This cheat sheet summarizes key police case laws impacting law enforcement procedures in the United States. It's crucial to remember that case law is complex and constantly evolving. This information is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Always consult with legal counsel for guidance on specific situations.
Disclaimer: This cheat sheet is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction, and this information may not be applicable in all situations. Consult with legal counsel for specific legal advice.
Landmark Cases Affecting Police Procedures
This section outlines some of the most influential Supreme Court cases shaping police practices.
Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure
-
Terry v. Ohio (1968): Established the "stop and frisk" doctrine, allowing officers to briefly detain individuals based on reasonable suspicion and pat them down for weapons if they fear for their safety or the safety of others. The suspicion must be based on articulable facts.
-
Carroll v. United States (1925): Allows warrantless searches of vehicles if there is probable cause to believe they contain contraband or evidence of a crime. This is often referred to as the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement.
-
Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Established the "exclusionary rule," which prohibits the admission of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials. This means evidence found as a result of an illegal search and seizure cannot be used against the defendant.
-
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Requires law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their constitutional rights (the "Miranda rights") before custodial interrogation. These rights include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to have an attorney appointed if they cannot afford one.
-
Katz v. United States (1967): Extended Fourth Amendment protection to cover wiretaps and electronic surveillance, ruling that a reasonable expectation of privacy must be violated for a search to occur.
-
Kyllo v. United States (2001): Held that using thermal imaging to scan a home without a warrant is a search requiring a warrant, as it’s considered a technology not in general public use.
-
Arizona v. Gant (2009): Limited the scope of warrantless searches of vehicles incident to arrest, requiring the search to be contemporaneous with the arrest and the arrestee must be within reaching distance of the vehicle or there must be reason to believe evidence of the crime for which the suspect is being arrested is within the vehicle.
Fifth Amendment: Self-Incrimination
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966): (As mentioned above) Also relevant here, emphasizing the right against self-incrimination.
Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel
- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Guaranteed the right to legal counsel for indigent defendants in felony cases. This right has since been extended to other situations.
Frequently Asked Questions (PAAs)
This section addresses common questions related to police case law.
What is the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion?
Probable cause requires a reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a crime has been committed and that the suspect committed it. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard; it requires a reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot. Probable cause is needed for an arrest and search warrant, while reasonable suspicion is sufficient for a Terry stop.
What are the exceptions to the warrant requirement?
Several exceptions exist, including the automobile exception (Carroll), consent, search incident to a lawful arrest (Gant), plain view, exigent circumstances (e.g., hot pursuit, imminent danger), and stop and frisk (Terry). The specific requirements for each exception are complex and fact-dependent.
What happens if police violate someone's constitutional rights?
Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights may be suppressed under the exclusionary rule (Mapp). The defendant might also have grounds for a civil lawsuit against the officers or the police department.
Can police use force against a suspect?
Police may use force only when reasonably necessary to effect an arrest, prevent escape, or protect themselves or others from harm. The use of force must be proportionate to the threat. Excessive force violates the Fourth Amendment. (See Graham v. Connor (1989) for the standard of "objective reasonableness.")
This cheat sheet provides a foundational overview. For detailed information, consult legal textbooks, case law databases (like Westlaw or LexisNexis), and legal professionals. The specifics of these cases and their applications are nuanced and require in-depth study.
