Crim Pro Cases

Powell v. Alabama

• Facts:

• Holding: Due process requires that criminal defendants have the right to counsel both at trial and in the time leading up to trial when consultation and preparation take place.

• Topic: Introduction

Brown v. Mississippi

• Facts:

• Holding: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that state action be consistent with fundamental principles of liberty and justice.

• Topic: Introduction

Weeks v. US

• Facts:

• Holding: The United States and federal officials are prohibited from executing unreasonable searches and seizures upon people.

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule

Wolf v. Colorado

• Facts:

• Holding: It is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for state actors to gather evidence through unreasonable searches and seizures, but such evidence need not be excluded from state criminal proceedings.

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule

Mapp v. Ohio

• Facts:

• Holding: Evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings.

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule

Katz v. US

• Facts:

• Holding: Fourth Amendment guarantees apply no matter where a search or seizure takes place.

• Topic: Search

US v. White

• Facts:

• Holding: The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures does not protect people from their misplaced expectations of trust, and therefore there is no Fourth Amendment search and seizure if the person the defendant is speaking with is secretly a government agent or an informant wearing a wire and recording what is being said.

• Topic: Search

Kyllo v. US

• Facts:

• Holding: Law enforcement’s use of sense-enhancing technology to see details of a private home that would not be discoverable without physically entering the home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

• Topic: Search

US v. Jones

• Facts:

• Holding: The warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of an individual’s vehicle in order to track the person’s movements on public streets constitutes an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

• Topic: Search, Seizure

Florida v. Jardines

• Facts:

• Holding: Using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of the home is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

• Topic: Search, Seizure

US v. Karo

• Facts:

• Holding: (1) A party unknowingly receiving a container containing a tracking device does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. (2) The continued monitoring of a tracking device inside multiple private places constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

• Topic: Search, Seizure

Carpenter v. US

• Facts:

• Holding: (1) Accessing historical cell-phone records that comprehensively show a user’s movements constitutes a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. (2) A search to obtain records of cell-site location information generally requires a warrant based on probable cause.

• Topic: Search, Probable Cause

Spinelli v. US

• Facts:

• Holding: An affidavit that lacks sufficient detail to explain why an informant is reliable and how he came to his conclusions does not provide the necessary probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

• Topic: Search, Probable Cause

Illinois v. Gates

• Facts:

• Holding: A warrant application satisfies the Fourth Amendment probable-cause requirement so long as it establishes a substantial basis for concluding that a search will uncover evidence of wrongdoing.

• Topic: Search, Probable Cause

Johnson v. US

• Facts:

• Holding: The Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement officers present a warrant, received from a neutral magistrate, before they can search an individual’s premises.

• Topic: Search, Valid Warrants

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. NY

• Facts:

• Holding: A warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, based upon probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and it must describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

• Topic: Search, Valid Warrants

Richards v. Wisconsin

• Facts:

• Holding: The Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement incorporates the common-law rule that police entering a home must knock and announce their identity and purpose before attempting forcible entry, unless exigent circumstances exist and to do so would undermine law-enforcement interest.

• Topic: Search, Valid Warrants

Warden v. Hayden

• Facts:

• Holding: (1) The exigent-circumstances exception permits officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon to enter and search a home without a warrant. (2) The Fourth Amendment permits officers to seize mere evidence of a crime that is not a fruit of a crime, an instrumentality of a crime, or contraband.

• Topic: Exigent Circumstances, Searches Incident to Arrest

Kentucky v. King

• Facts:

• Holding: The exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to an officer-created exigency if the exigency does not arise from the officer’s unreasonable or unconstitutional conduct.

• Topic: Exigent Circumstances, Searches Incident to Arrest

Chimel v. California

• Facts:

• Holding: Incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search of the area in possession and control of the person under arrest is permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

• Topic: Exigent Circumstances, Searches Incident to Arrest

Riley v. California

• Facts:

• Holding: Under the Fourth Amendment, the government may not conduct a warrantless search of the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest absent exigent circumstances.

• Topic: Search Incident to Arrest

New York v. Belton

• Facts:

• Holding: Incident to a lawful arrest, the police may search the area within the arrestee’s immediate control.

• Topic: Search Incident to Arrest

Arizona v. Gant

• Facts:

• Holding: Police may search a vehicle after a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe that crime-related evidence is located in the vehicle.

• Topic: Search Incident to Arrest

Whren v. US

• Facts:

• Holding: Except regarding inventory searches and administrative inspections, if probable cause of illegal conduct exists, an officer’s true motive for searching or detaining a person does not negate the constitutionality of the search or seizure.

• Topic: Pretextual Stops & Cars

Chambers v. Maroney

• Facts:

• Holding: A warrantless search of a car made at a police station is constitutional if there is probable cause to believe that the car contains items that the officers are entitled to seize.

• Topic: Pretextual Stops & Cars

California v. Carney

• Facts:

• Holding: Under the Fourth Amendment, a vehicle that can be readily moved and that has a reduced expectation of privacy due to its use as a licensed motor vehicle may be searched without a warrant provided probable cause exists.

• Topic: Pretextual Stops & Cars

US v. Chadwick

• Facts:

• Holding: The Fourth Amendment requires officers to obtain a search warrant before searching a locked trunk that is in law enforcement’s possession and likely contains contents that will not degrade before a warrant may be obtained.

• Topic: Pretextual Stops & Cars

California v. Acevedo

• Facts:

• Holding: The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless searches of containers found in automobiles provided the police have probable cause that the container contains contraband.

• Topic: Automobile Exception; Plain View and Plain Touch

Horton v. California

• Facts:

• Holding: If the police have a legal right to be where they are and they find incriminating evidence whose incriminating character is immediately apparent, the police may seize the evidence without a warrant under the plain-view doctrine.

• Topic: Automobile Exception; Plain View and Plain Touch

Arizona v. Hicks

• Facts:

• Holding: For a warrantless search or seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the plain-view doctrine can be invoked to search or seize evidence only if the police have probable cause as to the evidence’s incriminating character.

• Topic: Automobile Exception; Plain View and Plain Touch

Terry v. Ohio

• Facts:

• Holding: If an officer observes unusual conduct that reasonably leads him to assume that criminal activity is afoot and that the people he is interacting with are armed, the police officer may conduct a limited search for weapons.

• Topic: Terry Stops

Floyd v. City of NY

• Facts:

• Holding: A police-department policy that allows officers to make Terry stops is impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment if it is applied in an intentionally racially discriminatory manner.

• Topic: Terry Stops

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

• Facts:

• Holding: A person’s consent to a search can be voluntary even if the person did not know that consenting was optional.

• Topic: Consent

Georgia v. Randolph

• Facts:

• Holding: The police may not enter a home without a warrant to search for evidence if they obtain consent from an occupant but a cooccupant is present and objects to the search.

• Topic: Consent

Illinois v. Rodriguez

• Facts:

• Holding: Under the Fourth Amendment, the police may enter a home without a warrant if they reasonably believe the person who consents to their presence has the authority to do so.

• Topic: Consent

Dunaway v. New York

• Facts:

• Holding: Except in the case of temporary stops on the street, for which the police need only have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the police may only seize a citizen based upon probable cause.

• Topic: After Terry, Reasonable Suspicion; Protective Sweep and Special Needs Overview

US v. Mendenhall

• Facts:

• Holding: For Fourth Amendment purposes, a person is seized only if the surrounding circumstances would cause a reasonable person to believe she was not free to leave.

• Topic: After Terry, Reasonable Suspicion; Protective Sweep and Special Needs Overview

California v. Hodari D.

• Facts:

• Holding: A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs if the police exercise physical force over a subject or if a subject submits to an officer’s show of authority.

• Topic: After Terry, Reasonable Suspicion; Protective Sweep and Special Needs Overview

White

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: After Terry, Reasonable Suspicion; Protective Sweep and Special Needs Overview

Illinois v. Wardlow

• Facts:

• Holding: A police officer may stop and frisk a citizen on the street if he has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and may pose a threat to the officer.

• Topic: After Terry, Reasonable Suspicion; Protective Sweep and Special Needs Overview

Maryland v. Buie

• Facts:

• Holding: Incident to an arrest, the police may conduct a protective sweep of a premises based on reasonable suspicion that other people who pose a threat are in the building, provided the search is limited to those areas where a person may be hiding.

• Topic: After Terry, Reasonable Suspicion; Protective Sweep and Special Needs Overview

TLO

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Protective Sweep, Special Needs, Border, Airport

Sitz

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Protective Sweep, Special Needs, Border, Airport

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond

• Facts:

• Holding: A suspicionless roadside checkpoint established for the purpose of deterring general criminal activity is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.

• Topic: Protective Sweep, Special Needs, Border, Airport

Jones

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Standing, Exclusionary Rule

Rakas

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Standing, Exclusionary Rule

Carter

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Standing, Exclusionary Rule

Murray

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Standing, Exclusionary Rule

Wong Sun

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule

Strieff

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule

Leon

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule

Hudson

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule Conclusion; Voluntariness and Confessions

Herring

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule Conclusion; Voluntariness and Confessions

Davis

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule Conclusion; Voluntariness and Confessions

Jamison

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Exclusionary Rule Conclusion; Voluntariness and Confessions

Hector B.

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Lisenba

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Spano

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Bram

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Miranda

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Berkemer

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Innis

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Butler

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Berghuis

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Edwards

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Fifth Amendment & Miranda

Quarles

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Political Reaction to Miranda

Elstad

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Political Reaction to Miranda

Dickerson

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Political Reaction to Miranda

Massiah

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Right to Counsel

Brewer

• Facts:

• Holding:

• Topic: Right to Counsel