How to Read Case Law: A Quick Guide for Justice Students:

Citation: 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
Court: United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS)

The Court held a warrantless search and seizure of items from a private residence is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Citation: 256 U.S. 465
Court: SCOTUS

The Court held that police use of evidence that was initially seized by an independent source and then turned into police was not a 4th Amendment violation.

Citation: 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
Court: SCOTUS

Case established the motor vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement.

Citation: 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Court: SCOTUS

Established that the Exclusionary Rule applies at both a federal and state level.

Citation: 371 U.S. 471 (1963)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court established evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search is inadmissible under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.

Citation: 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court established a frisk for weapons does not meet the 4th Amendment probable cause standard; established reasonable suspicion.

Citation: 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court determined that police cannot execute a search inside a residence after arresting an individual inside the residence; only areas under immediate control apply in the search incident to lawful arrest exception.

Citation: 403 U.S. 443 (1971)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled a search warrant invalid and seized evidence inadmissible (Exclusionary Rule) because the signing magistrate on the warrant was not neutral.

Citation: 461 F.2d 1026 (1972)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals

The Court found if police had reasonable suspicion to believe evidence was being destroyed during a delay in search warrant receipt, exigent circumstances exist.

Citation: 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court upheld reasonable suspicion required to stop & ID; probable cause for arrest is not present just on refusal to provide an ID without reasonable suspicion.

Citation: 452 U.S. 692 (1981)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court upheld that law enforcement has limited authority to detain an individual during a search warrant execution.

Citation: 456 U.S. 798 (1982)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court upheld a warrantless search of a vehicle trunk, establishing if probable cause exists to search a vehicle, it exists for entire vehicle.

Citation: 468 U.S. 897 (1984)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court determined there is a good faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule; evidence obtained on a faulty warrant may be admissible.

Citation: 471 U.S. 386
Court: SCOTUS

The Court established distinguishing a motor home in terms of a residence (requiring a warrant for search) or falling under the motor vehicle exception.

Citation: 469 U.S. 478
Court: SCOTUS

The Court established that a warrantless search of containers removed from a motor vehicle days after seizure was unreasonable and not covered under the United States v. Ross (1982)

Citation: 480 U.S. 294 (1987)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court provided four factors to assist in determining what constitutes curtilage and/or open fields.

Citation: 480 U.S. 79 (1987)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled officers acting under a reasonable belief a warrant is valid are protected under the Good Faith exception; evidence may be admissible even if seized unlawfully.

Citation: 480 U.S. 321 (1987)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court established that the plain view exception requires probable cause, not reasonable suspicion.

Citation: 386 U.S. 35 (1988)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that there is no reasonable expectation to privacy for trash.

Citation: 878 F.2d 967
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals

The Circuit Court held that the use of handcuffs during an investigative detention in not unreasonable nor an arrest, if “common sense and ordinary human experience” show an officer reasonably believed the stop could only be effectuated safely in this manner.

Citation: 497 U.S. 177 (1990)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled a search was not a 4th Amendment violation when a third party gave consent to search a residence when officers had reasonable belief the person had legal standing to provide consent.

Citation: 500 U.S. 248
Court: SCOTUS

The Court held that consent for a motor vehicle search extends to any/all containers within the vehicle.

Citation: 500 U.S. 565
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that the motor vehicle exception applied to containers within the vehicle and that a search, based upon probable cause, for a container in a vehicle extended to the vehicle.

Citation: 104 F.3d 272 (1996)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals

The Circuit Court determined that, although not included in a search warrant, a search of the curtilage of property was not a 4th Amendment violation.

Citation: 519 U.S. 408 (1997)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled it is not a 4th Amendment violation for law enforcement to remove passengers from a vehicle during a vehicle stop.

Citation: 525 U.S. 113
Court: SCOTUS

The Court established there is no “search incident to citation” exception and reaffirmed probable cause is required to conduct a search.

Citation: 526 U.S. 295
Court: SCOTUS

The Court held that if probable cause exists to search a motor vehicle, it also exists for any subsequent search of the vehicle contents, including passenger items/containers.

Citation: 527 U.S. 465
Court: SCOTUS

The Court reaffirmed that if probable cause exists, a motor vehicle can be searched warrantless due to the motor vehicle exception and there is no separate exigency requirement.

Citation: 172 F.3d 1268 (1999)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals

Circuit Court upheld suppression of evidence after investigators unexpectedly found and opened multiple files of evidentiary value on a computer legally seized during a warrant; investigators must have warrant to access computer files.

Citation: 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court upheld that use of infrared (FLIR) imaging of a home by police was a search under the 4th Amendment and requires a warrant (expectation of privacy).

Citation: 540 U.S. 551 (2004)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that a search warrant that was signed by a judge, but failed to include details of items to be seized, was unreasonable and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Citation: 540 U.S. 963 (2009)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court overturned prior decisions regarding searches incident to arrest on vehicle stops, affirming police need evidence in the vehicle related to the crime of arrest.

Citation: 631 F.3d 266 (2010)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals

The Circuit Court held that the defendant’s 4th Amendment was violated after police demanded his ISP provide his emails without a warrant.

Citation: 571 U.S. (2014)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled there was no 4th Amendment violation when a defendant, who refused consent, was arrested and legally removed and cohabitants provided consent for the search.

Citation: 573 U.S. (2014)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court upheld a warrantless search of a cell phone, during a search incident to lawful arrest, was a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Citation: 584 U.S.
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that the motor vehicle exception does not allow for a warrantless entry onto a private property to search a vehicle.

Citation: 162 U.S. 613 (1896)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that any confession must be provided “freely, voluntarily, and without compulsion or inducement.”

Citation: 378 U.S. 1 (1964)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that the 14th Amendment requires all states to afford defendants the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Citation: 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled police have a burden to ensure individuals are aware of their 5th/6th Amendment rights during interrogation.

Citation: 451 U.S. 477 (1981)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court held that once an individual invokes their Miranda rights, all questioning must cease and cannot be reinstated unless the individual voluntarily initiates it.

Citation: 463 U.S. 1121 (1983)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court determined that Miranda warnings are not required unless custodial interrogation is occurring; questioning someone within a police agency is not inherently coercive.

Citation: 467 U.S. 649 (1984)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court determined there is a Public Safety exception to the Miranda Advisement requirement.

Citation: 542 U.S. 630 (2004)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that physical evidence obtained during a voluntary (un-MIrandized) statement is admissible.

Citation: 541 U.S. 630 (2004)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that Miranda is an objective test; individual characteristics of suspect (i.e. age) do not determine custody status. (Ruling overturned in J.D.B. v. North Carolina).

Citation: 565 U.S. (2011)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that an individual’s request for counsel prior to being placed into custody is not a right and not a violation of Miranda.

Citation: 564 U.S. 621 (2011)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court overturned the prior ruling of age and custody; determining that age of a juvenile should be considered in determining custody status.

Citation: 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that the 6th Amendment right to counsel extended to all state proceedings as well as federal.

Citation: 378 U.S. 478 (1964)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that the police continually ignoring a defendant’s request for counsel was a 6th Amendment violation.

Citation: 377 U.S. 201 (1964)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled voluntary statements made by a defendant, after invoking counsel, to an undercover informant, were inadmissible.

Citation: 388 U.S. 14 (1967)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause in the 6th Amendment applies to state proceedings as well as federal.

Citation: 386 U.S. 213 (1967)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that 6th Amendment protections for a speedy trial apply to state proceedings as well as federal.

Citation: 394 U.S. 440 (1969)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that the conduct of a suspect lineup cannot be unduly suggestive.

Citation: 395 U.S. 238 (1969)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that guilty pleas or confessions must be confirmed to be voluntary and defendant was aware of all rights before pleading.

Citation: 409 U.S. 188 (1972)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled again on lineups to determine suggestiveness techniques/proper procedure.

Citation: 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled there was no Confrontation Clause violation in allowing testimony of a child witness through CCTV.

Citation: 523 U.S. 614 (1998)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled a defendant’s guilty plea must be made intelligently and when the defendant is aware of charges against them.

Citation: 541 U.S. 36 (2004)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled playing an out-of-court statement to a jury is a violation of the Confrontation Clause.

Citation: 547 U.S. 813 (2006)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that a 911 audio recording was admissible because it was informational, not testimonial.

Citation: 564 U.S. (2011)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that physical evidence admitted during trial can violate the Confrontation Clause if the professional responsible for handling/analyzing evidence does not testify.

Citation: 562 U.S. 344 (2011)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that police questioning a dying victim of the perpetrator’s identity was not a 6th Amendment violation to the defendant, as police established public safety not evidentiary value.

Citation: 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled there were egregious violations of due process against 9 defendants throughout pre-trial and trial.

Citation: 297 U.S. 278 (1936)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that a confession due to police physical coercion was a due process violation and inadmissible.

Citation: 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled the prosecution must turn over all evidence to defense, including potentially exonerating evidence.

Law Enforcement Use of Force Case Law

Citation: 256 U.S. 335
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that a person, with reasonable belief they are in immediate danger of death or bodily harm from an assailant, can use lethal force to defend themselves and are not required to flee or attempt to disable the assailant.

Citation: 471 U.S. 1
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled it is unconstitutional for law enforcement to use lethal force to stop a fleeing felony suspect unless there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of violence.

Citation: 490 U.S. 386
Court: SCOTUS

The Court, among other decisions, determined that the reasonableness of a particular use of force by police “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” which established the Objective Reasonableness test for use of force.

Citation: 489 U.S. 378
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that municipalities may be liable for police actions that are the result of poor/bad training “when the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference.”

Citation: 953 F.2d 1036
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Cir.).

The Circuit Court heard a case regarding police use of force against a mentally ill individual expressing homicidal ideation, where police used both non-lethal and lethal force options multiple times and whether this was excessive force.

Citation: 19 F.3d 1143
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (7th Cir.).

The Circuit Court determined that the 4th Amendment does not require the use of a less-lethal or “least deadly” alternative, if the use of lethal force is reasonably justified.

Citation: 49 F.3d 227
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Cir.).

The Circuit Court found that if law enforcement has reasonable suspicion to stop an individual and the individual attempts to flee, the action now constitutes probable cause for a seizure.

Citation: 99 F.3d 640
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (4th Cir.).

The Circuit Court determined it was not excessive force when officers utilized lethal force against a handcuffed suspect, who still had managed to withdraw and point a firearm at them while handcuffed.

Citation: 200 F.3d 1031
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (7th Cir.).

The Circuit Court determined it was not unreasonable for an officer, who was being attacked by a suspect with a concrete block, to use lethal force despite the suspect’s psychiatric state.

Citation: 272 F.3d 1272
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir.).

The Circuit Court found it was unreasonable and excessive use of force for police to use non-lethal force (beanbag) when “there was no immediate need to subdue” the individual.

Citation: 550 U.S. 372
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled police acted reasonably and did not use excessive force in using squad cars to ram a fleeing suspect’s car off the road during a high-speed chase, causing the suspect to sustain disabling injuries, as it is reasonable for police to use force to protect innocent bystanders.

Citation: 577 U.S.
Court: SCOTUS

The Court heard and ruled on a case involving police use of lethal force against a dangerous fleeing suspect and whether an officer’s actions were protected by qualified immunity or not.

Citation: 293 F. 1013 (1923)
Court: D.C. Circuit Court

The Circuit Court ruled that expert opinion provided regarding scientific techniques is only admissible if the technique has gained reliability within the scientific community; set standards for types of science considered admissible.

Citation: 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that juvenile criminal offenders are also afforded 6th Amendment protection under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Citation: 476 U.S. 560 (1986)
Court: SCOTUS

The Court established that the 6th & 14th Amendments guarantee defendant’s right to have guilt or innocence determined solely on basis of evidence introduced at trial.

Citation: 476 U.S. 79
Court: SCOTUS

The Court ruled that racial selection of jurors during venire is unconstitutional and a violation of the defendant’s 6th and 14th Amendments.