valid

-any evidence seized can be used in court

-completely contradicts exclusionary rule

Independent Source Doctrine

the doctrine that permits evidence to be admitted at trial as long as it was obtained independently from illegally obtained evidence

Inevitable Discovery Rule

the principle that evidence can be used in court even though the information that led to its discovery was obtained in violation of the Miranda rule if a judge finds it would have been discovered anyway by other means or sources

Florida v. J.L

police officers may not conduct a stop-and-frisk search based solely on an anonymous tip

Arizona v. Gant

Police may only search a vehicle incident to arrest if: The arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of search, or the vehicle contains evidence of the offense he was arrested for.

Illinois v. Wardlow

Flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, however a defendants unprovoked flight from officers in areas of heavy narcotics trafficking supports reasonable suspicion that may be involved in criminal activity and justifies a stop.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

"Fighting words" are not protected by the First Amendment

Castle Doctrine

A legal doctrine that states that homeowners are no longer required to retreat if threatened by intruders. In some states it extends beyond homes.

US v. Santana

When in "hot pursuit", police can chase someone into their home without a warrant.

Atwater v. Lago Vista

the 4th amendment does not limit a police officer's authority to arrest without warrant for a minor criminal offense (not wearing seat belts)

Maryland v. Wilson

Officers may order passengers to exit the vehicle even if there is no evidence that the passenger is involved in any wrongdoing (officer safety)

Arizona v. Johnson

If a vehicle has been legally stopped and the occupants temporarily detained, the police are entitled to do a frisk of any passenger - even if the police have no reason to suspect the passenger of wrongdoing (officer safety only)

Kansas v. Glover

officers conducted checked a license plate of a vehicle and noticed the registered owner had their license suspended. Without knowing the driver, a traffic stop was conducted revealing the driver to be the registered owner. The traffic stop was considered valid.

US v Cortez

Reasonable suspicion is the minimum level of proof necessary to conduct a vehicle stop for possible involvement in criminal activity

Whren v. US

pretexual stops do not violate the fourth amendment, as long as reasonable cause exist a traffic stop can be conducted.

Draper v. US

Probable cause exists where the known facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable person to believe that an offense had been, or is being, committed.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

The question whether a consent to a search was in fact "voluntary" or was the product of duress or coercion, express or implied, is a question of fact to be determined from the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. While the suspect's knowledge of the right to refuse is a fact to be taken into account, it is not a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent.

Arizona v. Hicks

plain view doctrine was reinforced. However you can not manipulate an object based off reasonable suspicion. Probable cause and exigent circumstances are required.

Horton v. California

No additional warrant needed for evidence in plain view. Already went through the effort to get a search warrant.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

an impartial and unbiased judge needs to issue a warrant.

Minnesota v. Dickerson

Established the "plain feel" doctrine that states that when police officers conduct Terry-type searches for weapons, they are free to seize items detected through their sense of touch, as long as the plain feel makes it "immediately apparent" that the item is contraband. If an item seized through a search is not "immediately apparent," then it can be suppressed in court.

Kyllo v. US

government utilizing a device that is not normally used in the general public to look inside a room that without it, the knowledge inside would not be known unless physicals intrusion would be considered a "search" and therefore unreasonable without a warrant.

Cady v. Dombrowski

Community Caretaking

When police have reason to suspect that a vehicle contains dangerous items, which, if left unattended, endangers public safety, they may search the vehicle and remove the dangerous item for safekeeping.

Community Caretaking

A brief and reasonable detention of the citizen or their property for the purpose of assisting them (emergency aid, health and safety check) or securing their property.

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Kentucky v. King

The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment

Schmerber v. California

The forced extraction and analysis of a blood sample is not compelled testimony and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Intrusions into the human body require a warrant

Here, the warrant-less blood test was permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to prevent the destruction of alcohol in the blood stream through the body's natural metabolic processes

US v. Mendenhall

Voluntary consent that is not under duress or coercion is not a violation of the 4th amendment.

Wong Sun v. US

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which displays the notion that evidence obtained after illegal government action will be excluded from evidence

Soldal v. Cook County

the fourth amendment was implicated, the government cannot standy by or assist regarding unreasonable search and seizure, specifically in this case unreasonable evictions.

Kentucky v. King

The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment

Plakas v Drinski

Ruled that there is no requirement for officers to use all feasible alternatives to avoid a situation where deadly force can justifiably be used

Chambers v. Florida

5th amendment - Use of forced confession is illegal because people have protection under the self-incrimination clause

Blockburger v. US

If two offenses require proof of an additional fact which the other does not, they do not comprise the same offense.

Miranda Warning

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.

Edwards v. Arizona

once suspects in police custody invoke their right to counsel, law enforcement officials must cease their questioning with regard to the current case and any other case, until counsel is present, even if the suspect later agrees to talk without an attorney present

Officer Induced Jeopardy

deliberately or recklessly escalating a situation throughout the moments leading up to the effectuation of an arrest, increasing the likelyhood that fatal or excessive force. Creating a dangerous situation.

Maryland v. Shatzer

Once a person in custody indicates their right to remain silent,

Interrogations must cease until there is an attorney present; or

there is at least a 14 day break in Miranda custody

Illinois v. Perkins

Inmates freely talking about their crimes to an undercover officer posing as an inmate are not protected under Miranda

Garrity v. New Jersey

Ruled that evidence gathered from an employee under threat of dismissal was not admissible in a criminal trial. (Garrity Warning)

Ramos v. Louisiana

Jury verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous

Powell v. Alabama

The Supreme Court ruled here that the right to counsel was required by law in death penalty trials.

US v. Ash

A criminal defendant has no right to have counsel attend a photographic lineup conducted by the government for the plaintiff.

Color of law

the misuse of power possessed by an individual who is a state actor and derives power from the government (etc: Police Officer)

O'Connor v. Donaldson

Established that mental illness alone is not enough for involuntary hospitalization -- mentally ill cannot be confined against their will if they can survive on their own

Estate of Ceballos v Bridgewater

An officer cannot use deadly force without an immediate threat to himself or others

Milstead v Kibler

Police officers are shielded from civil liability (Qualified Immunity) unless

(1) the officer's conduct violates a federal statutory or constitutional right

(2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct, such that

(3) an Objectively reasonable officer would have understood that the conduct violated that right

Okonkwo v Fernandez

A defendant official must affirmatively plead the defense of qualified immunity."

Graham v. Connor

Established the "reasonableness standard" regarding use of force and the 4 Prong test consisting of:

Severity of the Crime

Immediacy if the Threat

Resistance

Fleeing/Evading

(SIRF)

Fraire v City of Arlington

An officer may use deadly force when acting in self defense. Entitled to the defense for qualified immunity for his actions in defending his life.

Brother v. Klevenhagen

Deadly force was justified due to the attempt escape from a jail facility. (Police officers cannot do this (Tennessee v. Gardner))

Hathaway v Bazany

-Deadly force in defense of accelerating vehicle towards an officer