Cases To Remember

Front 1

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004)

Back 1

Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers did NOT violate the Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment.

Front 2

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1 (1971)

Back 2

Busing students to promote integration is constitutional.

Front 3

Bakke

Back 3

Brennan- Title VI had no independent meaning itself. It meant in regard to race only what the Constitution meant.

Powell didn't agree with their view of the Constitution. He argued that the Medical School's policy was unconstitutional and voted that Bakke must be admitted.

Front 4

New York Times Co. v. United
States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

Back 4

In order to exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger.

Front 5

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Back 5

Law enforcement officers may stop and frisk someone for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken or is about to take place and the subject is armed and dangerous without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Front 6

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Back 6

The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions.

Front 7

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)

Back 7

The use of the spouse's recorded statement made during police interrogation violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against the defendant where the spouse, because of the state law marital privilege, did not testify at the trial and so was unavailable.

Front 8

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)

Back 8

The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed.

Front 9

Escobedo vs. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964)

Back 9

Where a police investigation begins to focus on a particular suspect who has been refused counsel, his statements to police are excluded

Front 10

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)

Back 10

The warrantless seizure of documents from a private home violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence obtained in this manner is excluded from use in federal criminal prosecutions.

Front 11

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)

Back 11

The Fourteenth Amendment does not require that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be excluded from use by the states in criminal prosecutions.

Front 12

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)

Back 12

Military commission to try Plaintiff is illegal and lacking the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Front 13

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)

Back 13

Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts.

Front 14

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)

Back 14

For Fourth Amendment
purposes, the word “people” encompasses non-citizens who have “developed sufficient
connection” with the United States to be considered part of the “national community.”

The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country.

Front 15

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)

Back 15

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of waste left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

Front 16

United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)

Back 16

...there was no "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. He reasons that such a seizure occurs "only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave."

Front 17

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967)

Back 17

'mere evidence' may be seized and held as evidence in a trial. This finding reversed previous Supreme Court decisions such as Boyd v. United States which had held that search warrants may not be used as a means of gaining access to a man's house or office and papers solely for the purpose of making search to secure evidence to be used against him in a criminal or penal proceeding...

Front 18

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)

Back 18

Ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. The case led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment throughout the United States, that came to an end when Gregg v. Georgia was decided in 1976.

Front 19

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)

Back 19

The imposition of the death penalty does not, automatically, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. If the jury is furnished with standards to direct and limit the sentencing discretion, and the jury's decision is subjected to meaningful appellate review, the death sentence may be constitutional. If, however, the death penalty is mandatory, such that there is no provision for mercy based on the characteristics of the offender, then it is unconstitutional.

Front 20

Herring v. United States, no. 07-513 (2008)

Back 20

Evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes that are not the result of repeated patterns or flagrant misconduct cannot have the exclusionary rule used to suppress evidence. Convictions upheld.

Front 21

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

Back 21

Established that evidence obtained in good faith by police relying upon a search warrant that subsequently is found to be deficient may be used in a criminal trial

Front 22

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)

Back 22

The mandate of Miranda v. Arizona that a criminal suspect be advised of certain constitutional rights governs the admissibility at trial of the suspect's statements, not the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 that such statements simply be voluntarily given.

Front 23

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)

Back 23

Once criminal proceedings have begun, the government cannot bypass the defendant's lawyer and try to elicit statements from the defendant.

The Massiah doctrine prohibits the admission of a confession obtained in violation of the defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel. Specifically the Massiah rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings deliberately elicited by the police from a defendant after formal charges have been filed.

Front 24

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)

Back 24

Established the "totality of circumstances" test in finding probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.

Front 25

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)

Back 25

Where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.

Front 26

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)

Back 26

Because of the pervasive nature of broadcasting, it has less First Amendment protection than other forms of communication. The F.C.C. was justified in concluding that Carlin's "Filthy Words" broadcast, though not obscene, was indecent, and subject to restriction.

Front 27

Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987)

Back 27

The warrantless search of petitioner's residence was "reasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted pursuant to a regulation that is itself a reasonable response to the "special needs" of a probation system.

Front 28

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586 (2006)

Back 28

A violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule by police does not require the suppression of the evidence found during a search.

Front 29

YBARRA V. ILLINOIS, 444 U. S. 85 (1979)

Back 29

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments will not be construed to permit evidence searches of persons who, at the commencement of the search, are on "compact" premises subject to a search warrant, even where the police have a "reasonable belief" that such persons "are connected with" drug trafficking and "may be concealing or carrying away the contraband."

Front 30

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)

Back 30

The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.

Front 31

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

Back 31

An arresting officer may search only the area "within the immediate control" of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

Front 32

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)

Back 32

Warrantless search incident to arrest

Hint 32

The Fourth Amendment permits the police to conduct a properly limited protective sweep during an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.

Front 33

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009)

Back 33

Search incident to arrest

Hint 33

1) Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle.

2) Circumstances unique to the automobile context justify a search incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.

Front 34

New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)

Back 34

Search incident to arrest

Hint 34

When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.

Front 35

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)

Back 35

The Court held that "[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect," the district court's remedy was "wholly impermissible" and not justified by Brown v. Board of Education.

Front 36

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986)

Back 36

The Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to assistance of counsel is not violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured testimony at his trial.

Front 37

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. ___ (2009)

Back 37

Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional, disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.