upheld the drug interdiction technique known as the bus sweep, in which police board buses and, without suspicion of illegal activity, question passengers, ask for identification, and request permission to search luggage.
Florida VS. Bostick
the court eased the process of obtaining search warrants by developing a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine probable cause for issuing a search warrant.
Illinois VS Gates (1983)
an automobile can be searched without a warrant if the police have probable cause.
Carrol VS United States
the police received a tip that marijuana was growing in the defendant’s backyard. The yard was surrounded by fences, one of which was 10 ft high. The officers flew over the yard in a private plane at an altitude of 1,000 ft to ascertain whether it contained marijuana plants. On the basis of this information, a search warrant was obtained and executed, and with the evidence against him, the defendant was convicted on drug charges. On appeal, the supreme Court found that his privacy had not been violated-that a search did not occur.
California VS Ciraola (1986):
police officers searched the home of an elderly woman after informing her that they possessed a search warrant. At the trial, the prosecutor informed the court that the search was valid because the woman had given her consent. When the government was unable to produce the warrant, the court decided that the search was invalid because the woman’s consent was not given voluntarily. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s finding that the consent had been illegally obtained by the false claim that the police had a search warrant.
Bumper VS North Carolina (1968)
the court ruled that it is permissible for one co-occupant of an apartment to give consent to the police to search the premises in that absence of the other occupant, as long as the person giving consent shares common authority over the property and no present co-tenant objects. What happens if one party gives consent to a search while another interested party refuses? This is what happened in Georgia vs Randolph.
United states VS Matlock (1974)
the accused has the right to have counsel present at the post indictment lineup or in a show-up. There is no right to counsel associated with photographic identification
United States VS Wade
the court ruled that evidence seized by police relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate can be used in a court proceeding, even if the judge who issued the warrant erred in drawing up the document. In this case, the court articulated a good faith exception.
United States vs Leon
In a 2003 case that is called Cell VS. United States. The court set out 4 rules that guide the use of forced medication. 1) the court must find that important government’s interests are at stake. 2) The court must conclude that forced medication was significantly further states interests. 3) The court must conclude that involuntarily medication is necessary to further state interests and find that alternative, less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results. 4) The court must conclude that administering the drugs is medically appropriate.
Cell VS. United States
the court ruled that the police may not routinely stop all motorists in the hope of finding a few drug criminals
Indianpolis vs Edmond (2000)
the court established the following general criteria by which to judge the suggestiveness of a pretrial identification procedure: the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the degree of attention by the witness and the accuracy of the prior description by the witness, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness, the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.
Neil VS Biggers
the court ruled that the Bail Reform Act’s denial of bail to dangerous defendants did not violate the Eight Amendment.
United States vs. Salerno (1987)
the right to conduct your own trial (Prosce on your own)
Farreta vs. Califronia
the court held that brief, suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk driving were constitutional.
Michigan Department of State Police vs sitz
the court held that moving a stereo component in plain view a few inches to record the serial number constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. When a check with police headquarters revealed that the item had been stolen, the equipment was seized and offered as evidence at James Hick’s trial. The court held a plain view search and seizure could be justified only by probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, and suppressed the evidence against the defendant. In this case the court decided to take a firm stance on protecting Fourth Amendment rights.
Arizona VS Hicks
same as wade case
Kirby VS Illinois
With probable cause, police can search an automobile without a warrant, including any containers within.
Ross VS United States
The U.S. Supreme Court defined the permissible scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest in Chimel vs. California. According to the Chimel doctrine, the police can search a suspect without a warrant after a lawful arrest to protect them themselves from danger and to secure evidence. But a search of his home is illegal even if the police find contraband or evidence during the course of that search and if the police would otherwise be forced to obtain a warrant to search the premises.
Chimel VS. California (1969)
the police received an anonymous tip that a woman was carrying cocaine. Only after police observation showed that the tip had accurately predicted the woman’s movements did it become reasonable to believe the tipster had inside knowledge about the suspect and was truthful in his assertion about the cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled that the search based on the tip was legal because it was corroborated by independent police work
Alabama VS white (1990):
the courtroom was packed with people, including members of the media, for all nine weeks of the trial. Reporters handled evidence and took pictures throughout the trial. The Supreme Court eventually reversed the defendant’s conviction, citing the “carnival atmosphere”. The case did not lead to the exclusion of cameras from the courtroom, but some judges require that they be kept out. This is why you see sketches from the trial instead of photos.
Sheppard vs. Maxwell (1966)
the Supreme Court decided that indigent defendants enjoy the right to counsel. The court limited its decision however, to “capital case[s], where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble-mindedness, literacy, or the like.”
Powell vs. Alabama (1932):
the court articulated a two-part test for issuing a warrant on the word of an informant. The police had to show (1) why they believed the informant and (2) how the informant testimony to people who were in direct contact with police and whose information could be verified.
Aguilar VS Texas (1964)
the U.S Supreme Court ruled that forced treatment does not violate a defendant’s due process rights if it is medically appropriate and, considering less intrusive alternatives, is essential for the defendant’s own safety or the safety of others.
Riggins Vs. Nevada (1992):
the court narrowed that right. In J.L., an anonymous caller reported to the Miami –Dade police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun.
Florida VS J.L
the U.S Supreme Court distinguished between the privacy granted persons in their own home or its adjacent grounds and fields (curtilage) and lack of expectation of privacy in open fields. The Court ruled that when the police look for evidence in an open field, defined as any unoccupied or undeveloped real property outside the curtilage of a home, a search does not occur. What, then, is curtilage? It is defined as the grounds or fields attached to and in close proximity to the house.
Oliver VS United States (1984)
Basically media was allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights, which include making that public trial truly public.
Chandler vs florida (1981):
the Supreme Court forbade the practice of random stops in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that some traffic or motor vehicle law has been violated. Unless there is at least reasonable belief that a motorist is unlicensed, that an automobile is not registered, or that the occupant is subject to seizure for violation of the law, stopping and detaining a driver to check his or her license violates the Fourth Amendment.
Deleware VS Prouse (1979)
the court ruled that the police do not need a search warrant to conduct even low-altitude helicopter searchers of private property.
Florida VS Riley
: Police were called to Scott Randolph’s home because of a domestic dispute. His wife told police that Randolph had been using a lot of cocaine and that drugs were on the premises. One officer asked Randolph whether he could conduct a search of the home, and Randolph said no. Another officer asked his wife for permission, and she not only said yes but also led the officer upstairs to a bedroom where he allegedly found cocaine residue. The Supreme Court held that because Randolph was present when the police came to his home, they were require by the Fourth Amendment to heed his objection to the search; the seizure of the drugs was ruled illegal.
Georgia VS Randolph
two defendants claimed that plainclothes police officers used relatively minor traffic violations as an excuse, or pretext, to stop their vehicle because the officers lacked objective evidence that they were drug couriers. However, the Supreme Court ruled that if probable cause exists to stop a person for a traffic violation, then the actual motivation of the officer is irrelevant; therefore, the search was legal.
Whren VS. United States