Quizlet

Flashcards: Cases for Con. Law

Instructions

  1. Print this webpage. If you can, set your printer to Grayscale for faster printing.
  2. Fold each page down the middle along the solid vertical line.
  3. Cut along the dotted horizontal lines.
  4. Optional: Use tape, glue, or staples to hold the two sides of each flashcard together.

This will print 5 pages (5 terms/page). This box will be automatically hidden when printing. Return to Set Page

Mapp v. Ohiowas believed to have lewd material in her home and was forced to sit and watch as they went through her things - unreasonable due to exclusionary rule
US. V. Leona warrant was extablished to search his home - the warrent wasn't based off of probably cause - threre is now a good faith clause in the exclusionary rule
Katz v. USgambeling on a payphone - established that the 4th amendment is for people not just places - established the time ridden test
US. v. Whitewas conviced of narcotics by an automotated device used during an interview - it was determined that it was constitutional
Spinelli v. USsurvaliance was set up to follow him because of a tip given by an informant - the agulian test was created because of it
Us. v. Harrisit was believed that harris was selling moonshine with no taxes because of a tip from an informant it was seized - turns out the warrent wasn't rational
Chimel v. CaliChimel was arrested and the police office went through his home to look for a gun - the search was unconstitutional becasue the officer went far beyond the area that the gun would most likley be
US. v. Chadwickfootlocker with pot was confiscated and searched later - unconstitutional because no probable cause and not in the presence of the owner
Cali v. Carneya moter home was searched due to a tip with sex and drungs with out a warrent - it was permissible because the motor home was fully mobeil
Terry v. Ohiomen were walking suspiciously up and down a street several times - a cop stoped and frisked them - it's constitutional because a pat down is fine if the cop see's suspicious reasoning
New Jersey v. TLOgirl smoking in the bathroom at school - the principle searches her purse and it's ok because of the reasonable suspicion test
Miranda v. Arizonamiranda was arrested and not aware of his rights - all of the evidence was thrown out because of self incrimination
Rhode Island v. Innisinnis was taken in because he was picked in a line up - he was read his rights and still told the police where to gun was - so it was all good
New York v. Quarlesquarles was arrested and before he was read his rights he was asked where the gun was - this was unconstitutional because he told the evidence before he knew his rights
Robertson v. Arizonawas read his rights and requested a lawyer - days later a different officer questioned him alone and recieved a incriminating response - it was thrown out becaue his lawyer wasn't present - The edwards rule
Brewer v. Williamswas arrested in a kidnapping in another county, while driving back to the county where the kidnapping was the cops coaxed the location of the body out of his it was custodial so it was unconstitutional (christian faith)
US v. Ashhe was identified in a lineup and it was question whether his lawyer should be there - the 6th gives councel of trial not lineup becaue in trial people dont' really understand the procedures
Faretta v. Calihe was charged with car theft and wanted to represent himself - at first it was ok then later they retracted it and appointed him a lawyer - he thought he should get to pick out a lawyer - the common law rule was inplace and it couldn't happen
Taylor v. Louisianawas convicted of kidnapping and said that the jury wasn't fair because there was not women - it was unconstitutional
Baton v. Kentuckybugerlry - trial with no black representation which is outlawed by the 14th
Griffin v. Calichose to not testfy his guilt at his hearing - the jurrors were told to suppose that he was guilty because he wasn't there -this is unconstitutional because of the self incrimination clause
Lucas v. SC costal counselbeachfront properties - one was taken away - they didn't want to compensate but they had to
Kelo v. City of New Londondue to poor economic conditions the city wanted to turn some residential areas into commercial areas- people believed that commercial areas were not public but they are because their intentions were for the best of the economy.