Case Laws
Last updated
Last updated
Instead of recognizing all case law and creating a very complicated legal battlefield, we instead will recognize specific effects of case laws as explicitly stated below.
Terry v Ohio (Terry Stop): Permits detainment and frisk search for weapons under reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime.
Salinas v Texas: An individual who refuses to answer questions by saying nothing has not effectively invoked their fifth amendment right to remain silent. A suspect who stands mute has not done enough to put police on notice that invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent.
Pennsylvania v Mimms: Police officers may order any and all occupants of a vehicle to exit during a traffic stop. Police officers may conduct a pat down.
Miranda v Arizona: Suspect must be informed of their rights prior to questioning in an incriminatory fashion, otherwise testimony or confession extracted through questioning may be determined as inadmissible in trial. The suspect has the right to remain silent and not answer any incriminating questions without an attorney present; if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to them for free.
Gant v Arizona: Police may search the vehicle if a recent occupant was arrested only if it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest.
New York v Belton: When a police officer has made a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, the officer may search the passenger compartment of that automobile (in effect, searches incident to arrest). Police officers may conduct a search of a vehicle upon the sensory (sight or smell) detection of illegal substances such as the emission of the odor of marijuana from a vehicle.
South Dakota v Opperman: Police may conduct an inventory search of a vehicle that is being lawfully impounded.
Carroll v United States: A search of a vehicle is permitted if reasonable belief exists that evidence is present in the vehicle.
Chimel v California: The arrest of a person in his home does not allow the warrantless search of the whole house incident to arrest. Use of Force Section
Use of Force: A police officer is permitted to use reasonable and appropriate physical force (if the use of nonviolent means would be ineffective) against another person when they believe it is necessary to effect an arrest, prevent escape from custody, to defend oneself, or to defend another person from a reasonably perceived physical danger. Tennessee v. Garner (Based on):
Graham v. Connor: Excessive use of force claims must be evaluated under the "objectively reasonable" standard. Objectively reasonable force is force that appears to be necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of the event. This standard requires courts to consider the facts and circumstances surrounding an officer's use of force rather than with full-knowledge in-hindsight. Missouri v. McNeely (2013):
The Supreme Court clarified, "A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement's need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home, engage in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect, or enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause." Oklahoma v. Elizabeth Rodriguez (2013): Accessory/Association Doctrine
The supreme court ruled that Elizabeth Rodriguez would be charged with 3 counts of first degree murder, for her role in a home invasion, whereby the 3 individuals whom raided the home, were shot and killed by a resident in the home. Elizabeth Rodriguez was tasked with being the getaway driver, and played no active role breaking into the residential home and attempted to steel goods. Elizabeth Rodriguez initially pleaded not guilty to 3 counts of first degree murder, along with a number of other charges. She then pled guilty to 3 counts of second degree murder, along with a number of another offences.