Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
58 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Chimel v. CA (1969)
|
Chimel was issued an arrest warrant for burglary; police searched his house w/o a warrant and uncovered evidence leading to his arrest; 7-2 decision that this was an illegal search under the 4th and 14th amendments; "incident to arrest" allows only a search of the immediate area
|
|
|
Arizona v Hicks (1987)
|
Police investigate Hicks's apartment after a bullet came through his floor injuring his neighbor; police saw stereo equipment which they believed to be stolen, and further investigation confirmed their suspicions; SCOTUS ruled this was a violation of the 4th and 14th amendment due to lack of probable cause
|
|
|
CA v. Ciraolo (1986)
|
An anonymous tip suggested Ciraolo was growing pot; police could not see from the street, but a fly by at 1000 feet confirmed the suspicions; not a violation of the 4th amendment bc search was done from a public space (open field); OK warrantless search
|
|
|
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
|
Terry and two others stopped by cops for suspicious behavior; "stop and frisk" determined he was carrying a weapon; SCOTUS found that this was a reasonable search; OK warrantless search
|
|
|
MN v. Dickerson (1993)
|
Dickerson saw police and began walking in the opposite direction; stopped and frisked; small lump felt, and turned out to be concaine; SCOTUS ruled that the search itself was OK, but police went too far (est no weapons when they found the drugs)
|
|
|
US v. Santana (1976)
|
Popo used marked bills to catch a heroine dealer; they followed him to Santana's home; she was on the porch when police arrived and fled inside; police followed and found the bills on her person; SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that this was a "hot pursuit" and so OK that there's no warrant
|
|
|
KY v. King (2011)
|
Police were pursuing a suspect who entered an apartment building; they smelled marijuana from an apt and knocked, heard scuffling, and broke down the door; found King (who was not connected with the initial suspect) with drugs and paraphernalia; SCOTUS ruled that search was OK bc police had not created the exigent search
|
|
|
US v Sokolow (1989)
|
Sokolow stopped at the airport after he paid for $2100 worth of airfare in cash; DEA detained him without a warrant, and a search of his luggage confirmed controlled substances; SCOTUS ruled that this was OK bc reasonable suspicion he was a drug trafficker
|
|
|
IL v. Wardlow (2000)
|
Wardlow fled from identifiable police officers; they caught up and conducted a search, finding a handgun on his person; argued that they needed specific inferences to stop him, but SCOTUS found fleeing the scene was enough
|
|
|
Olmstead v US (1928)
|
Olmstead and Green were suspected of bootlegging; police installed wiretaps without a warrant; Taft gave the opinion of the court which said that wiretapping was not a violation of 4th or 5th amendments; Butler argues for strict construction but liberal application; Brandeis argues for liberal interpretation and application
|
|
|
Katz v US (1967)
|
Katz was gambling via a pay phone; police wiretapped the booth; Katz argued that this was a violation of 4th amendment; 7-1 SCOTUS determined that the 4th amendment protects people, not places; "reasonable expectation of privacy"
|
|
|
MN v Carter (1998)
|
Carter and two friends seen by a police officer bagging cocaine through an open window; SCOTUS ruled this was OK, not a search under the 4th amendment, and 4th amendment protections do not apply to non-overnight visitors (ie police do not need a warrant to arrest Carter in someone else's home); apt treated as a commercial area
|
|
|
Kyllo v US (2001)
|
DoI agents suspected Kyllo of growing marijuana; used thermal imaging to search for heat lamps, and suspicions were confirmed; SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that this was a violation of the 4th amendment and that a warrant was necessary for thermal imaging; thermal image is not "in plain sight"
|
|
|
IL v Lidster (2004)
|
Lidster was stopped at a popo checkpoint to find a hit and run driver; arrested on charges of drunk driving as a result; SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that this was not an unreasonable search
|
|
|
Knowles v Iowa (1998)
|
Knowles was pulled over by a police officer and issued a citation; further search of the car found marijuana and a pipe in the car w/o Knowles permission or consent; SCOTUS ruled that this was an illegal search, and incident searches of stopped cars may be conducted only when the safety of the officer is at risk
|
|
|
Atwater v Lago Vista (2001)
|
Atwater was driving with her two children unbuckled in the front seat; this was observed by an officer and she was subsequently arrested; she argued this was a violation of the 4th amendment; SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that this was OK; SDO dissented saying that this sacrificed the spirit of the law for administrative ease
|
|
|
CA v Acevedo (1991)
|
Acevedo left an apt known to have packages of marijuana with a bag roughly the same size; pulled over while driving away, police conducted a warrantless search and found the pot; SCOTUS ruled that although the baggy was in a container (US v Chadwick) it was in a vehicle (US v Ross) so the search was OK; overturned Chadwick and AK v Sanders
|
|
|
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989)
|
US Customs began implementing drug tests for employees who carry firearms or deal with narcotics; union believed this was a violation of the 4th amendment; SCOTUS rules that the random drug testing was in the best interest of the nation, and that their unique position left them vulnerable to more invasive practices
|
|
|
Vernonia v Acton (1995)
|
High school athlete refused to participate in a school drug test to be on the football team; argued that this was a violation of the 4th amendment; SCOTUS rules that the state must balance the interests of the school in keeping the football team narcotics free with the limited intrusion into Vernonia's privacy
|
|
|
Ferguson v Charleston (2001)
|
After an increase in narcotics use in pregnancies, MUSC starts cooperating with police in arresting drug users; arrested obstetrics patients argued that this was an unreasonable search and seizure; SCOTUS agreed, said that "special needs" exemption of the 4th amendment does not apply here
|
|
|
BoE of Pottawatomie City v Earls (2002)
|
Tecumseh had a policy which mandated urinalysis in order to obtain admission to after school programs; SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that this was not a violation of the 4th amendment since the school has a reasonable interest in protecting students from drug use; Thomas did not comment on the morality of the drug testing, but submitted that it was constitutional
|
|
|
Safford Unified School District No 1 v Redding (2009)
|
Savana Redding, an 8th grader, was strip searched on the grounds that she might have ibuprofen; school officials checked her underwear for the medicine; SCOTUS 7-2 ruled in her favor, though opinions were all over the place; Stevens and Ginsberg argue that the school officials are liable, while Clarence Thomas thinks a child can be stripped nude to check for OTC medicine
|
|
|
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
|
Case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states; Mapp was found guilty of having pornographic images in an illegal search while police were looking for Don King, who is apparently hard to find; SCOTUS threw out her objection on 1st amendment grounds, but ruled that this was a violation of the 4th amendment exclusionary rule
|
|
|
Nix v Williams (1984)
|
Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten year old girl; he aided the police without a lawyer present, and so he attempted to have the evidence thrown out; SCOTUS rules that there is an "inevitable discovery" exception to the 4th amendment, mean that if information would be discovered (as the girls body was) regardless of the method, it cannot be thrown out
|
|
|
Davis v US (2011)
|
Searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding decisions of the courts of appeals are not subject to the exclusionary rule.
|
|
|
US v Leon (1984)
|
Leon was investigated by the police based on an anonymous tip; police got a warrant to search the premises, found illegal drugs; later a judge ruled that the grounds for the warrant were insufficient and that the evidence should be thrown out; SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that this was a "good faith" exemption to the exclusionary rule
|
|
|
Arizona v Evans (1995)
|
Instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrant-less search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.
|
|
|
Herring v US (2009)
|
Bennie Herring was arrested on an expired warrant, and in the process police obtained illegal drugs and weapons; he claimed this was a violation of his 4th amendment rights; SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the exclusionary rule does not apply to scenarios in which negligence led to a "good faith" arrest by police; dissenting opinion by Souter argued for moving away from police vs other areas of government in the arresting process; deterrence value preservation (reaffirmed in Davis)
|
|
|
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
|
The court was tasked with deciding a number of cases in which prisoners rights were claimed to have been violated; suspects in New York, California, and Arizona had been questioned in rooms cut off from counsel; none of them were told of their rights; SCOTUS rules 5-4 that police cannot use results from interrogations unless suspects told of their rights beforehand under the 5th amendment; the blood of the accused not the only hallmark
|
|
|
Dickerson v US (2000)
|
Dickerson questioned by the police and told them he had been the getaway driver for a bank robbery; argued that he had not been read his rights, and that 18 USC section 3501 allowing for admissibility of freely given confessions was wrong; SCOTUS 7-2 overruled section 3501 and said that the legislature could not overturn Miranda
|
|
|
RI v Innis (1980)
|
Popo detained Innis in relation to a robbery; on the way back to the station, an officer made a comment about hwo dangerous it would be to have a child find Innis's missing weapon; he took them back to find the weapon; SCOTUS ruled this was not a violation of Miranda, and that there was little pressure put on Innis by the police to reveal the info; step back from Miranda
|
|
|
Duckworth v Eagan (1989)
|
Eagan given a waiver to sign in connection with the stabing with the woman affirming he had no knowledge of the crime; later, he signed another waiver confessing after police told him he would be going to court; he argued that this was a violation of Miranda; SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the exact language of Miranda did not need to be used as long as suspects were made generally aware of their rights; Rhenquist argued that what was told Eagan was fairly accurate; lack of compulsion by the police, more stupidity on Eagan's part
|
|
|
Arizona v. Fulminate (1991)
|
Fulminate was suspected of murdering his stepdaughter but there was a paucity of evidence; arrested in New York on an unrelated charge, and in prison confessed his crime to an FBI informant in exchange for protection; SCAZ ruled that this was a coercive confession and so it was inadmissible; SCOTUS agreed 5-4; dissenters made issue with Rhenquists suggestion that if there had been other compellng evidence the confession would be admitted as incidental to the conviction
|
|
|
JDB v NC (2011)
|
JDB was a 13yo student enrolled in special ed classes suspected of committing a robbery; he was confronted in school without the presence of a parent or guardian and confessed; bc he was not in custody, NC argued that Miranda did not apply; SCOTUS remanded the case to the state to make another verdict, as age was an important factor in the "totality of circumstance"
|
|
|
Furman v GA (1972)
|
Furman was robbing a house when he was discovered by the police; he tripped trying to escape, and the gun in his pocket discharged killing a member of the family; he was sentenced to death; SCOTUS ruled that this case, along with one rape in GA and one other murder case in TX, ruled that this was cruel and unusual punishment; majority argued that this was a violation of the 8th amendment, but dissenters stressed federalism and retribution
|
|
|
Lockett v Ohio (1978)
|
There was an Ohio law mandating the death penalty in aggravated murder cases unless it was induced by the victim, it was committed under duress, or the accused was mentally handicapped; Lockett was accused of operating a getaway car in a murder and so sentenced to death under this statute; SCOTUS ruled that the 8th amendment necessitated the use of "mitigating factors"
|
|
|
McCleskey v Kemp (1987)
|
McCleskey, a black man, accused of killing a white officer and sentenced to death; offered a sociological counterargument that black men accused of killing a white person was far more likely to be convicted of the death penalty than any other scenario; in a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS rules that he was unable to prove systematic racial bias
|
|
|
Atkins v VA (2002)
|
Atkins was a mentally retarded man accused of committing murder; a forensic psychologist testified that he was handicapped, but sentenced to death in two separate trials; SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that this was a violation of the 8th amendment, overturning Penry v Lynaugh
|
|
|
Roper v Simmons (2005)
|
Chris Simmons, a 17yo, sentenced to death in MO; after the outcome of Atkins, SCMO ruled that the execution of minors was a violation of the 8th amendment regardless of SCOTUS; government appealed to SCOTUS which ruled 5-4 in favor of Simmons
|
|
|
Payne v TN (1991)
|
Payne accused of murder in TN of a woman and her daughter; he provided for character witnesses so as not to receive the death penalty, the state provided family testimony to the contrary; SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that since no limits were placed on mitigating factors, the state should have equivalent agency in their counterargument
|
|
|
Kennedy v LA (2008)
|
Kennedy was found guilty of raping his 8yo stepdaughter and sentenced to death; SCLA ruled that this was ok since other states had laws protecting minors in capital offense cases; SCOTUS argued 5-4 that the death penalty was impermissible in all cases of rape, regardless of the circumstances
|
|
|
Lawrence v TX (2003)
|
Responding to a weapons disturbance, popo discovered Lawrence in flagrante delicto with another man; arrested on sodomy laws; SCOTUS 6-3 argued that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home should be protected from government interference; no compelling state interest in same-sex sodomy laws
|
|
|
Cruzan by Cruzan v. MO DoH (1990)
|
Cruzan was injured in a car accident leaving her in a permanent vegetative state; MO DoH refused to remove her from life support without a court order; SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that this was a violation of the Due Process Clause, as Cruzan had not provided clear and convincing evidence that she did not want to be kept alive via extraordinary means; Rhenquist's "fundamental liberty" of life
|
|
|
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
|
Glucksberg was advocating for assisted suicide in Washington, whcih was illegal; he claimed that this was a violation of th 14th amendment; SCOTUS unanimously disagreed, saying that suicide is not a fundamental liberty; furthermore, it is a compelling interest of the state to protect medical ethics, a fundamental aspect of which is the Hippocratic oath to cause no harm
|
|
|
Roe v Wade (1973)
|
Roe sought to terminate her pregnancy despite a TX statute saying that it was illegal (w/o exigent cause); SOCTUS 7-2 held that a woman's right to terminate pregnancy falls under the penumbra of right to privacy est in Griswold, and women given full autonomy in the first trimester
|
|
|
Planned Parenthood of SE PA v. Casey (1992)
|
Pennsylvania had a series of statutes including a waiting period, parental consent, etc for women seeking a first trimester abortion; SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that this placed an "undue burden" on women, and it was a violation of due process; however, only one of the provisions was struck down
|
|
|
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
|
Partial Birth Abortion Act passed; physicians sued because it could be construed to mean a wide variety of legal abortion procedures; argued that it was a violation of the personal liberty of the mother, so a violation of the 5th amendment; SCOTUS 5-4 kept the act, as it did not substantially limit the rights of the mother, regardless of the lack of provisions for her health
|
|
|
Frontiero v Richardson (1973)
|
A provision of the armed forces did not allow female officers to claim their husbands as dependents unless their income constituted more than one half of the household's; argued that this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th amendment; SCOTUS 8-1 found in favor of Frontiero, denying the state's administrative interest
|
|
|
Michael M v Superior Court (1981)
|
A minor himself, the plaintiff challenged the statuatory rape laws of California; argued that the law was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment since there were no penalties for women; SCOTUS 5-4 sided with the state, saying that there is no natural deterrent for men from participating in intercourse, while pregnancy is a deterrent for women (as a guy, pregnancy is a deterrent for men as well...)
|
|
|
Romer v Evans (1997)
|
Colorado adopted a statute which forbade any branch of government from creating a policy that protected homosexuals, transgendered, etc. from discrimination; SOCTUS 6-3 found this to be a violation of the equal protection clause; no rational basis for the law
|
|
|
US v Virginia (1996)
|
VMI boasted a long tradition of male-only military officer and training; in response to women's requests to attend, the state created an equivalent school for women; they recognized the difference in prestige but said that there was no substantive difference in education; SCOTUS ruled 7-1 that the state had no "exceedingly persuasive justification" for having the two separate programs; RBG introduced the language of heightened scrutiny for discrimination cases; Ginsberg's magnum opus on the court?
|
|
|
Brown v Board of Education (1954)
|
In a landmark unanimous decision argued by Clarence Thomas, SCOTUS argued that separate education facilities were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment for a wide variety of reasons, especially sociological; Rhenquist wrote a memo advocating for segregation in schools, but maintained it was meant to be from his boss's POV
|
|
|
Bolling v Sharpe (1954)
|
Extended the decision in Brown to DC public schools via the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment
|
|
|
Brown v BoE II (1955)
|
in light of massive resistance, SCOTUS decides to issue a remedial decree to Brown necessitating "all deliberate speed"; however, this provided many states with an excuse to delay the desegregation process (not completed until the 1970s)
|
|
|
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenberg Bd (1971)
|
After Brown v BoE, little progress had been made, and in some areas the black population was still experiencing de facto segregation; SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the equitable powers of district courts to mandate completion of the terms of Brown were broad; busing, for example, is an acceptable tool for integration
|
|
|
Milliken v Bradley (1974)
|
In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled that interdistrict busing to solve an intradistrict problem of segregation was not constitutional; segregation, as long as it was not the effect of institutional injustices and simply reality, was not an actionable case
|
|
|
Freeman v Pitts (1992)
|
Lessened judicial oversight of desegregation, not all ares of Green need to be met to qualify as desegregated; 8-0 decision reflects court backing off from the issue
|
|
|
Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District (2007)
|
Using race as an essential qualifying factor for determining high school, even in the interest of promoting racial diversity, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment; 5-4 decision made on the basis that, unlike higher education, there is no consideration of a wide variety of factors and an exceptionally race conscious decision with little intterest in diversity other than statistics
|
