Bill of rights/Supreme Court Case

Amendment 1

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

What is another name for amendment 1

Freedoms of Society

Amendment IV (four)

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures

(the government must have a search warrant to search your property, it protects us from being wrongly accused or searched)

Amendment V

Right to a grand jury indictment for a capital or other serious crime

protection against double jeopardy

protection against self-incrimination

prohibits the taking of life, liberty or property without due process of law

double jeopardy

Being tried twice for the same crime

Amendment VI

Right to a speedy and public trial

Right to impartial jury

Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation

Right to confront witnesses

Right to summon witnesses

Right to the assistance of counsel

Amendment VIII (eight)

protects us from having to pay excessive bail or be punished in cruel unusual ways

Amendment XIV (14)

Due process, equal protection, privileges of citizens

Carroll v. US

police may stop and search a potentially mobile motor vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is carrying individuals or articles that offend the law

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.

Terry v. Ohio

Police can stop and frisk with probable cause

Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

Deadly force may not be used against an unarmed and fleeing suspect unless necessary to prevent the escape and unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officers or others.

Graham v. Connor (1989)

The Court ruled that "reasonableness " concerning the use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and take in account of split second decision making in reference to the use of force.

South Dakota v. Opperman (1976)

Vehicle Searches: warrantless search for inventorying and safekeeping not illegal. The police were not searching for the purposes of initiating criminal charges in this case.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977)

Held that police officers can compel a driver to step out of his car when stopping him for a minor traffic violation

Chimel v. California (1969)

Supreme Court decision that endorsed warrantless searches for weapons and evidence in the immediate vicinity of people who are lawfully arrested. (In this case the suspect was not home )

Katz v. US

This 1967 Supreme Court case prohibited illegal eavesdropping and extending the zone of privacy to include the home, office, person, and immediate public arena.

Steagald v. U.S. (1981)

Requires that a search warrant be obtained in addition to an arrest warrant if suspect not on his property (for each location the suspect may be located)

Draper v. U.S. (1959)

Information obtained from a proven, reliable informant is good enough to establish probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant.. (In this case the court ruled that all the above information was enough to establish probable cause for the search)

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

Police do not need a warrant to search for weapons or contraband if it is obvious through clothing, for example, that a person is carrying possibly illegal materials.

New York v. Quarles (1984)

The Court created a "public safety" exception to the Miranda warnings allowing the police to arrest an accused criminal without reciting the Miranda rights where public safety is threatened.

Hayes v. Florida (1985)

(In this case supreme court ruled that without probable cause or consent, the transport and subsequent fingerprinting was not constitutional)

Nontestimonial Evidence: cannot fingerprint if no probable cause.

Weeks v. US(1914)

"Fruit of the poisonous tree "

rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained.

Silver Platter Doctrine

permitted federal courts to admit evidence illegally seized by state law enforcement officer and handed over to federal officers for use in federal cases

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Established exclusionary rule; illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court; and made it apply to state agents

Whren v. US

said that the courts are not required to consider an officer's motive for stopping a vehicle as long as the officer had an objective basis for the stop. Because of Whren, pretext stops do not violate the Fourth Amendment.(the traffic stop was valid, regardless of the officers' intentions, and therefore the arrest was valid in this case)

Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)

Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate to further determine if criminal activity is about to take place.

Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

The validity of a warrant must be judged in light of the "information available to the officers at the time they obtained the warrant." In this case the court held that because the officers were acting in good faith and within reason the conviction was upheld

US v. Jones (2012)

Case: Arrested for drug possession after police attached a tracker to Jones's Jeep, without judicial approval

Ruling: Unconstitutional; Installation of a GPS tracking device on Jones' vehicle, without a warrant, constituted an unlawful search under the 4th amendment. In this case the warrant expired before they attached it

SITA

Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v. California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee's immediate control, in the interest of officer ...

Arizona v. Gant

Police may only search a vehicle incident to arrest if: for officer safety, prevent flight or escape, and for when a vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the suspect is arrested for.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)

(plain view doctrine)

held that the warrant authorizing the seizure of Coolidge's automobile was invalid because it was not issued by a "neutral and dethatched magistrate

Plain View Doctrine

officers may examine and use as evidence, without a warrant, contraband or evidence that is in open view at a location where they are legally permitted to be

Open Fields Doctrine

officers are permitted to search and to seize evidence, without a warrant, on private property beyond the area immediately surrounding the house

Oliver v. US (1984)

A place that has a posted "no trespassing" sign, has a locked gate (with a footpath around it) and is located more than a mile from the owner's house has no reasonable expectation of privacy and is considered an OPEN FIELD, UNPROTECTED by the 4th amendment

Kyllo v. United States (2001)

law enforcement officials cannot examine a home with a thermal-imaging device unless they obtain a warrant

Brewer v. Williams (1977)

Supreme Court overrules conviction in 5-4 vote as Justices see this as a violation against the 6th. Amendment self-incrimination. Called the Christian Burial Speech. Mr. Brewer is later tried again and convicted.

Functional equivalent of an interrogation (intentional) confession thrown out

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)

Miranda rights and then indirect conversation and then confession is legal

Functional equivalent of an interrogation (unintentional) confession legal

Kirby v. Illinois (1972)

There is no right to counsel at police lineups or identification procedures prior to the time the suspect is formally charged with a crime

US v. Wade (1967)

a police lineup or other face to face confrontation after the accused has been formally charged with a crime is considered a critical stage of the proceedings so the accused has a right to have counsel present

Malley v. Briggs

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a police officer who effects an arrest or conducts a search on the basis of an improperly issued warrant may be liable for monetary damages when a reasonable well trained officer would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant.

(Police have qualified immunity)

Horton v. California

Fourth Amendment does not prohibit seizure of belongings not specifically listed in a warrant if items are in plain view and are found during a legal search for legal items. Not inadvertent.

la v surtain

(Case) Officer must fear for his safety and believe that a suspect is armed in order to frisk. But supreme court stated that there was probable cause for the search of the back pocket .

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the flexible totality of circumstances test for determining the existence of the probable cause needed for obtaining a search warrant

U. S. V. Robinson

held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."

Schmerber v. California (1966)

Nontestimonial Evidence: warrant must be obtained for bodily intrusion unless fast action necessary to prevent destruction of evidence.