1.
Aguilar v Texas: Resulted in a two prong test: 1.)Tests the reliability of information, 2.) Reliability of the Informant
2.
Arizona v Evans: Clerical Error: police officers could not be held responsible for a clerical error of a court worker. It assumes that the police officer worked in good faith.
3.
Block v Rutherford: Prison officials have the right to not permit family/friends to visit
4.
California v Greenwood: Trash Can Rule: garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
5.
Carroll v United States: Automobile Exception: Held that automobiles, being highly mobile, may be searched without a warrant provided there is probable cause
6.
Chimel v California: Immediate vicinity: supreme court decision that endorsed warrantless searches for weapons and evidence in the immediate vicinity of people who are lawfully arrested
7.
Crawford v Washington: Cross Examination Required: Decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that cross-examination is required to admit prior testimonial statements of witnesses that have since become unavailable.
8.
Cruz v Beto: Right to practice Religion in Jail: court upheld a Free Exercise claim on the basis of the allegations that the state of Texas had discriminated against a Buddhist prisoner by "denying him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his Buddhist faith comparable to that offered other prisoners adhering to conventional religious precepts."
9.
Escobedo v Illinois: Right to counsel/attorney: another important Warren Court decision. Here the court held that any defendant who asked for a lawyer had to have one granted to him- or any confession garnered after that point would be inadmissible in court
10.
Harris v U.S.: plain view doctrine: anyobjects in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in that position to have that plain view
11.
Illinois v Gates: Totality of circumstance: judge should look at everything involved, totality of circumstance, and decide if there is enough to issue a warrant
12.
Illinois v Wardlow: Headlong Flight: In a high crime area, running away(headlong flight) can result in reasonable suspicion and police may give chase and conduct a pat down search/ search and seize
13.
Katz v United States: 4th Amendment wherever you go: Court found that a public telephone booth is protected by the 4th amendment -- gvt had put a listening device on it and the court said that we expect privacy in the booth
14.
Mapp v Ohio: Evidence that is obtained illegally may not be used against a person in court. This is known as the "exclusionary rule".
15.
Maryland v Buie: officers may search the suspect and the adjoining space region incident to a lawful arrest; if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that there is hidden danger present, officers may conduct a protective sweep of the area, but it is only to be a cursory search for people and may last no longer than it takes to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger
16.
Maryland v Wilson: Motorists and passengers may be ordered out of a stopped vehicle in for the safety of the officer and any evidence resulting in theis may be used in court.
17.
McKeiver v Pennsylvania: Juvenilles do not have the Constitutional right to a trial by jury.
18.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts: Forensic Court Rule: a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist. Also gives the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection
19.
Minnesota v Carter: In accordance with the Fourth Amendment, do household visitors have the same protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as do residents or overnight social guests? NO!
20.
Minnesota v Dickerson: Immediatly Apparent: If during a pat down, an officer touches contraband, it is immediate apparent, can seize it, same considerations as plain view, court now allowing some doubt
21.
Minnesota v Olson: • The US Supreme Court extended the protection against warrantless searches to overnight guests residing in the home of another.
• The capacity to claim the protection of the fourth amendment depends on whether the person who makes the claim has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched.
22.
Miranda v Arizona: Miranda Rights: 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.
23.
New York v Quarles: "Public safety" exception to Miranda Rule: Police officer asked suspect about gun before Miranda. Gun was admitted as evidence in court.
24.
Procunier v Martinez: Prison officials have the right to censor prison mail.
25.
Terry v Ohio: Stop and Frisk: a stop and frisk search may be conducted when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is now or is about to engage in criminal behavior
26.
United Stated v Knights: Court ruled that the search authority of probation/parole officers might be extended to police officers in certain situations
27.
United States v Bagley: Disclosure of Evidence: Prosecutors are required to diclose all evidence that the defense request
28.
United States v Leon: illegally obtained evidence may be used in a trial if it was gathered in food faith without violating the principles of the Mapp decision
29.
Wilson v Arkansas: Knock and Announce: even when armed with a warrant, the police generally must "knock and announce" before entering a home
30.
Wyoming v Houghton: was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of a passenger's container(Purse/Bag) capable of holding the object of a search for which there is probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but justified under the automobile exception as an effect of the car.
