Illegal search and seizure supreme court cases

1. Why is the Terry v Ohio case important?
2. What was the Mapp v Ohio case about?
3. What was the Supreme Court ruling in Katz v United States?
4. What was the outcome of Ker v California?
5. What happened in Tennessee v Garner?
6. What was the outcome of Graham vs Connor?
7. Why did Griswold v Connecticut happen?
8. Who won Miranda v Arizona?
9. What was the decision in New Jersey v TLO?
10. What did the Supreme Court rule in Baker v Carr?
11. What did the Supreme Court rule in Lawrence v Texas?
12. What did the Supreme Court do in Lawrence v Texas?
13. What was the decision of mcgowan v Maryland?
14. What was the outcome of Cohens v Virginia?
15. What was the outcome of Bartkus v Illinois?
16. What did Scott v Harris establish?
17. What happened in Mississippi v Tennessee?
18. What was the decision of Ashcraft v Tennessee?
19. Why is the exclusionary rule important for criminal defendants?
20. What was the result of Terry v Ohio 1968 )?
21. What was the majority opinion in Terry v Ohio?
22. Why did the Supreme Court decide that the exclusionary rule is necessary to give force to the Fourth Amendment?
23. Is illegally obtained evidence admissible?
24. What are the 3 exceptions to the exclusionary rule?
25. What percentage of cases are dropped because of the exclusionary rule?
26. What was the result of Terry v Adams?
27. What is Terry v Ohio Cornell law?
28. What did the Supreme Court hold about police in Duckworth v Eagan 1988 )?
29. Who wrote the majority decision in Katz v United States?
30. What is Terry frisk?
31. How did the Supreme Court rule in the Miranda decision?

Why is the Terry v Ohio case important?

In June 1968, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and set a precedent that allows police officers to interrogate and frisk suspicious individuals without probable cause for an arrest, providing that the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for the stop and frisk.

What was the Mapp v Ohio case about?

The case originated in Cleveland, Ohio, when police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp's basement.

What was the Supreme Court ruling in Katz v United States?

United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) It is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to conduct a search and seizure without a warrant anywhere that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless certain exceptions apply.

What was the outcome of Ker v California?

In affirming the convictions, the California District Court of Appeal found that there was probable cause for the arrests; that the entry into the apartment was for the purpose of arrest and was not unlawful; and that the search, being incident to the arrests, was likewise lawful and its fruits admissible in evidence ...

What happened in Tennessee v Garner?

In Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Tennessee statute that permitted police to use deadly force against a suspected felon fleeing arrest.

What was the outcome of Graham vs Connor?

Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.

Why did Griswold v Connecticut happen?

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control.

Who won Miranda v Arizona?

Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

What was the decision in New Jersey v TLO?

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited solely to the actions of law enforcement personnel. It also applies to the conduct of public school officials.

What did the Supreme Court rule in Baker v Carr?

Baker v. Carr (1962) is the U.S. Supreme Court case that held that federal courts could hear cases alleging that a state's drawing of electoral boundaries, i.e. redistricting, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

What did the Supreme Court rule in Lawrence v Texas?

Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) A Texas law criminalizing consensual, sexual conduct between individuals of the same sex violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What did the Supreme Court do in Lawrence v Texas?

Lawrence v. Texas (2003) is a landmark case, in which the Supreme Court of the United States, in 6-3 decision, invalidated sodomy law across the United States, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every State and United States territory.

What was the decision of mcgowan v Maryland?

8–1 decision

The Court found that the blue laws did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the employees allege only economic injury and not infringement on their own religious practices. The Court also found that the blue laws did not violate the division between church and state.

What was the outcome of Cohens v Virginia?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings. Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the Court was bound to hear all cases that involved constitutional questions, and that this jurisdiction was not dependent on the identity of the parties in the cases.

What was the outcome of Bartkus v Illinois?

the General Savings and Loan Association of Cicero, Illinois, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. The case was tried to a jury and resulted in an acquittal.

What did Scott v Harris establish?

The Court rules that a police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.

What happened in Mississippi v Tennessee?

On November 22, 2021, the court dismissed Mississippi's complaint in a unanimous ruling, holding that the groundwater aquifer at issue was subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court.

What was the decision of Ashcraft v Tennessee?

Upon undisputed evidence, this Court concludes that, if the defendant Ashcraft made a confession, it was not voluntary, but compelled, and that his conviction, resting upon the alleged confession, must be set aside as in violation of the Federal Constitution. P. 322 U. S. 153.

Why is the exclusionary rule important for criminal defendants?

The purpose of the rule is to deter law enforcement officers from conducting searches or seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment and to provide remedies to defendants whose rights have been infringed.

What was the result of Terry v Ohio 1968 )?

In this case, the Court concluded that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit police from stopping a person they have reasonable suspicion to believe had committed a crime, and frisking that person if they reasonably believe that person to be armed.

What was the majority opinion in Terry v Ohio?

majority opinion by Earl Warren. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry.

Why did the Supreme Court decide that the exclusionary rule is necessary to give force to the Fourth Amendment?

the Court tied the rule strictly to the Fourth Amendment, finding exclusion of evidence seized in violation of the Amendment to be the most important constitutional privilege of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, finding that the rule was an essential part of the right of privacy protected by ...

Is illegally obtained evidence admissible?

In a criminal case, evidence must be lawfully obtained to be admissible. Generally, illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against you in a court of law. While there are some exceptions, a qualified defense attorney can argue against any evidence that was obtained in violation of your constitutional rights.

What are the 3 exceptions to the exclusionary rule?

Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule are "attenuation of the taint," "independent source," and "inevitable discovery."

What percentage of cases are dropped because of the exclusionary rule?

7 percent of the cases dismissed after prosecution had begun. Studies of the impact of the exclusionary rule in State and local criminal cases show a similar low percentage of cases refused or dismissed because of the exclusionary rule.

What was the result of Terry v Adams?

Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held white-only pre-primary elections to be unconstitutional. It was the last in a series of court cases addressing the system of white primaries designed to disenfranchise African-American voters in the southern United States.

What is Terry v Ohio Cornell law?

Ohio. When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing. A Terry stop is a seizure within the meaning of Fourth Amendment.

What did the Supreme Court hold about police in Duckworth v Eagan 1988 )?

Eagan, a 1988 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers may issue valid Miranda warnings without using the exact language handed down in the Miranda decision. The defendant in Duckworth v.

Who wrote the majority decision in Katz v United States?

majority opinion by Potter Stewart. Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play.

What is Terry frisk?

Defined: A limited search for weapons, generally of the outer clothing, but also of those areas which may be within the suspect's control and pose a danger to the officer / agent. 1. Many law enforcement. agencies teach officers to frisk via a “pat down” of the suspect's outer clothing.

How did the Supreme Court rule in the Miranda decision?

In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution.