Constitutional Law

Amendments 4 through 8

- 4th Amendment: protections of property and the individual; the government may not conduct unreasonable search or seizures - For search and seizure, the government must demonstrate probable cause to have the legal authority to conduct the investigation - 5th Amendment: protections from double jeopardy, due process, self-incrimination, and presentation of the evidence to a grand jury - 6th Amendment: right to a speedy and public trial to a jury of one's peers with the assistance of counsel - The 6th amendment allows for the informing of the nature of the accusation and confronted by the accusers and witnesses - 7th Amendment: facts should be determined by juries - 8th Amendment: excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment, or excessive fines is protected in this - These amendments focus primarily on the criminally accused

Criminal law process

- Civil law is between two individuals, in criminal law the violation is between an individual and the state - Criminal issues are categorized into misdemeanors, infractions, and felonies - Prison is something someone is sentenced to; jail is sometimes someone awaiting their conviction - Violating a law, law must 1) outlaw act, 2) set penalties, 3) offense can be of common law, 4) pre-existing, and 5) precise - Actus Reus: commission, omission, possession - Most crimes are crimes of commission - Mens Rea: mental state needed to commit a crime - Strict Liability: regardless of your mental state, committing the crime is bad enough without intention - Concurrence of both mens rea and actus reus - Causation: the bodily harm, the act caused the occurred harm - For causation one will search for proximate cause, an action that occurred which is closely related to the particular event to cause the damage

Court System of the United States

- Court of last resort, generally the Supreme Court - Below that is the intermediate appellate courts, known as Circuit Courts - Below that is the trial courts, known as District Courts - You move upwards through appealing and petitioning - Trial courts have juries, and answer questions of fact - Circuit Courts and Supreme Court do not answer questions of fact, rather they interpret questions of law (judge doesn't follow appropriate procedure, individual gives bias, illegal use of evidence, the constitutionality of certain laws, interpretation of law) - Circuit Courts have mandatory review; they must look at each case appealed beneath them at least once - Supreme Court has discretionary review; they have the ability to decide which cases they field - Approximately 1/3 of Supreme Court cases come from state courts of last resort

U.S. Constitution does what?

- Establishes the federal government - Places limits of the state governments - Guarantees constitutional rights on citizens

Exigent Circumstances

- Exceptions in cases where police do not have a warrant - Scenario where police cannot do the normative warrant requirement, where police conduct search or arrest without a warrant - When police are in hot pursuit of a suspect it is acceptable to search or arrest without warrant - The permissible scope must be large enough to prevent the individual from escaping - Threat of physical or general harm - Prevent destruction of evidence - Prevent escape of a suspect

How to brief a case

- First, include the essential facts - Second, include the issue (the legal question, stated in yes or no phraseology) - Third, the holding with vote count (the answer to the issue, stated in yes or no phraseology, include name of judge who wrote majority opinion) - Fourth, reasoning for how the court arrived at the conclusion that it did - Fifth, decision, the outcome of the case (judgement affirmed, reversed and remanded, etc.) - Include the name of the case along with the year and citation - Make it apparent what court as ruling this case - May include dissenting and concurring opinions

Consent Searches

- If the owner of the house gives consent, then the police do not need a warrant

Wilson v. Arkansas (1995)

- Individual sells narcotics to an undercover cop, the individual waved a weapon in a police informant's face - Roommate of individual had recently committed arson - The police obtain a warrant, and enter the house as the door was open - Individuals were flushing evidence down the toilet - Does the Fourth Amendment's reasonable search and seizure clause require police to knock and announce their presence before entering a private resident? - The Supreme Court found it did, they did not follow the "knock and announce" policy

Minnesota v. Olson (1990)

- Labeled as an overnight guest, thus should expect normative expectation of privacy - Different from Carter due to commercial versus residential party - The courts found he held a reasonable expectation of privacy, thus his rights were violated

What is constitutional law?

- Law that deals with the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution - Composed largely of case law (previous cases decided by judges) - In contrast with constitutional law, one would have statutory law (laws dealing with legislative statutes) - Additionally, differing from constitutional law, one would have common law (English legal system, a type of unwritten legal code) - In common law, there is no written legal principle for the law, judges form precedent - Case law revolves around the utilization of precedent - Values of the Supreme Court using precedent: uniformity, stability, predictability - Stare Decisis: to stand by one's previous decisions

Procedures during a Trial

- Most criminal cases do not go to trial due to plea bargaining - Cases that go to trial are due to defendant pleading not guilty, and where there is no plea bargain present - Trial process for criminal cases tends to be fairly lengthy - Venire: group of individuals to be selected for jury duty - Juries are composed of twelve individuals, occasionally the amount may be less, with jury decisions being unanimous - Voirdire: stage at which jurors are questioned on their general qualifications, and examined for any potential bias - Peremptory Challenge: ability for an attorney to remove jurors devoid of valid reasoning - Opening Statements: prosecution goes first - Purpose of opening statements is to follow a general outline of the case - After the opening statements from both, the sides present evidence, the prosecution goes first presenting physical evidence and witness testimony - After this, the defense attorney has the right to cross examine the witness - After this, the prosecution could conduct a redirect examination - The defense attorney may motion for a directed verdict (even if all of this is true, the prosecution has not presented enough evidence to prove their claims to be validated), if this occurs and the judge agrees, the judge orders the jury to find the defendant not guilty - If this does not occur, the defense will then present their case, following the same pattern as stated before, but does not have to present evidence - The prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the individual committed the crime, in civil cases, a "preponderance of evidence" would suffice - The prosecution then can present rebuttal evidence, countering the point the defense stated - In response to the rebuttal of the prosecution, the defense can deliver a surrebuttal - Both sides move towards closing arguments, the prosecution going first followed by the defense - Judge charge to jury: define the crime and give jurors options, reminds the jury of the necessity of an individual's "innocence until proven guilty" and the necessity for the case to prove the guilt of an individual "beyond a reasonable doubt" - The jurors then retreat to a deliberation room - Sequestration: taking the jury to a hotel in order to avoid contamination of thought - If the jury simply cannot agree, the judge will pressure and guilt the group, if the group remains without a decision the result will be a hung jury

Cupp v. Murphy (1973)

- Murphy's wife was murdered due to strangulation, upon notification, Murphy arrived at the Portland police department - As he was speaking, police began to notice a substance under his nails, by which they forcefully investigated this - Is the taking of physical samples from a suspect, without a warrant, unconstitutional? - The Court distinguished the situation in stating that the detention and search of Murphy were reasonable under the circumstances, in that the evidence was evanescent and needed to be preserved immediately

The 14th Amendment

- Originally, the due process clause was only applicable to issues associated with the federal government - Protections of citizens from state governments - Incorporation Doctrine: using the protections of the Bill of Rights and applying them to the states - Rather than having the Bill of Rights apply to each state, the incorporation doctrine was applied - States may not deprive an individual of equal protection of its laws (attempt to prevent discrimination)

Supreme Court basics

- Petition to the Supreme Court known as the Writ of Certiorari - Rule of Four: only four judges must accept the case to field it - Following this, the sides are obligated to submit briefs - Amicus curiae briefs, which are arguments for outside sources for how the Supreme Court should decide - Oral arguments are then held - Judges will then vote

Following the Trial

- Post-Verdict Motion: judgement notwithstanding the verdict, replace the verdict of the jury with that of the judge - Motion for a new trial - Motion to set aside judgement

Basics of Court

- Prosecution (the government) v. Defendant (individual accused of a crime) is the name of the parties for trial courts - Appellant (the trial went wrong) v. Appellee (the court did its job) is the name of parties for appellate courts - Petitioner (listen to my case) v. Respondent (finds no purpose in the case being heard) is the name of parties for Supreme Court hearings - In the names of cases, this is the manner in which the name of the case is ordered

Reasonable Suspicion

- Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard, probable cause has a higher preponderance of the evidence - Police have probable cause if they are committing traffic violations, such as swerving in and out of the lane - If you are swerving within the lanes, this would be reasonable suspicion - The police can search for suspect,

Third Party Consent

- Reasonable use of property - Mutual use of entire property - Joint access for most purposes of every part of it

Sentencing

- Sentencing Reform Act enacted guidelines which were ranges of acceptable punishments - Many states have enacted mandatory sentencing laws

Privileges and Immunities Clause

- Slaughterhouse Cases: there are certain right that cannot be stripped for citizens (i.e. the right to travel between states) - No individual can be deprived of their liberties without due process of law - Before the government takes away your life, execute you, your liberty, jail you, or your property and take your assets, you must go through the protections of the Bill of Rights (found in the Fifth and Eight Amendments) - Due process may also include the right to a fair trial, meaning due process may include things not strictly written in the Bill of Rights - Eventually the Supreme Court would find that certain Bill of Rights ideas are not only applicable to the federal government, but some should be included in the state government

When the courts arrive at a ruling...

- The court may decide to follow the precedent - The court could choose to distinguish the case, illuminate the difference of the current case and the precedent - The court may opt to overturn the precedent; the ruling would cause the precedent to lose its validity (the rarest)

California v. Acevedo (1991)

- https://casetext.com/analysis/california-v-acevedo-case-brief - An officer contacted a member of the DEA about the seizure of a package of marijuana from Federal Express, which was to be delivered to the city the officer was in, the agent instructed to allow the intended individual to receive the package - Daze (the recipient) collected his package and returned to his apartment - The officer went to receive a search warrant for an arrest - Is a package in the trunk of a car, for which probable cause exists to believe contains contraband, subject to search without a warrant? - The Court found it does, and extended the Carroll doctrine to apply to searches of containers found in automobiles - Police may search without warrant if their search is supported by probable cause

Chambers v. Maroney (1970)

- https://casetext.com/analysis/chambers-v-maroney-case-brief - Two men, each who has a firearm, robbed a service station - Witness told police four men driving a blue station wagon, and one was wearing a green sweater, another had on a trench coat - Police found the car, within it firearms, a trench coat, a green sweater, and a business card of a recently robbed service station - Was the search of the vehicle after it had been taken to the station lawful? - While the Court found the search incident to arrest would not be appropriate, the idea of a Carroll vehicle exception was a completely different idea - The vehicle could have been searched at the scene of the arrest

South Dakota v. Opperman (1976)

- https://casetext.com/analysis/south-dakota-v-opperman-case-brief - Local ordinance prohibited parking in certain areas on downtown Vermillion - After receiving two tickets, the vehicle of Opperman was towed - Police noticed many personal items on the dashboard of the car, following the instructions of the officers, the vehicle was unlocked - Drugs would soon be found in the glove compartment, and upon the return of the vehicle's owner, Opperman was arrested for the possession of marijuana - Is property found during an inventory search admissible as evidence? - The Supreme Court decided that because of the lesser expectation of privacy in vehicles, no exigent circumstances are necessary to search a vehicle lawfully in police custody - An inventory follows an impoundment for three reasons: protection of the owner's property, protection of the police from claims and disputes, and the protection of the public form potential danger - The Court saw this a "community caretaking"

Knowles v. Iowa (1998)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowles_v._Iowa - Officer stops Knowles while driving, gives citation - Without probable cause, searches care and finds marijuana - They did not arrest Knowles until after the search - Is this a valid search? - Not a valid search, a fully-stopped care can only be searched for the safety of the officer - Two justifications to allow search to arrest: 1) disarm individual, and 2) to prevent the destruction of evidence - The officer does not know there was marijuana in the car, thus could not have had probable cause - The probable cause for speeding, does not extend to the other crimes

Rakas v. Illinois (1978)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakas_v._Illinois - Individuals commit a robbery, and board onto a vehicle

Stoner v. California (1964)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_v._California - Hotel desk clerk grants access to the police - This does not count as a consent search, as the Fourth Amendment rights are for Mr. Stoner in this case, not the clerk's or hotel's right - The police in this case, see the suspect is outside of the room, as the suspect placed the key in the mail box

Warden v. Hayden (1967)

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/480 - Robber stole money from Diamond Cab Company - One individual seeing the individual contacted dispatcher with description, dispatcher passes information to police - The police reach the suspected residence, the wife allows police in without warrant, find clothes matching description and weapons - Does the Fourth Amendment create a distinction between merely evidentiary materials, which may not be seized during the course of a search, and the instrumentalities or fruits of the crime, which may be seized? - Was the search permissible, as there was no warrant? - Justice William Brennan delivered the opinion, and found the language of the Fourth Amendment does not support such a distinction - The Court found the search to be permissible, such as an exigent circumstance, such as police in hot pursuit of a fleeing criminal - As the Fourth Amendment was meant to protect privacy, the type of property that is the subject of the search is irrelevant - Any evidence found during a valid search can be admitted as long as there was a nexus, between the items seized and the criminal behavior - Two types of evidence: merely evidential (cannot be seized by police) and instrumentalities (can be seized) - Instrumentalities of the crime would be contraband, weapons, fruits of the crime, etc. - Merely Evidentiary: basically, other evidence, something like clothing in a crime - The distinction of these types of evidence is destroyed by the court, it does not matter, the only thing that matters is a nexus in the crime

Bumper v. North Carolina (1968)

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/1016 - Police are investigating a rape case, the individual was staying at grandmother's house - Police tell grandmother they have a warrant, but they did not - The grandson was a co-occupant of the home - Similar to Minnesota v. Carter and Minnesota v. Olson - Grandmother gives consent - The Court found that as the police lied about having a warrant, that is not giving consent

Chimel v. California (1969)

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/770 - Local police officers went to Chimel's home with a warrant for arrest for a burglary - Upon serving the warrant, police searched the home, and uncovered numerous items to convict him - Was the warrantless search of Chimel's home constitutionally justified under the Fourth Amendment? - The Court held the search of Chimel's house was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments - "Incident to arrest" are limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect - Police could reasonably search and seize evidence on or around the arrestee's person, they were not allowed to go throughout the house

United States v. Matlock (1974)

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/72-1355 - Police arrest a bank robbery suspect - Matlock is I the front yard getting arrested - Another woman let the police search the house - Does a third party with control over a space have authority to consent to a search? - Were the woman's statements that she lived with Matlock inadmissible hearsay? - The third party does not have the ability to do that, but if the people are co-occupants, then they can give consent

Payton v. New York (1980)

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/78-5420 - NYPD suspected a man of murdering a gas station manager - New York law allowed police to enter premise without warrant to conduct a felony arrest - Payton arrested two days after murder takes place - Fourth Amendment provides protections for house and your affects - Police entered the home (without warrant) of the man believing he was there, but he was not, a found evidence to the crime - Similar to United States v. Jones, except with(out) warrant, and Whren v. United States, where police had probable cause - Police cannot make a warrantless arrest unless in exigent circumstance - Does the New York statute authorizing warrantless arrests and searches violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? - The Court found it did violate the Fourth Amendment because this case had exigent circumstances, as the individual was suspected of having committed a felony - If there is no exigent circumstance, the search and arrest would be invalid

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/85-1027 - A bullet was fired through the floor of Hick's apartment which injured a man living below - To investigate the shooting, police entered the apartment and found three weapons - During the warrantless search, an officer noticed extremely expensive stereos - The officers soon found it to be stolen - Was the search of the stereo equipment reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? - No, the Court found the search and seizure of the stereo violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments - The stereo itself followed the "plain view doctrine", but when searching for the serial number this was no longer following the doctrine - The police has reasonable suspicion but not probable cause - It did violate the Fourth Amendment, as they had to manipulate the evidence in plain view - The Court found probable cause is necessary to utilize plain view doctrine - Once they moved and manipulated the stereo, it was an extra search, as the police had to find the serial numbers, which were not immediately apparent to the officers to investigate if the stereo was stolen - He has reasonable suspicion, as the stereo was so out of the ordinary form the rest of the home

Maryland v. Buie (1990)

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1369 - Two men robbed a Godfather's Pizza in Maryland - One was wearing a red running suit, later police obtained warrant for the arrest of Jerome Edward Buie and Lloyd Allen, and had the home of Buie under surveillance - Police searched the house, and found him in the basement, after arresting him, the officer re-entered the house to find a red running suit - Does the Fourth Amendment prevent police officers from making a "protective sweep" at the site of an in-home arrest if they do not believe themselves or others to be in immediate danger - No, the Court held that the potential risk to police officers of another person on the arrest site must be weighed against invasions of privacy - As the arrest occurred in the home of the suspect, the police were in elevated danger, and the protective sweep was justified

Horton v. California (1990)

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-7164 - Erwin Paul Wallaker, treasurer of the San Jose Coin Club, returned home with money from a convention - To robbers confronted Wallaker, attacked him and stole the proceeds - An individual believed Terry Brice Horton, who attended the event, to have committed the crime - The warrant to search Horton's home said to only search for stolen property - Upon searching they found the weapons supposedly utilized to commit the robbery - Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain sight if the discovery of such evidence was not inadvertent? - No, the Court held the seizure of evidence in plain view does not constitute an invasion of privacy\ - First, an even-handed law enforcement, is better served by using objective standards, what and where the police search, if it went beyond the search or the warrant - Secondly, the individual's privacy concerns, the search of the policy is inherently intrusive

Georgia v. Randolph (1974)

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-1067 - Randolph was arrested for drug possession; the police did not have a warrant to search his home - Randolph's wife consented to the search, Randolph explicitly said they cannot search the home - Can police search a home when one physically present resident consents and the other physically present resident objects? - A difference in this and United States v. Matlock is that the wife had left for Canada, and recently come back - No, when one approves and one rejects the search is not constitutional

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

- www.oyes.org/cases/1967/410 - The defendant was denied the ability for a trial during a criminal case - The question was over the necessity for an individual to be provided a jury in a criminal case - The court found that the Sixth Amendment guaranteed the right to trial by jury in criminal cases - The main point of this case is over the right to trial by jury

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/277us438 - Police assumed Olmstead to be a bootlegger, thus rigged his house with wiretapping devices - The evidence utilized to convict him came mostly from the wiretaps - Did the use of evidence in the wiretapping violate the party's Fourth and Fifth Amendments? - The court found the search to be justified - The Fifth Amendment was not violated as the self-incrimination that occurred was not forcibly or illegally made - The Fourth Amendment must be a tangible thing, searching words does not constitute a search - Precedent would eventually be repealed by Katz v. United States (1967)

Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/30us319 - Charged with first-degree murder, convicted of second-degree murder - State of Connecticut appeals the ruling of the case, wins, Palko is then convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death - Does this violate the Fourteenth Amendment? - This case would create the concept of selective incorporation, certain rights being applied to the states - Two important question, do the actions of Connecticut violate the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy, and are these protections applied to the states - Cardozo had a test for how to include a right or not to; he found that some rights are essential to ordered liberty, with others being less essential - The main point of this case is double jeopardy

Adamson v. California (1947)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/332us46 - During the trial, the prosecutor consistently made the point of the defendant not commenting on the case - Is the defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against himself protected by the Fourteenth Amendment? - The court found the law did not violate the Constitution, thus did not extend the protection - The Privileges and Immunities clause only protects rights in federal citizenship, not the state citizenship - Justice Reed found that the ability to highlight a defendant's silence in a testimony is applicable very narrowly - The main point of this case is the right against self-incrimination

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496 - Connecticut prevents any use of contraceptives - Does the Constitution protect marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to utilize contraceptives? - Justice Douglas formulates the penumbras that protect for privacy - The main point of this case is the right to privacy

Katz v. United States (1967)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35 - Katz was suspected of illegal gambling practices and using a phone to do so - An eavesdropping mechanism was left outside of a public phone booth - Does the Fourth Amendment protect individuals from unreasonable search and seizures thus requiring a warrant to wiretap a public pay phone? - The court found it should protect the individual - "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places"

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 - Three individuals looked to be preparing to commit a robbery, a non-uniformed police officer caught them - Officer then encounters them, and conducts a pat down - Was the search and seizure of Terry and the others a violation of the Fourth Amendment? - The court holds that this type of preliminary stop is permissible, "limited protected search"

Adams v. Williams (1972)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-283 - An individual stated to a nearby police officer of an individual who was said to have drugs and a weapon - The officer removed the man's firearm, which was not visible from outside of the car, and found heroin - Does the Fourth Amendment allow for an officer, acting off of a tip, to approach and person and remove a concealed weapon? - The court found this was reasonable as the tip was accurate

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-430 - Individual contacts law enforcement on the knowledge of two people selling drugs from their home - After observing the operations of drug selling, police attain a warrant - Upon entering the house, marijuana, weapons, and other contraband were discovered - The question of the two-prong test came into question; many saw it as too rigid - The Spinelli Test holds you can have probable cause for a search warrant if two requirements are met: 1) demonstrate in the anonymous tip of a basis of knowledge, and 2) establishment of the veracity of the informer, trustworthiness, or reliability of information - The court moves from the Spinelli Test and utilizes the totality of the circumstances - Probable cause is the center of this argument

Oliver v. United States (1984)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-15 - Does the open field doctrine apply when officers knowingly enter privately owned fields without warrants? - Addition to the right of privacy? - Discusses the difference between curtilage and open field - The case carefully examines the Fourth Amendment, and what constitutes a search

Florida v. Bostick (1991)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1990/89-1717 - Police entered a bus, and search an individual's bag finding drugs after permission was granted - Bostick believed the evidence was illegally found - Is the acquisition of evidence during a random bus search, conduct following the individual's consent, a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unconstitutional search and seizure? - The idea of "free to leave" causing a noticeable contrast between an attempted search while walking down the sidewalk, versus sitting on a bus - Many justices found this system to be coercive, the police blocking the aisle, trapping the seated passengers, and standing over them - The Supreme Court's holding is not based on the idea of it being a seizure, rather the applicability of a per se rule, meaning anytime police enter a bus, it is a seizure no matter what

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-2019 - Police stop individual was curious activities outside of a drug house - Police assumed suspicious activity due to individual turning the other way - During a pat down, drugs were found, this evidence was attempted to be suppressed by the defendant - The court found an extremely limited search was admissible - However, a Terry stop is only to search for weapons

Ornelas v. United States (1996)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5257 - Following suspicious activity, cocaine was discovered in an individual's car - Should courts use a "de novo" standard in determining if police search conducted without a warrant was based on reasonable suspicion and probable cause?

Whren v. United States (1996)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841 - Police sport parked car in a high drug area - Car speeds off upon the approach of the police - The police utilize the violation of a specific traffic law to conduct a search - Did the officers conduct an unreasonable search and seizure? - The court found that as long as the police held a reasonable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, they may stop the vehicle.

Minnesota v. Carter (1998)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1998/97-1147 - Law enforcement spotted an individual with cocaine - During court proceedings, individuals worked to suppress cocaine evidence, as the assumption was the officer's initial observation was an unreasonable search and seizure - Do household visitors have the same protections against unreasonable search and seizures as do residents? - The court said no, individuals who visit someone's house for a short period of time do not have the same protections against unreasonable search and seizures as do residents

Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-1036 - A man was holding an opaque bag in a high-drug traffic area - Once the individual spots the officers, he flees - The police conducted a pat down, and found a handgun - Is a person's sudden and unprovoked flight from identifiable police officers, patrolling a high crime area, sufficiently suspicious to justify the officers' stop of that person? - The gun was found in the person's bag - The Supreme Court found this to be sufficiently suspicious

Florida v. J.L. (2000)

- www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-1993 - Because the case is in regards to the actions of a minor, the court does not disclose the full name - Police receive a tip of an individual with a firearm - The individual was said to be wearing a plaid shirt, the individual would match the description - The defendant wished to suppress the evidence of the firearm as the police had no warrant or reasonable suspicion - The Supreme Court does not believe it to be reasonable suspicion, because the tip cited no criminal activity

Kyllo v. United States (2001)

- www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508 - Assumption of Kyllo was growing marijuana within his home - Law enforcement utilized a thermal imaging mechanism - An eventual search based on the thermal imaging found marijuana in his home - Does the use of thermal-imaging to detect heat within a home constitute the idea of an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment? - The court found there was a constitutional violation

Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Court of Nevada (2004)

- www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-5554 - Nevada had a law allowing for the police to request an identification for any reason - It is illegal to give your identity to the police - Vagrancy is the crime of simply walking about for no reason - In Brown v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled it was not allowed for the law to enforce individuals to give police their identity for any reason - Did Hiibel's arrest and conviction for not telling police officer his name violate his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure? - The Supreme Court found it to be acceptable as it was based on reasonable suspicion

United States v. Jones (2012)

- www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-1259 - A tracking device was placed on the vehicle of Jones - Did the warrantless use of a tracking device to monitor movements on public streets violate Jones' Fourth Amendment? - The court found this was unconstitutional

Florida v. Jardines (2013)

- www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-564 - Law enforcement uses a K9 to search the curtilage for the scent of marijuana, utilizing this information found by the dog to receive a warrant - Is a drug sniffing dog at the curtilage of a home violating a Fourth Amendment search for probable cause? - The court found that the search was unconstitutional, as individuals generally invite the public onto the curtilage of a home, and the police do not possess this privilege - Scalia finds there is a customary invitation to the public to the front door, however police do not possess the same privilege

Due Process Clause

14th amendment clause stating that no state may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

Incorporation

A process that extended the protections of the Bill of Rights against the actions of state and local governments

Plain View Cases

Arizona v. Hicks Horton v. California

Vehicle Cases

Chambers v. Maroney South Dakota v. Opperman California v. Acevedo

Search Incidents to Arrest Cases

Chimel v. California Knowles v. Iowa Cupp v. Murphy

Seizure Cases

Florida v. Bostick

Right to Privacy Cases

Griswold v. Connecticut

Probable Cause Cases

Illinois v. Gates Whren v. United States Ornelas v. United States

Informant Cases

Lewis v. United States Hoffa v. United States

Protective Sweeps Cases

Maryland v. Buie

Search Cases

Oliver v. United States Olmstead v. United States Katz v. United States Kyllo v. United States United States v. Jones Florida v. Jardines

Incorporation Cases

Palko v. Connecticut Adamson v. California Duncan v. Louisiana

Standing Cases

Rakas v. Illinois Minnesota v. Olson Minnesota v. Carter

Consent Search Cases

Stoner v. California Bumper v. North Carolina United States v. Matlock Georgia v. Randolph

Reasonable Suspicion Cases

Terry v. Ohio Adams v. Williamson Minnesota v. Dickerson Florida v. J.L. Illinois v. Wardlow Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District

Selective Incorporation

The process by which provisions of the Bill of Rights are brought within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applied to state and local governments.

Right to Privacy

The right to a private personal life free from the intrusion of government.

Entrapment Cases

United States v. Russell

Exigent Circumstances Cases

Warden v. Hayden Payton v. New York

Warrant Requirement and Exceptions Cases

Wilson v. Arkansas

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions Cases

Wolf v. Colorado Mapp v. Ohio United States v. Leon Nix v. Williams

Reasonable Suspicion

any information that points to illegal activity and may include rumor, tips, and anonymous telephone calls.

Probable Cause

reasonable cause for issuing a search warrant or making an arrest; more than mere suspicion