1. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) 

2. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) 

3. Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008) 

4. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) 

5. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) 

6. Arizona v Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) 

7. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) 

8. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) 

9. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) 

10. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) 

11. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) 

12. Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978) 

13. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) 

14. Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) 

15. Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) 

16. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) 

17. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) 

18. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) 

19. Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) 

20. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U. S. 496 (1987) 

21. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) 

22. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 

23. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975) 

24. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) 

25. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) 

26. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936) 

27. Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979) 

28. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) 

29. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) 

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

31. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) 

32. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) 

33. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) 

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

35. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) 

36. Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) 

37. Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945) 

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

39. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) 

40. Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) 

41. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) 

42. Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994)

43. Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) 

44. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006)

45. DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937) 

46. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) 

47. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) 

48. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) 

49. Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490 (1935) 

50. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) 

51. Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163 (1873) 

52. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) 

53. Ex parte US, 242 US 27 (1916) 

54. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) 

55. Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (2014) 

56. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) 

57. Florida v. JL, 529 U.S. 266 (2000) 

58. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)

59. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915) 

60. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) 

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

62. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) 

63. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) 

64. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) 

65. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) 

66. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) 

67. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

68. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) 

69. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) 

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

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

72. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) 

73. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) 

74. Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 (1947) 

75. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (1968) 

76. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) 

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

78. Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) 

79. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) 

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

81. Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) 

82. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) 

83. Illinois v. MacArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) 

84. Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)

85. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) 

86. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) 

87. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) 

88. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) 

89. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) 

90. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) 

91. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) 

92. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) 

93. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) 

94. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

95. Kelly v. California, No. 7-11073 (2008) 

96. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) 

97. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) 

98. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967) 

99. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) 

100. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) 

101. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) 

102. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) 

103. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)

104. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) 

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

106. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

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

108. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984) 

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

110. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) 

111. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) 

112. Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120 (1996) 

113. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009)

114. Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967) 

115. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) 

116. Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011)

117. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) 

118. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958) 

119. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) 

120. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) 

121. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) 

122. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 

123. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) 

124. Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) 

125. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) 

126. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) 

127. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) 

128. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) 

129. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) 

130. Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976)

131. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) 

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

133. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc., et al. v. Bruen (2022)

134. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) 

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

136. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 

137. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) 

138. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

139. Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) 

140. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) 

141. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808 (1991) 

142. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) 

143. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) 

144. Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (1985) 

145. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) 

146. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) 

147. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) 

148. Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997) 

149. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) 

150. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) 

151. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) 

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

153. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) 

154. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) 

155. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)

156. Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984) 

157. Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971) 

158. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) 

159. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007)

160. Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (1978)

161. Silverthorne Lumber v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) 

162. Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) 

163. Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) 

164. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) 

165. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) 

166. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) 

167. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

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

169. The Crown v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884)

170. Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) 

171. United States v. Armstrong, et al 517 U.S. 456 (1996) 

172. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) 

173. United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881) 

174. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006)

175. United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971) 

176. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) 

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

178. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) 

179. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) 

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

181. United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985) 

182. United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010) 

183. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) 

184. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) 

185. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977) 

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

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

188. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) 

189. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)

190. Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) 

191. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) 

192. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) 

193. Winston v Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) 

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

195. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) 

196. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) 

197. Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) 

198. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) 

1. Adams v. Williams (1972) Can police, acting on a tip from an informant, stop and frisk for weapons?

2. Adamson v. California (1947) Does the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination apply to state courts?

3. Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) In capital cases, must the government provide indigent defendants with psychiatric assistance to prepare an insanity defense?

4. Alabama v. Shelton (2002) Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, apply to a defendant who was given a suspended sentence?

5. Andresen v. Maryland (1976) Does seizure of business records offend the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination?

6. Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) Does the state’s failure to preserve evidence potentially useful to the defense constitute a denial of due process?

7. Arkansas v. Sullivan (2001) Is an officer's subjective motivation relevant to the reasonableness of the officer's actions?

8. Ashe v. Swenson (1970) Does collateral estoppel constitutionally foreclose relitigating an issue decided in one case in another trial?

9. Betterman v. Montana (2016) Is it a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial to postpone sentencing for 14 months after a guilty plea?

10. Betts v. Brady (1942)* Is an indigent criminal defendant entitled to counsel at state expense?

11. Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) Without a warrant, may a state criminalize an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test?

12. Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978) May state prosecutors carry out threats made during plea negotiations to re-indict the accused on more serious charges if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged?

13. Brady v. Maryland (1962) Must the prosecution provide all potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense?

14. Brendlin v. California (2007) In a traffic stop, is a passenger in the vehicle "detained" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment?

15. Bucklew v. Precythe (2019) What must a death-row inmate show to establish that a method of execution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?

16. Bumper v. North Carolina (1968) Is a consent search lawful when the consent was given only after a police officer claimed he had a warrant?

17. Carpenter v. US (2018) Does the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records, which include the location and movements of cell phone users, violate the Fourth Amendment?

18. US v. Chadwick (1977) Does a locked container that is under police control fit within the automobile exception to a search warrant?

19. Fernandez v. California (2014) Is a consent search valid when the defendant has previously objected but is no longer present and the co-tenant consents?

20. Frisbie v. Collins (1952) May a state court try defendants wrongfully brought to it by its officers?

21. Gamble v. US (2019) Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar successive prosecutions by different sovereigns for the same offense behavior?

22. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

23. Illinois v. Gates (1983) May police obtain a search warrant based on an anonymous tip?

24. In re Gault (1967) What safeguards is a juvenile entitled to, in order to satisfy due process?

25. In re Gladys R. (CA 1970) What are the requirements for a court to consider a juvenile to be a ward of the state?

26. In re Lance W. (CA 1985) California's Independent State Grounds Doctrine

27. Katz v. US (1967) What does the Fourth Amendment protect?

28. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Extension of the federal Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule to the states

29. Massiah v. US (1964) Are a defendant’s incriminating statements made without counsel after a criminal proceeding has begun admissible?

30. Mincey v. Arizona (1978) Is there a homicide scene exception to a warrant requirement?

31. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Under what conditions must police advise a suspect of rights relating to interrogation?

32. People v. Aranda (CA 1965) When a confession implicating co-defendants is not admissible in one's trial, may it be admitted in the other's? 

33. People v. May (CA 1988) Can statements excluded for Miranda non-compliance be used for impeachment?

34. People v. Ramey (CA 1976) What is a Ramey warrant? Find out here.

35. Pitchess v. Superior Court (CA 1974) What access should a defendant who alleges officer excessive force or dishonesty have to police personnel information?

36. Riverside County v. McLaughlin (1991) How long can one arrested without a warrant be held before a judicial probable cause determination?

37. Steagald v. US (1981) Can police search for a suspect in the home of a third party without obtaining a warrant?

38. Terry v. Ohio (1968) Stop and frisk, and the creation of the reasonable and articulable suspicion standard.

39. US v. Leon (1984) Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule?

40. Wong Sun v. US (1963) Fruit of the poisonous tree

Chapter 1. Cases Involving Forensic Evidence

These cases helped shape the legal landscape for the admissibility and use of forensic evidence in criminal investigations and trials, ensuring that such evidence is both reliable and subject to scrutiny under the Confrontation Clause and other constitutional protections.

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Although not a Supreme Court case, the Frye standard, which originated from this decision, established the criterion for admitting scientific evidence. The Court ruled that scientific evidence is admissible only if the methodology or scientific principle has gained general acceptance in its field.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). This case established that the prosecution must turn over all potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. This "Brady rule" ensures that any forensic evidence that could exonerate the defendant must be disclosed, impacting the handling of forensic evidence in criminal cases.

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1989). The Court upheld mandatory drug and alcohol testing for railroad employees involved in accidents or safety violations, ruling that such testing is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. This case addresses the admissibility and importance of forensic toxicology evidence.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). The Supreme Court ruled that taking a blood sample from a suspect without a warrant does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments if exigent circumstances exist, such as the imminent destruction of evidence. This decision is significant for the admissibility of biological forensic evidence.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Supreme Court established the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. The Court ruled that scientific testimony must be both relevant and reliable, providing criteria for judges to determine the admissibility of expert evidence. This rule supplanted the Frye "general acceptance" standard in most courts.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). The Court extended the Daubert standard to all expert testimony, not just scientific evidence. This ruling means that judges must also evaluate the reliability and relevance of technical and other specialized knowledge, further impacting the use of forensic evidence.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009). The Supreme Court held that forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports are considered witnesses under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and must be available for cross-examination, ensuring the reliability and credibility of forensic evidence.

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011). The Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause requires the analyst who conducted the forensic test to testify in court, not just a surrogate witness. This decision reinforces the necessity of having the actual analyst present for cross-examination to ensure the integrity of forensic evidence.

Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012). In a complex and divided decision, the Supreme Court held that an expert witness could discuss a DNA profile match without the need for the analyst who created the DNA profile to testify, as long as the testimony is not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This case introduced nuances to the application of the Confrontation Clause in forensic evidence cases.

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of collecting DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious offenses, ruling that such collection is a legitimate police booking procedure and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. This decision impacts the use of DNA evidence in forensic investigations.

Chapter 2. Cases Involving Rules for Criminal Investigation

These cases collectively established important rules and guidelines for conducting criminal investigations, particularly regarding the rights of suspects, the admissibility of evidence, and the procedures law enforcement must follow.

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). The Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule at the federal level, holding that evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in federal prosecutions.

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). The Court ruled that law enforcement officers could search an automobile without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a crime, establishing the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). The Supreme Court applied the federal exclusionary rule from Weeks to the states, holding that evidence obtained via unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state courts. 

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at the state's expense for indigent criminal defendants in state courts.

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964). The Court ruled that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. This case extended the right to counsel to pre-indictment interrogations.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The Supreme Court ruled that suspects must be informed of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations. This ruling ensures that statements made during custodial interrogation are admissible only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of and waived these rights.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). The Court ruled that taking a blood sample from a suspect without a warrant does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments if exigent circumstances exist, such as the imminent destruction of evidence.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and introduced the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy." The ruling stated that electronic surveillance and wiretapping require a warrant.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The Court established the legality of stop-and-frisk procedures, ruling that police officers may stop and frisk a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed and dangerous. This decision set the standard for what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The Supreme Court limited the scope of searches incident to arrest, ruling that police may only search the area within the immediate control of the person arrested to prevent the destruction of evidence or access to a weapon. 

New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). The Supreme Court held that police officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers within it incident to a lawful arrest of an occupant, which was later limited by Arizona v. Gant.

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983). The Supreme Court adopted the "totality of the circumstances" test for determining whether an anonymous tip can provide probable cause for a warrant. This decision replaced the stricter Aguilar-Spinelli test and made it easier to establish probable cause based on informants' tips.

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The Court established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule, allowing evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently found to be deficient.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). The Court ruled that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment or if the officers believe the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the crime of arrest.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014). The Supreme Court held that police must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest. This decision recognized the vast amounts of personal information stored on modern cell phones and the need for privacy protection.

Chapter 3. Cases Involving Crime Scenes

These cases collectively established important principles and guidelines for conducting searches and seizures at crime scenes, emphasizing the necessity of warrants, the scope of permissible searches, and the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment.

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967). The Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to seize evidence found during a lawful search for a suspect. This case permitted police to enter and search a residence without a warrant under exigent circumstances and to seize evidence found in plain view.

Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973). The Supreme Court ruled that the police can take physical evidence from a suspect without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the evidence is in imminent danger of being destroyed. In this case, police took fingernail scrapings from a suspect during a murder investigation.

Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978). The Supreme Court held that evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a fire-damaged property was inadmissible. The initial entry by firefighters to extinguish a blaze did not justify subsequent, unrelated searches without a warrant.

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to crime scene searches. In this case, police conducted an extensive, warrantless search of a homicide scene, which the Court found unconstitutional. This decision emphasized the importance of obtaining a warrant for searches in crime scene investigations.

Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 (1999). The Supreme Court ruled that there is no "crime scene exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In this case, police conducted a warrantless search of a murder scene, which was deemed unconstitutional because no exigent circumstances justified the search.

Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17 (1984). The Court ruled that the warrantless search of a crime scene following a homicide, conducted without exigent circumstances or consent, violated the Fourth Amendment. This case reaffirmed that crime scene searches generally require a warrant.

Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001). The Court upheld a temporary restriction on a suspect’s access to his home while police obtained a search warrant, reasoning that the police had probable cause and acted reasonably to prevent the destruction of evidence.

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006). The Supreme Court held that police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. This decision supports warrantless entry in certain emergency situations during crime scene investigations.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011). The Court ruled that police can conduct a warrantless search if they do not create the exigent circumstances by engaging in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. This case involved officers entering an apartment to prevent the destruction of evidence after knocking on the door and hearing noises suggesting evidence was being destroyed.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014). The Supreme Court held that police must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest. This ruling recognized the vast amounts of personal information stored on modern cell phones and the need for privacy protection, which extends to digital evidence found at crime scenes.

Chapter  4. Cases Involving Physical Evidence

These cases collectively shaped the landscape of how physical evidence is collected, preserved, and used in criminal proceedings, balancing law enforcement needs with constitutional protections.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). This landmark case established the exclusionary rule at the state level, ruling that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state courts. The decision emphasized the importance of lawful procedures in gathering physical evidence.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). The Court held that taking a blood sample from a suspect without a warrant in a DUI case did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. The decision acknowledged the exigent circumstances exception, allowing physical evidence collection without a warrant if delay could result in the loss of evidence. 

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The Supreme Court ruled that police officers may stop and frisk a person based on reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. This decision allows officers to gather physical evidence (e.g., weapons) without a warrant under certain circumstances.

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search incident to arrest is limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect. This case set boundaries for collecting physical evidence during an arrest. 

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983). This case established the "totality of the circumstances" test for determining probable cause in issuing a search warrant. The decision affected how physical evidence could be lawfully obtained through warrants. 

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984). The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require law enforcement agencies to preserve breath samples in DUI cases for later testing by the defense. The decision focused on the preservation and use of physical evidence.

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006). The Court held that police cannot conduct a warrantless search of a home if one occupant consents but another physically present occupant objects. This decision addressed the consent rule in collecting physical evidence within a residence.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). The Court held that police may search a vehicle incident to arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle at the time of the search or if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. This decision limited the scope of searches for physical evidence in vehicles.

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013). The Supreme Court ruled that collecting DNA samples from arrestees for serious crimes is a legitimate police booking procedure under the Fourth Amendment. This decision expanded the scope of permissible physical evidence collection during booking.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014). The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized from an arrestee. Although focused on digital data, this case underscores the broader principles of Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches of physical evidence.

Chapter 5. Cases Involving Interrogation

These cases collectively shaped the legal landscape of police interrogation practices, emphasizing the protection of suspects' constitutional rights during custodial questioning.

Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936). The Supreme Court held that confessions obtained through physical torture and brutality by police are inadmissible in court, as they violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case set a precedent against coerced confessions.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Although not directly about police interrogation, this case ensured that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who cannot afford their own attorneys. This ruling indirectly affects the dynamics of police interrogation by guaranteeing legal representation.

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964). The Supreme Court held that suspects have the right to an attorney during police interrogations once the investigation focuses on them and they have been taken into custody. This case was a precursor to Miranda and emphasized the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964). The Court ruled that once formal charges have been filed, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated if law enforcement deliberately elicits statements from the defendant in the absence of their attorney. This decision protects post-indictment interrogation rights.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). This landmark decision established that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney before police questioning, known as Miranda rights. The ruling aimed to protect against self-incrimination and ensure fair police interrogation practices.

Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979). The Court ruled that a juvenile’s request to speak to their probation officer is not equivalent to invoking the right to an attorney under Miranda. The decision clarified the procedures for juvenile interrogations and their understanding of rights.

North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979). The Court ruled that a suspect’s waiver of Miranda rights does not have to be explicit; it can be inferred from the actions and words of the suspect, provided it is done knowingly and voluntarily. This case addressed the issue of implied waivers.

Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). The Supreme Court defined “interrogation” under Miranda to include any words or actions by police that they should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. This decision broadened the understanding of what constitutes interrogation.

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). The Supreme Court held that once a suspect requests an attorney, police must cease interrogation until an attorney is present, unless the suspect initiates further communication. This case reinforced the protection of the right to counsel during custodial interrogation.

Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). The Court ruled that a two-step interrogation technique (where a suspect is interrogated without Miranda warnings until a confession is obtained, and then given Miranda warnings and asked to repeat the confession) violates the Miranda rule. The decision condemned this practice as a way to circumvent Miranda protections.

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004). The Court ruled that the suspect’s age and prior police experience are not required considerations when determining whether they are "in custody" for Miranda purposes. The case clarified factors to be considered in custody evaluations.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010). The Supreme Court ruled that a suspect must explicitly invoke their Miranda rights to remain silent. Simply remaining silent is not sufficient; suspects must clearly state their intention to exercise their right to silence for police to cease interrogation.

Chapters 6-7. Cases Involving Police Reports

These cases collectively addressed the admissibility, use, and disclosure of police reports in criminal trials, ensuring that due process and defendants' rights under the Confrontation Clause are protected.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Although not exclusively about police reports, this case established the principle that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense. This "Brady rule" ensures that police reports containing potentially exculpatory information must be disclosed.

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980). This case established the "reliability" standard for the admissibility of hearsay evidence, including statements in police reports. The Court held that hearsay could be admitted if it falls under a "firmly rooted hearsay exception" or has "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." This standard was later refined by Crawford.

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). The Supreme Court clarified the Brady rule, emphasizing that the prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence includes information known to police investigators, even if the prosecutors themselves are unaware of it. This ruling ensures comprehensive disclosure of police reports.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Supreme Court held that testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial can only be admitted where the declarant is unavailable, and only if the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. This case redefined the treatment of police reports and other testimonial evidence under the Confrontation Clause.

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006). The Court distinguished between testimonial and non-testimonial statements in the context of police reports. Statements made to law enforcement during an ongoing emergency are non-testimonial and thus do not require the declarant to be available for cross-examination. However, statements made after the emergency has passed for the purpose of establishing facts for prosecution are testimonial.

Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007). The Court ruled that Crawford does not apply retroactively to cases that were final before Crawford was decided. This decision impacts the treatment of police reports and other testimonial evidence in older cases.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009). The Supreme Court held that affidavits reporting the results of forensic analysis (such as drug tests) are testimonial and therefore fall under the Confrontation Clause. This means that the analysts who prepare such reports must be available for cross-examination, impacting the use of police reports that include forensic analysis. 

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011). The Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause requires that the forensic analyst who conducted the test and authored the report must testify in court. A surrogate analyst who did not perform or observe the actual analysis cannot testify in place of the original analyst. 

Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011). The Supreme Court ruled that statements made to police in the context of an ongoing emergency are non-testimonial. The primary purpose of the police questioning in this case was to address the emergency situation, making the victim's statements admissible without violating the Confrontation Clause.

Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012). The Supreme Court held that an expert witness can discuss the results of a DNA test without the need for the analyst who performed the test to testify, as long as the testimony is not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This ruling has implications for how police reports involving expert analysis are treated in court.

Chapter 8. Cases Involving Crime Labs

These cases collectively shaped the landscape of forensic evidence in the courtroom, ensuring that defendants' rights are protected through proper handling, disclosure, and examination of crime lab results.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). This landmark case established that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense. While not directly about crime labs, the ruling impacts the handling of forensic evidence by ensuring that any evidence favorable to the defendant is disclosed.

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The Court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose a key witness's credibility issues violated the defendant's right to due process. The ruling affects crime labs by emphasizing the requirement to disclose any information that could impeach the credibility of forensic analysts.

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). This case further defined the scope of the prosecution’s duty to disclose evidence, establishing that nondisclosed evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). This case established the Daubert standard for determining the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony, including forensic evidence. The Court ruled that scientific evidence must be both relevant and reliable, requiring judges to act as gatekeepers in evaluating expert testimony.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). The Supreme Court extended the Daubert standard to all expert testimony, not just scientific. This decision reinforced the criteria for admissibility of forensic evidence, ensuring that all expert testimony must meet the standards of relevance and reliability.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). While not specifically about crime labs, this case set the foundation for the Confrontation Clause jurisprudence that affects how forensic evidence is handled in court. The Court ruled that testimonial statements cannot be admitted unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009). The Supreme Court ruled that forensic lab reports are testimonial evidence under the Sixth Amendment, meaning that defendants have the right to cross-examine the analysts who prepared the reports. This decision emphasized the importance of direct testimony from crime lab analysts in criminal trials.

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011). In this case, the Court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when a forensic lab report was introduced through the testimony of an analyst who did not perform or observe the test. The ruling reinforced the necessity for the actual analyst who conducted the test to testify in court.

Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012). The Court addressed whether the testimony of an expert witness, who relied on a DNA profile created by another analyst, violated the Confrontation Clause. The ruling was divided, but the Court allowed the expert's testimony, distinguishing between case-specific and non-case-specific data. The decision highlighted complexities in the use of forensic evidence.

Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012). The Supreme Court ruled that defense attorneys must communicate formal plea offers from the prosecution to their clients. This case underscores the importance of all evidence, including forensic evidence, in plea negotiations.

Chapter 9. Cases Involving Injury and Death Investigations

These cases collectively influenced how injury and death investigations are conducted, particularly concerning the admissibility of evidence, the rights of suspects, and the duties of law enforcement and prosecutors.

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Although not a Supreme Court case, the Frye standard, which originated from this decision, established highly influential criterion for admitting scientific evidence. The Court ruled that scientific evidence is admissible only if the methodology or scientific principle has gained general acceptance in its field.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant to the defense. This "Brady rule" is crucial in injury and death investigations as it ensures that the defense has access to all potentially exculpatory evidence, which can impact the outcome of a trial.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In this landmark case, the Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during interrogations. This ruling ensures that statements made during custodial interrogation are admissible only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of and waived these rights. It has a profound impact on how police conduct investigations of injury and death.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). The Court ruled that taking a blood sample from a suspect without a warrant does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments if exigent circumstances exist, such as the imminent destruction of evidence. This case is significant for injury and death investigations involving DUI or drug-related offenses.

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The Court held that the prosecution must disclose any deals, promises, or inducements made to witnesses in exchange for their testimony. This ruling ensures transparency and fairness in investigations, particularly in cases involving informants or cooperating witnesses.

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to crime scene searches. In this case, the police conducted an extensive, warrantless search of a homicide scene, which the Court found unconstitutional. This decision emphasized the importance of obtaining a warrant for searches in death investigations.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. This case established important standards for the use of force in law enforcement.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). This case established the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. The Supreme Court ruled that scientific testimony must be both relevant and reliable, providing criteria for judges to determine the admissibility of expert evidence. This ruling is particularly relevant in injury and death investigations where forensic evidence is often pivotal.

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). The Supreme Court emphasized the prosecution's duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose such evidence violates due process, highlighting the importance of full disclosure in injury and death investigations.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant's right to confront witnesses against them. This decision impacts how testimonial evidence, such as witness statements in injury and death investigations, can be used in court, requiring witnesses to testify in person for cross-examination.

Chapter 10. Cases Involving Sex Crimes

These cases have collectively shaped the legal landscape regarding sex crimes, balancing the protection of victims, the rights of the accused, and broader societal interests.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). Decided the same day as Roe v. Wade, this case dealt with the health exception for abortions. The Court ruled that broad health exceptions are necessary, including mental health, and struck down overly restrictive abortion laws. Although not directly about sex crimes, it impacted sexual autonomy and reproductive rights.

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for the crime of rape of an adult woman is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. This case set a precedent for the proportionality of punishment in non-homicide sex crimes.

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1981). The Supreme Court upheld a statutory rape law that penalized only males for sexual intercourse with females under the age of 18. The Court reasoned that the gender-based distinction was justified by the state's interest in preventing teenage pregnancies.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing consensual homosexual acts. This decision was later overturned by Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which decriminalized same-sex sexual activity.

McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987). Although primarily about racial bias in the application of the death penalty, this case involved the rape-murder context. The Court held that statistical evidence of racial disparities in sentencing did not constitute a violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments absent clear proof of intentional discrimination in the specific case.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The Court struck down provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that banned virtual child pornography, ruling that the law was overly broad and violated the First Amendment. The decision protected freedom of speech while addressing the complexities of combating child exploitation.

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002). The Supreme Court held that requiring a convicted sex offender to participate in a treatment program that includes admitting guilt, with the consequence of losing certain privileges for non-participation, does not violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003). The Court ruled that states could post sex offender information online without violating the offenders' due process rights. The decision upheld public access to sex offender registries, emphasizing public safety over privacy concerns.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). The Supreme Court invalidated sodomy laws in Texas, ruling that consensual sexual conduct between adults is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This landmark decision decriminalized same-sex sexual activity nationwide.

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). The Court ruled that Alaska's sex offender registration act did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the act was deemed non-punitive. The decision allowed states to require sex offender registration without it being considered retroactive punishment.

Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008). The Court held that imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child, where the crime did not result in the death of the victim, violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling further restricted the use of the death penalty in cases of sexual assault.

United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008). The Court upheld the PROTECT Act, which criminalizes the pandering of child pornography. The decision affirmed the constitutionality of prohibiting the promotion of illegal child pornography, even if the material does not actually exist.

Chapter 11. Cases Involving Crimes Against Children

These cases collectively addressed a range of issues involving the treatment of children in the criminal justice system, balancing the need for protection and fair treatment of juveniles with the requirements of due process and constitutional rights.

Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). The Court ruled that parents or guardians can commit a minor to a mental health institution without a formal hearing, provided there is an independent medical judgment. This decision dealt with the balance between parental authority and the protection of children's rights.

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). The Supreme Court upheld a New York law prohibiting the distribution of material depicting sexual performances by children under the age of 16, ruling that the government’s interest in protecting children from exploitation outweighs the First Amendment rights to free speech. This case established the principle that child pornography is not protected speech.

Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989). The Supreme Court held that the death penalty for crimes committed at age 16 or 17 does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this decision was later overruled by Roper v. Simmons (2005).

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990). The Supreme Court upheld the use of closed-circuit television to allow a child victim of sexual abuse to testify without being in the physical presence of the defendant, ruling that this procedure did not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The decision acknowledged the need to protect child victims from trauma.

Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). Although not specifically about children, this case involved the indefinite commitment of an insanity acquittee who was no longer mentally ill. The Court ruled this unconstitutional under due process and equal protection principles, impacting the standards for confinement of juveniles found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The Court struck down provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that banned virtual child pornography, ruling that the law was overly broad and violated the First Amendment. The decision distinguished between actual child exploitation and depictions that do not involve real children.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). The Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for crimes committed by individuals under the age of 18, overturning Stanford v. Kentucky. The decision reflected an evolving understanding of juvenile culpability and the Eighth Amendment.

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). The Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for non-homicide offenses violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. This case underscored the need for considering the unique status of juveniles in the criminal justice system.

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). The Supreme Court held that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. The decision emphasized that children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes due to their lack of maturity and greater potential for reform.

Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015). The Supreme Court held that statements made by a child to teachers about abuse were not testimonial and thus did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. This decision clarified the admissibility of out-of-court statements in child abuse cases.

Chapter 12. Cases Involving Human Trafficking

These cases highlighted the evolving legal landscape and judicial interpretations related to human trafficking, reflecting the complexity and seriousness with which the judiciary addresses these crimes.

United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988). This case involved the interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment and the federal statutes related to involuntary servitude. The Supreme Court held that for a conviction under federal laws prohibiting involuntary servitude, there must be evidence of physical or legal coercion, not merely psychological coercion. This decision limited the scope of actions that could be prosecuted as human trafficking.

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). While not exclusively about human trafficking, this case dealt with the detention of unaccompanied minors, a situation often linked with trafficking. The Supreme Court upheld regulations that allowed the detention of minors if there was no suitable adult to take custody, emphasizing procedural safeguards.

United States v. Calimlim, 538 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2008). In this case, the Seventh Circuit, whose decision was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court, upheld the convictions of Dr. Jefferson Calimlim and his wife, Elnora Calimlim, for holding a Filipino woman in involuntary servitude for 19 years. The court found that the Calimlims had coerced the victim into believing that she would be arrested and deported if she tried to leave. This case highlighted the applicability of human trafficking laws to long-term domestic servitude.

United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the application of the federal human trafficking statute under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). The Court held that, on appeal, the defendant must show that there was a plain error affecting substantial rights in the application of the TVPA's provisions. This ruling clarified the burden of proof for defendants appealing human trafficking convictions.

US v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011). This case involved the interpretation of the forced labor statute under the TVPA. The Ninth Circuit, whose decision was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court, held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Irma Martinez of forced labor for holding her domestic worker in conditions of servitude. The case highlighted the application of the TVPA to domestic labor trafficking.

United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651 (11th Cir. 2016). This case involved a human trafficking operation spanning multiple countries. The Eleventh Circuit, whose decision was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court, upheld a life sentence for Damion St. Patrick Baston under the TVPA for sex trafficking and related offenses. The decision reinforced the severe penalties for human trafficking crimes.

Chapter 13. Cases Involving Robbery

These cases collectively shaped the legal landscape of how robbery offenses are prosecuted, defined, and sentenced, particularly under federal law and the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). This landmark case established the legality of stop-and-frisk procedures. While not exclusively about robbery, the principles set forth are often applied in robbery cases where police stop and search suspects based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity.

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). The Supreme Court clarified the definition of burglary for the purposes of sentence enhancement under the ACCA. This case indirectly influences robbery cases by establishing how courts should interpret predicate offenses for sentencing enhancements.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). While not directly about robbery, this case established that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This ruling has significant implications for sentencing in robbery cases where aggravating factors are considered.

Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010). The Supreme Court held that a conviction for battery under Florida law does not qualify as a "violent felony" under the ACCA because it does not require the use of physical force. This decision affected the classification of prior convictions in cases involving robbery and other violent crimes.

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). The Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is an "element" that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. This ruling influences how aggravating factors, including those in robbery cases, are treated in sentencing.

United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014). Although not solely about robbery, this case impacted the interpretation of what constitutes a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," which can influence sentencing in robbery cases involving domestic violence components. The Court held that even minimal physical force can qualify under federal law.

Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). The Court held that the residual clause of the ACCA, which defined a violent felony to include any crime that "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another," was unconstitutionally vague. This landmark decision impacted how prior robbery convictions were used for sentence enhancements.

Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016). The Supreme Court ruled that Johnson v. United States, which struck down the residual clause of the ACCA as unconstitutionally vague, applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. This decision affected many sentences enhanced by prior robbery convictions under the ACCA's residual clause.

Stokeling v. United States, 586 U.S. ___ (2019). The Supreme Court ruled that a robbery offense that requires any degree of force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance qualifies as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The decision clarified the definition of "violent felony" and its applicability to prior convictions for sentencing enhancements.

United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. ___ (2019). The Court ruled that the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), which provided for enhanced penalties for crimes of violence or drug trafficking crimes involving firearms, was unconstitutionally vague. This decision impacts how robbery offenses involving firearms are prosecuted and sentenced.

Chapter 14. Cases Involving Burglary

These cases collectively shaped the legal landscape of how burglary and related offenses are defined and sentenced, particularly under federal law and the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). The Supreme Court clarified the definition of burglary for the purposes of sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Court held that "burglary" under the ACCA includes any crime, regardless of its exact label under state law, that involves unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime.

Sims v. United States, 533 U.S. 946 (2001). This case involved the application of Taylor's definition of burglary under the ACCA. The Supreme Court held that a prior conviction qualifies as burglary under the ACCA if it matches the generic definition of burglary as defined in Taylor. This decision further clarified how prior state convictions should be analyzed under federal law.

James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007). The Supreme Court addressed whether attempted burglary under Florida law constitutes a "violent felony" for the purposes of sentence enhancement under the ACCA. The Court ruled that attempted burglary does qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA because it involves a serious potential risk of physical injury.

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). While not directly about burglary, this case impacted sentencing by holding that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is an "element" that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. This ruling influences how aggravating factors, including those in burglary cases, are treated in sentencing.

Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013). The Court ruled that sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach to sentencing enhancements under the ACCA when the crime of which the defendant was previously convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements that are broader than those of the generic offense of burglary.

Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). The Court held that the residual clause of the ACCA, which defined a violent felony to include any crime that "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another," was unconstitutionally vague. This landmark decision impacted how prior burglary convictions were used for sentence enhancements.

Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016). The Supreme Court clarified how courts should determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under the ACCA. The Court ruled that if a state crime's elements are broader than those of the generic offense, a conviction under that state law cannot count as an ACCA predicate, even if the defendant's actual conduct would fit within the generic offense.

Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016). The Supreme Court ruled that Johnson v. United States, which struck down the residual clause of the ACCA as unconstitutionally vague, applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. This case affected many sentences enhanced by prior burglary convictions under the ACCA's residual clause.

Quarles v. United States, 587 U.S. ___ (2019). The Court held that the generic crime of burglary under the ACCA includes situations where a defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in a building or structure, not only at the time of entry.

Stokeling v. United States, 586 U.S. ___ (2019). This case involved whether a Florida robbery conviction, which required only slight force, qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA. The Supreme Court ruled that the ACCA's elements clause encompasses robbery offenses that require any degree of force, however slight, that is sufficient to overcome a victim’s resistance.

Chapter 15. Cases Involving White Collar Crime

These landmark cases have shaped the landscape of white-collar crime law, clarifying legal standards and influencing how these crimes are prosecuted and defended.

United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965). This case dealt with conflicts of interest and the Labor Management Relations Act. The Supreme Court held that union officers could be prosecuted for financial conflicts of interest, thus expanding the reach of federal corruption laws in the context of labor unions.

United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975). This case established the "responsible corporate officer" doctrine. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a corporate officer for failing to prevent violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, even without direct involvement in the wrongdoing. This doctrine holds corporate officers liable for failing to prevent or correct illegal conduct within their organization.

Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (1987). The Supreme Court held that the use of confidential business information for securities trading, even when no explicit misappropriation or insider trading is involved, can constitute mail and wire fraud. This case extended the reach of federal fraud statutes to cover breaches of fiduciary duty involving confidential information.

McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). The Court ruled that the federal mail fraud statute only covers schemes to deprive victims of tangible property, not intangible rights. This decision was later effectively overturned by Congress with the enactment of the honest services fraud statute.

Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994). The Supreme Court ruled that to convict someone of "structuring" financial transactions to evade reporting requirements, prosecutors must prove that the defendant knew their actions were illegal. This decision emphasized the importance of proving willful intent in white-collar crime cases.

United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997). This case involved a partner at a law firm who used nonpublic information about a corporate takeover to trade stocks. The Supreme Court upheld the "misappropriation theory" of insider trading, ruling that a person commits fraud when they misappropriate confidential information for securities trading purposes, breaching a duty owed to the source of the information.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). This case transformed the federal sentencing landscape by making the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires that any fact increasing a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision has had significant implications for white-collar crime sentencing.

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010). Jeffrey Skilling, the former CEO of Enron, was convicted of conspiracy, securities fraud, and insider trading. The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the federal honest services fraud statute, ruling that it only covers bribery and kickback schemes, not mere failures to disclose conflicts of interest. This decision clarified what constitutes honest services fraud under federal law.

United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014). In this insider trading case, the Second Circuit, whose decision was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court, tightened the requirements for proving insider trading. The court ruled that prosecutors must show that the insider received a personal benefit for the tip and that the trader knew of this benefit. This decision raised the bar for insider trading prosecutions.

Salman v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2016). This case addressed the personal benefit requirement for insider trading liability. The Supreme Court upheld a conviction, ruling that a tipper breaches fiduciary duty by making a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend, even if the tipper does not receive a direct monetary benefit.

Chapter 16. Cases Involving Vehicle Theft

These cases collectively shaped the legal framework for investigating and prosecuting vehicle thefts, emphasizing constitutional protections and the proper procedures for searches and seizures.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). While not specifically about vehicle theft, this landmark case is crucial for all criminal cases, including vehicle theft. The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination before police questioning, known as Miranda rights.

United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search of a footlocker, which had been lawfully seized from a vehicle, was unconstitutional. This decision reinforced the requirement for a warrant to search personal property seized from vehicles, relevant to vehicle theft investigations.

United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). The Supreme Court addressed the use of tracking beepers installed in containers placed inside a suspect's vehicle. The Court held that monitoring a beeper in a private residence without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, affecting how law enforcement can track stolen vehicles.

California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985). The Court upheld the warrantless search of a motorhome under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, considering it as a vehicle rather than a residence. This case clarifies the application of search and seizure laws to vehicles, including those involved in theft cases.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). The Supreme Court ruled that the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe they have violated traffic laws is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, even if the officers have an ulterior motive for the stop. This case is relevant to vehicle theft investigations that begin with traffic stops.

Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998). The Supreme Court ruled that police cannot conduct a full search of a vehicle without a warrant if they only issue a citation instead of making an arrest. This decision impacts the procedures law enforcement must follow during traffic stops, including those for suspected vehicle theft.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007). The Supreme Court held that a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and therefore has standing to challenge the legality of the stop. This ruling is significant for passengers in stolen vehicles who wish to contest the stop.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). The Supreme Court limited the scope of vehicle searches incident to arrest, ruling that police may only search a vehicle if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. This impacts vehicle theft cases where searches are conducted without a warrant.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). This case involved Antoine Jones, who was suspected of drug trafficking. The Supreme Court ruled that the installation of a GPS device on Jones' vehicle and using it to monitor his movements constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, thereby requiring a warrant. The decision has implications for vehicle theft cases involving tracking devices.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014). Although not directly related to vehicle theft, this case involved the search of a vehicle incident to arrest. The Supreme Court ruled that police must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized from an arrestee, impacting vehicle theft cases where cell phone evidence is pertinent.

Chapter 17. Cases Involving Cyber Crime

These cases illustrated the evolving nature of cyber crime law and the judiciary's efforts to balance the enforcement of cyber crime statutes with constitutional protections for privacy and free speech.

United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991). This case involved Robert Tappan Morris, who created and released the first known computer worm, which disrupted numerous computers nationwide. The Second Circuit upheld Morris's conviction under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), marking one of the first significant applications of the CFAA to cyber crime.

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). This landmark case addressed the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which aimed to regulate indecent material on the internet. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the CDA, ruling that they violated the First Amendment's free speech protections. This decision was pivotal in shaping internet free speech laws.

United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010). The Sixth Circuit ruled that the government must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before compelling an internet service provider to turn over a subscriber's emails. The decision underscored the Fourth Amendment protections for email communications.

United States v. Hilton, 701 F.3d 959 (11th Cir. 2012). In this case, the defendant was convicted under the CFAA for a hacking operation. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the conviction, reinforcing the application of the CFAA to various forms of cyber crime, including unauthorized access and data theft.

United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012). This case addressed the scope of the CFAA. The Ninth Circuit held that an employee who accessed a company’s confidential information with the intent to use it for a competing business violated the CFAA. The decision clarified the interpretation of "unauthorized access" under the CFAA.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). While not exclusively a cyber crime case, this case addressed the use of GPS tracking by law enforcement. The Supreme Court ruled that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, thus requiring a warrant. This decision has implications for digital privacy and surveillance.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014). The Supreme Court unanimously held that police must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest. This decision significantly enhanced privacy protections for digital information stored on mobile devices.

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). The Supreme Court ruled that the government must obtain a warrant to access historical cell phone location records. This decision marked a major step in the protection of digital privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021). The Supreme Court ruled that an individual does not violate the CFAA when accessing information on a computer that is otherwise available to them, even if done for an improper purpose. This decision limited the scope of the CFAA’s "exceeds authorized access" clause.

Chapter 18. Cases Involving Agriculture, Wildlife and Environmental Protection

These cases helped shape the legal landscape for agriculture, wildlife, and environmental protection in the United States, defining the scope of federal and state regulatory authority and the rights of individuals and organizations to enforce environmental laws.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). This case upheld the constitutionality of zoning laws, which can be used to control land use for environmental purposes. The decision established that municipalities could impose zoning regulations to protect public health, safety, and welfare, including environmental concerns.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978). The Supreme Court upheld an injunction preventing the completion of the Tellico Dam due to its threat to the endangered snail darter fish. This case was pivotal in affirming the strength of the Endangered Species Act and the federal commitment to protecting endangered species.

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (1983). Also known as the Mono Lake case, this decision by the California Supreme Court has national significance. The court ruled that Los Angeles's diversion of water from Mono Lake violated the public trust doctrine, which requires the state to protect navigable waters for the public's use. This case is significant for environmental protection of water resources.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Supreme Court established the "Chevron deference," which grants agencies authority to interpret ambiguous statutes they administer. This case is pivotal for environmental regulation, as it supports the authority of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to interpret and enforce environmental laws.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge federal actions abroad that might harm endangered species. This case set significant precedents for the requirements of standing in environmental lawsuits, emphasizing the need for a concrete and particularized injury.

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995). The Court upheld a broad interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, affirming that habitat modification that kills or injures wildlife constitutes a "take" under the Act. This decision is significant for wildlife conservation efforts.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Although not directly about environmental crimes, this case is significant for defining the scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. This decision has implications for environmental and agricultural regulations, as it underscores limits on federal regulatory power.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000). The Court held that citizens have standing to sue for environmental damage if they can demonstrate that the environmental harm affects their recreational, aesthetic, or economic interests. This case is significant for empowering citizens to enforce environmental laws.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). The Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act by asserting jurisdiction over isolated, non-navigable intrastate waters based on the presence of migratory birds. This case is important for limiting federal jurisdiction under environmental laws.

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). This case further clarified the scope of federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. The Court ruled that the Act does not extend to wetlands that are not directly connected to navigable waters. This decision impacts federal regulation of agricultural and environmental practices.

Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA's interpretation of "modifications" to power plants under the Clean Air Act was reasonable. This decision supports the EPA's regulatory authority and impacts how environmental laws are applied to industrial activities.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This landmark decision is crucial for addressing climate change and enforcing environmental regulations on air pollution.

Chapter 19. Cases Involving Investigation of Arson and Explosives

These cases collectively addressed the balance between the need for effective arson and explosive investigations and the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment, particularly concerning searches and seizures.

Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967). The Court ruled that administrative searches, such as fire inspections, require a warrant if the property owner objects. This case is important for understanding the balance between the need for safety inspections and Fourth Amendment protections.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). The Court held that the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view is permissible if the initial intrusion that brought the police within plain view of the evidence was lawful and the discovery of the evidence was inadvertent. This principle can apply to the discovery of arson or explosive devices during lawful entries or searches.

Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978). The Supreme Court held that evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a fire-damaged property was inadmissible if the search occurred long after the fire was extinguished and without exigent circumstances. The initial entry by firefighters to extinguish the blaze did not justify subsequent, unrelated searches without a warrant. This case established the principle that once the emergency is over, a warrant is required for further searches.

New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987). The Court upheld warrantless inspections of businesses in heavily regulated industries, such as junkyards, under certain conditions. This ruling can be applied to businesses dealing with materials that might be used in arson or explosive devices, emphasizing the regulatory authority to conduct inspections without a warrant.

Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287 (1984). The Court ruled that a warrantless search of a home conducted hours after a fire had been extinguished was unconstitutional. In this case, the Court found that the search conducted to determine the cause of the fire was not justified by any exigent circumstances since the fire was no longer a threat. This case further clarified the limitations on warrantless searches in arson investigations.

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990). The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view, even if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. This case reinforces the plain view doctrine, which can be applicable during arson or explosive investigations if officers are lawfully present at the scene.

California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991). This case, while primarily about the search of containers in vehicles, established the principle that police may search a container within an automobile without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it holds contraband or evidence. This ruling can extend to situations where explosives might be transported in vehicles.

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). The Supreme Court ruled that police checkpoints designed primarily to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing violate the Fourth Amendment. While not specific to arson or explosives, this case highlights the limitations on searches and seizures that might be relevant in broader investigative contexts.

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006). Although not specifically about arson, this case is relevant because it addresses the conditions under which police can enter a home without a warrant. The Court held that police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. This case provides a context for understanding when warrantless entries might be permissible in emergency situations.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011). The Supreme Court held that police can conduct a warrantless search if they do not create the exigent circumstances by engaging in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. This case is relevant for understanding when exigent circumstances might justify warrantless entries and searches, such as in situations involving arson or explosives.

Chapter 20. Cases Involving Drug Crime

These cases addressed various aspects of drug enforcement, including the use of drug courier profiles, searches of vehicles and containers, the use of drug-sniffing dogs, thermal imaging, federal regulation of controlled substances, and the requirements for lawful searches and seizures. The rulings have shaped the legal landscape by balancing law enforcement objectives with constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 (1919). This case addressed the legality of prescribing narcotics to addicts for maintenance purposes. The Supreme Court ruled that such prescriptions did not constitute a legitimate medical purpose and thus violated the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.

Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925). The Court held that a physician could prescribe narcotics to a patient as part of legitimate medical treatment, even if the patient was an addict, thereby placing some limits on the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.

Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969). The Supreme Court overturned Timothy Leary’s conviction for marijuana possession under the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, ruling that the Act violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989). The Court upheld the constitutionality of using a drug courier profile as a basis for stopping and searching a suspect. The decision reinforced that reasonable suspicion could be based on a combination of factors that match a profile associated with drug trafficking.

California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991). The Supreme Court ruled that police could search a container within a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband. This decision clarified the scope of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, particularly in drug cases.

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). The Court held that police officers may approach individuals on buses and ask to search their luggage without violating the Fourth Amendment, as long as a reasonable person would feel free to decline the request. This case has implications for drug interdiction efforts on public transportation.

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). This case addressed the use of thermal imaging technology to detect marijuana growth inside a home. The Supreme Court held that using such technology without a warrant constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and thus requires a warrant.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). The Court ruled that the federal government could prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, even if state law allows it for medicinal purposes. The decision affirmed the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause to regulate local activities that could affect the national market.

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). The Supreme Court ruled that a drug-sniffing dog can be used during a lawful traffic stop without the need for reasonable suspicion of drug activity. The use of a drug-sniffing dog does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the traffic stop is lawful and not extended beyond the time needed to handle the matter.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). The Supreme Court limited the circumstances under which police can search a vehicle incident to an arrest. The decision held that such a search is permissible only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. 

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013). The Supreme Court ruled that bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of the home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and requires a warrant. This decision underscored the protection of the home and its curtilage from warrantless searches.

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014). The Court upheld the legality of a traffic stop based on an anonymous tip that reported reckless driving. The decision emphasized that a reliable tip can provide the reasonable suspicion needed for a stop if it demonstrates sufficient indicia of reliability.

Chapter 21. Cases Involving Terrorism

These cases collectively addressed the legal challenges and protections surrounding terrorism-related detentions, prosecutions, and civil liberties, highlighting the balance between national security and individual rights.

United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1999). Also known as the "Blind Sheikh" case, this ruling upheld the convictions of Omar Abdel-Rahman and others for seditious conspiracy to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States. The case set precedents for prosecuting terrorist conspiracies.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The Court ruled that the indefinite detention of immigrants who could not be deported to their home countries was unconstitutional. This decision affects cases where individuals are detained under anti-terrorism statutes without a clear path to deportation.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). The Supreme Court ruled that U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention before an impartial authority. Yaser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen detained in Afghanistan, was entitled to due process, including the ability to contest his status as an enemy combatant.

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004).The Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay. This decision allowed detainees to challenge their detention in U.S. courts, marking a significant expansion of legal rights for non-citizens.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). The Court held that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The decision emphasized the need for proper legal procedures and protections even in the context of terrorism.

El-Masri v. United States, 479 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving in place lower court rulings that dismissed Khaled El-Masri's lawsuit against the U.S. government on state secrets grounds. El-Masri alleged he was a victim of extraordinary rendition and torture. This case highlights the tension between national security and judicial review.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008). The Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the right to habeas corpus to challenge their detention in federal court. This landmark decision extended constitutional protections to foreign nationals held as enemy combatants.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The Supreme Court held that high-ranking government officials could not be held liable for unconstitutional conduct by subordinates without evidence that they had a direct hand in the wrongful actions. This case arose from post-9/11 detentions and allegations of discrimination and abuse.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010). The Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting material support to foreign terrorist organizations. The ruling affirmed that even seemingly benign assistance, such as training for peaceful conflict resolution, could be restricted to prevent aiding terrorism.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013). The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) lacked standing because they could not demonstrate that their communications had been monitored. This case addresses the balance between national security surveillance and privacy rights.

Chapter 22. Cases Involving Trial Rules for Investigators

These landmark cases helped shape the rules and procedures that criminal investigators and prosecutors must follow to ensure a fair trial. They highlight the importance of protecting defendants' constitutional rights, including the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to be informed of exculpatory evidence. These decisions enforce procedural fairness and the integrity of the criminal justice system by holding investigators and prosecutors to high standards of transparency and accountability.

Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957). This decision established that a criminal defendant has the right to inspect reports and statements made by government witnesses that relate to their testimony. The ruling led to the creation of the Jencks Act, which mandates the disclosure of such statements to the defense.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Court ruled that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that could exonerate the defendant to the defense. This is known as "Brady material." The failure to disclose such evidence violates due process. This ruling places a significant burden on prosecutors to ensure all exculpatory evidence is shared with the defense.

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964). The Supreme Court held that once formal charges have been brought against a suspect, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, and any attempt by law enforcement to deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the suspect in the absence of their attorney is a violation of this right.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). This landmark case established the requirement that criminal suspects must be informed of their rights before being interrogated by police. These rights include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything they say can be used against them in court. This ensures that suspects are aware of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must disclose any deals, promises, or inducements made to witnesses in exchange for their testimony. Failure to do so violates the defendant's right to a fair trial. This case reinforced the principle that all evidence affecting the credibility of prosecution witnesses must be disclosed.

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). The Supreme Court clarified the obligations of prosecutors under Brady. It held that the prosecution's duty to disclose extends to evidence that is materially favorable to the defense, even if the defense does not specifically request it. This case emphasizes the importance of prosecutorial transparency in ensuring a fair trial.

Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).This case established the "inevitable discovery" doctrine, which allows evidence of a defendant’s guilt that would inevitably have been discovered by lawful means to be admitted, even if it was initially obtained through illegal means. This ruling provides an exception to the exclusionary rule.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Supreme Court established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by inadequate legal representation. The defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). The Court ruled that a prosecutor's duty to disclose evidence favorable to the accused includes evidence known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor. This decision expanded the scope of the Brady rule to encompass the collective knowledge of the prosecution team, including the police.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Court overruled prior precedent to hold that testimonial statements of witnesses who do not appear at trial cannot be admitted unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. This case strengthened the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

1. Abdi v. Wray, 728

2. Abel v. United States, 69, 70

3. Abney v. United States, 702

4. Abraham v. Raso, 493

5. ACLU v. Clapper, 745

6. Adamson v. California, 28, 31, 33

7. Adams v. Williams, 120–122, 143

8. Aguilar v. Texas, 157, 158, 166

9. Alabama v. Shelton, 567

10. Alabama v. White, 107, 121, 122

11. Al-Adahi v. Obama, 738

12. Alasaad v. Mayorkas, 323

13. Alasaad v. Nielsen, 323

14. Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 729

15. Al Bahlul v. United States, 739

16. Alderman v. United States, 454, 455

17. Al Hela v. Trump, 738, 739

18. Allen v. United States, 647

19. Alleyne v. United States, 675

20. Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 738

21. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 286

22. Alsabri v. Obama, 738

23. Anderson v. Creighton, 521

24. Andrus v. Texas, 575

25. Apodaca v. Oregon, 648–649

26. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 674

27. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 567, 568, 588

28. Arizona v. Evans, 461, 463, 467

29. Arizona v. Fulminante, 336

30. Arizona v. Gant, 231, 278, 463

31. Arizona v. Hicks, 65, 78, 273

32. Arizona v. Johnson, 141, 144

33. Arizona v. Roberson, 381

34. Arizona v. United States, 131

35. Arizona v. Washington, 601

36. Arkansas v. Sullivan, 244

37. Arthur v. Dunn, 685

38. Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 333

39. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 522, 727

40. Ashe v. Swenson, 603–604

41. Atkins v. Virginia, 688

42. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 168, 194–195, 205

43. Bailey v. United States, 218

44. Baldwin v. New York, 614

45. Ballew v. Georgia, 615, 662

46. Bandy v. United States, 546

47. Banks v. Dretke, 709

48. Barker v. Wingo, 605, 606

49. Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 24

50. Bartkus v. Illinois, 603

51. Batson v. Kentucky, 629, 632, 662, 708

52. Baze v. Rees, 683, 684

53. Beck v. Ohio, 155

54. Beckwith v. United States, 355

55. Beecher v. Alabama, 332

56. Bell v. Cone, 707

57. Bell v. Wolfish, 319, 554, 587

58. Benton v. Maryland, 34 (table), 598

59. Berger v. United States, 644

60. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 373, 376, 395

61. Berkemer v. McCarty, 357–358

62. Betterman v. Montana, 607

63. Betts v. Brady, 562–565

64. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 228

65. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 452, 453, 490, 520, 534

66. Bivens v. Six Unnamed Federal Agents, 472

67. Blackburn v. Alabama, 333, 334

68. Blackledge v. Perry, 539

69. Blakely v. Washington, 674

70. Blanford v. Sacramento County, 500, 503

71. Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 614

72. Blockburger v. United States, 602

73. Blue v. State, 411, 412

74. Blueford v. Arkansas, 601

75. Board of Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown, 514

76. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 311

77. Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown, 514

78. Bobby v. Van Hook, 574

79. Bolling v. Sharpe, 35

80. Bond v. United States, 74

81. Bonsignore v. City of New York, 493

82. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 653

83. Bosse v. Oklahoma, 673

84. Boumediene v. Bush, 737, 748

85. Bounds v. Smith, 708

86. Bowers v. DeVito, 511

87. Boyd v. United States, 56, 447

88. Boyer v. Louisiana, 607

89. Boykin v. United States, 653

90. Brady v. Maryland, 515, 611

91. Brady v. United States, 652, 653, 655

92. Bram v. United States, 331

93. Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 604

94. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 707

95. Brewer v. Williams, 331, 389, 390, 396

96. Brigham City v. Stuart, 180

97. Brinegar v. United States, 154, 257

98. Briscoe v. LaHue, 508

99. Brodes v. State, 406

100. Brown v. Allen, 21, 705

101. Brown v. City of Oneonta, 126

102. Brown v. Heyd, 354

103. Brown v. Illinois, 457–458

104. Brown v. Mississippi, 28, 332, 338, 394

105. Brown v. Ohio, 603

106. Brown v. Plata, 683

107. Brown v. Texas, 110

108. Brumfield v. Cain, 707, 711

109. Buck v. Davis, 578

110. Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 640

111. Bumper v. North Carolina, 246

112. Burch v. Louisiana, 649

113. Burger v. Kemp, 574

114. Burns v. Reed, 507

115. Byars v. United States, 447

116. Byrd v. United States, 455

117. Cady v. Dombrowski, 183, 266, 267

118. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 49

119. Cage v. Louisiana, 644

120. Calderon v. Coleman, 707, 715

121. Calderon v. Thompson, 711

122. Caldwell v. Mississippi, 688

123. California v. Acevedo, 269

124. California v. Carney, 265

125. California v. Ciraolo, 68

126. California v. Greenwood, 70

127. California v. Hodari, 94

128. California v. Prysock, 368

129. California v. Stewart, 348

130. Camara v. Municipal Court, 282, 323

131. Caniglia v. Strom, 183

132. Caperton v. A.T. Massey, 633

133. Caplin & Drysdale Chartered v. United States, 572

134. Cardwell v. Lewis, 266

135. Carey v. Musladin, 636

136. Carlson v. Landon, 545

137. Carpenter v. United States, 81, 82

138. Carroll v. Carman, 214, 247

139. Carroll v. United States, 154, 264, 266, 270, 703

140. Cash v. County of Erie, 516

141. Cassidy v. Chertoff, 296

142. Casteneda v. Partida, 620

143. Chaidez v. United States, 708

144. Chambers v. Florida, 333

145. Chambers v. Maroney, 264, 266, 267

146. Chambers v. Mississippi, 641

147. Chandler v. Miller, 303

148. Chapman v. California, 454

149. Chapman v. United States, 702, 703

150. Chavez v. Martinez, 343, 495

151. Chavez-Meza v. United States, 678

152. Chimel v. California, 170, 220, 221, 231

153. Cicenia v. Lagay, 341

154. City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 504

155. City of Canton v. Harris, 514

156. City of Escondido v. Emmons, 504, 505

157. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 289, 290

158. City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 283, 284

159. City of St. Paul v. Uber, 132

160. City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 506

161. Ciucci v. Illinois, 602

162. Class v. United States, 658

163. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 614

164. Cohens v. Virginia, 21

165. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation, 702

166. Coker v. Georgia, 688

167. Coleman v. Alabama, 592

168. Collins v. Virginia, 268

169. Colorado v. Bertine, 274

170. Colorado v. Connelly, 336, 337, 374, 375

171. Colorado v. Spring, 369, 375, 376

172. Commonwealth Bank & Trust Company v. Russell, 509

173. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 603

174. Commonwealth v. Bastaldo, 406

175. Commonwealth v. Bostock, 141

176. Commonwealth v. Carey, 156

177. Commonwealth v. Cosby, 540

178. Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 388

179. Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 413

180. Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 141

181. Commonwealth v. Martin, 659

182. Commonwealth v. Matos, 97

183. Commonwealth v. McGrath, 246

184. Commonwealth v. Richman, 412

185. Concepcion v. United States, 678

186. Connally v. Georgia, 167

187. Connecticut v. Barrett, 376

188. Connick v. Thompson, 514, 515

189. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 167, 209 (table)

190. Cooper v. Aaron, 21

191. Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 296

192. Costello v. United States, 596

193. Couden v. Duffy, 496, 497

194. County of Los Angeles, California v. Mendez, 194

195. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 167, 540–541, 587

196. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 32

197. Coy v. Iowa, 638

198. Crawford v. Washington, 639

199. Crooker v. California, 341

200. Crosby v. United States, 634

201. Cullen v. Pinholster, 576

202. Cunningham v. California, 675

203. Cupp v. Murphy, 273

204. Curd v. City Court of Judsonia, 229

205. Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police, 503

206. Currier v. Virginia, 600, 604

207. Darden v. Wainwright, 645

208. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 429

209. Davis v. Alaska, 638

210. Davis v. Ayala, 683, 707

211. Davis v. Mississippi, 140

212. Davis v. United States, 372, 373, 395, 463

213. Davis v. Washington, 639

214. Deck v. Missouri, 635

215. Delaware v. Cannon, 682

216. Delaware v. Prouse, 288, 291

217. Deorle v. Rutherford, 500, 502

218. Department of State Police v. Sitz, 288, 289

219. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 508

220. DeWolfe v. Richmond, 661

221. Dickerson v. United States, 354, 355

222. Dispensa v. Lynaugh, 428

223. District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 431

224. District of Columbia v. Heller, 47

225. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 161

226. Doe v. Little Rock School District, 317

227. Doe v. United States, 343, 344

228. Doggett v. United States, 606

229. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 645

230. Dorsey v. United States, 679

231. Dow Chemical Company v. United States, 68, 69

232. Downum v. United States, 602

233. Doyle v. Ohio, 471

234. Dozier v. United States, 131

235. Draper v. United States, 157, 158

236. Duckworth v. Eagan, 368

237. Dunaway v. New York, 133

238. Duncan v. Louisiana, 35 (table), 613, 662

239. Dunlop v. United States, 644

240. Dunn v. Madison, 689

241. Dunn v. Ray, 689

242. Dunn v. Smith, 689

243. Duren v. Missouri, 621

244. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 695

245. Edwards v. Arizona, 381, 396

246. Edwards v. Vannoy, 650, 708, 709

247. Elkins v. United States, 445, 452

248. El-Masri v. Tenet, 728, 733

249. Elstad v. Oregon, 378

250. Engle v. Isaac, 710

251. Enmund v. Florida, 688

252. Escobedo v. Illinois, 330, 341, 389, 394

253. Estate of Bailey v. County of York, 511

254. Estate of Gilmore v. Buckley, 511

255. Estelle v. Williams, 634, 635, 709

256. Evans v. Michigan, 600

257. Ewing v. California, 690

258. Faretta v. California, 583, 588

259. Fare v. Michael C., 373, 375, 395

260. Fay v. Noia, 704, 705

261. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaca, 728

262. Felkner v. Jackson, 630, 631

263. Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 319

264. Fernandez v. California, 258

265. Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 525

266. Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 730

267. Fiske v. Kansas, 34 (table)

268. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 319, 320

269. Florida v. Bostick, 94

270. Florida v. Harris, 100

271. Florida v. Jardines, 68

272. Florida v. Jimeno, 252, 253

273. Florida v. J. L., 123

274. Florida v. Nixon, 575, 576

275. Florida v. Powell, 369

276. Florida v. Riley, 68

277. Florida v. Royer, 125, 132–134, 136

278. Florida v. Wells, 274

279. Flowers v. Mississippi, 631

280. Floyd v. New York City, 146, 148

281. Ford v. Wainwright, 688

282. Forrester v. White, 506

283. Foster v. California, 424

284. Foster v. Chatman, 631

285. Franks v. Delaware, 167

286. Frazier v. Cupp, 254, 339

287. Frisbie v. Butler, 56

288. Frye v. United States, 428

289. Furman v. Georgia, 683, 685

290. Gall v. United States, 676

291. Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 135

292. Gamble v. United States, 603

293. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 635

294. Gardner v. Florida, 672

295. Garza v. Idaho, 578

296. Georgia v. McCollum, 630

297. Georgia v. Randolph, 258, 260

298. Gerstein v. Pugh, 167, 205, 540, 551, 566, 587

299. Gideon v. Wainwright, 34 (table), 43, 563, 567, 588, 659, 661

300. Gilbert v. California, 407

301. Glasser v. United States, 620

302. Glenn v. Washington County, 500

303. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 635

304. Glossip v. Gross, 684, 685

305. Glover v. United States, 573

306. Godfrey v. Georgia, 686

307. Goldman v. United States, 57

308. Grady v. North Carolina, 80

309. Graham v. Connor, 188, 205, 499, 524

310. Graham v. Florida, 690, 691, 693

311. Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 505

312. Green v. Scully, 375

313. Green v. United States, 602

314. Greer v. United States, 703

315. Gregg v. Georgia, 686

316. Griffin v. Illinois, 701

317. Griffin v. Maryland, 493

318. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 317

319. Griffith v. Kentucky, 703

320. Groh v. Ramirez, 210 (table), 521, 522

321. Groppi v. Wisconsin, 608

322. Gustafson v. Florida, 194, 237

323. Hairston v. United States, 380

324. Hall v. Florida, 688, 689

325. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 731, 735

326. Hamdan v. United States, 739

327. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 704, 734, 735, 748

328. Hampton v. United States, 478

329. Ham v. South Carolina, 622, 623

330. Hardy v. Cross, 639

331. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 496, 521

332. Harmelin v. Michigan, 682

333. Harrington v. Richter, 706

334. Harrison v. Richter, 576

335. Harris v. New York, 470

336. Harris v. Roderick, 500, 503

337. Harris v. United States, 208

338. Hart v. A.G., 373

339. Hawkins v. Superior Court, 596

340. Hayes v. Florida, 140

341. Haynes v. Washington, 335

342. Heath v. Alabama, 603

343. Hedgepeth v. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 202

344. Heien v. North Carolina, 462, 463

345. Helstoski v. Meanor, 702

346. Henderson v. Morgan, 653

347. Hendricks v. Kansas, 669

348. Henry v. United States, 105, 166

349. Hernandez v. Mesa, 522

350. Herrera v. Collins, 706

351. Herring v. New York, 644

352. Herring v. United States, 464

353. Hester v. United States, 69

354. Highhouse v. Wayne Highlands School District, 310

355. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 136, 137, 343

356. Hinton v. Alabama, 573

357. Hinton v. Uchtman, 393

358. Hoffa v. United States, 64

359. Hoffman v. United States, 343

360. Holbrook v. Flynn, 635

361. Holland v. Harrington, 495, 496

362. Holloway v. Arkansas, 577

363. Holt v. Hobbs, 320

364. Holt v. United States, 345

365. Hopt v. Utah, 331

366. Horton v. California, 65

367. House v. Bell, 431, 711

368. Howes v. Fields, 357

369. Hudson v. Michigan, 459, 460

370. Hudson v. Palmer, 319

371. Hudson v. United States, 599

372. Huffman v. County of Los Angeles, 493

373. Hughes v. United States, 677, 678

374. Hunter v. Bryant, 521

375. Hurrell-Harring v. New York, 661

376. Hurst v. Florida, 688

377. Hurtado v. California, 26, 593, 596

378. Husayn v. Mitchell, 719

379. Hutto v. Davis, 680, 681

380. Idaho v. LaMay, 221

381. Illinois v. Allen, 634, 663

382. Illinois v. Caballes, 100, 201

383. Illinois v. Gates, 157, 159, 205

384. Illinois v. Krull, 461, 462

385. Illinois v. Lafayette, 274

386. Illinois v. Lidster, 294

387. Illinois v. Perkins, 357, 391

388. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 254, 255, 260, 461, 463

389. Illinois v. Somerville, 601, 602

390. Illinois v. Wardlow, 108, 110, 116

391. Imbler v. Pachtman, 506

392. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, 94

393. Indiana v. Edwards, 584

394. Iowa v. Tovar, 583

395. Irvine v. California, 32, 453

396. Irvin v. Dowd, 609

397. Israel v. Odom, 415

398. Jackson v. Virginia, 710

399. Jacobson v. United States, 477, 478

400. Jae Lee v. United States, 577

401. James v. Illinois, 471

402. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 358, 359, 395

403. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel., 630, 662

404. Jenkins v. Anderson, 471

405. Johnson v. Avery, 708

406. Johnson v. Florida, 428

407. Johnson v. Glick, 189, 190

408. Johnson v. Louisiana, 649

409. Johnson v. Louisiana, 649

410. Johnson v. United States, 208, 702, 708

411. Johnson v. Zerbst, 562

412. Johnston v. Tampa Sports Authority, 302

413. Jones v. Barnes, 701

414. Jones v. Mississippi, 698

415. Jones v. United States, 156

416. Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 49

417. Kansas v. Carr, 686, 687

418. Kansas v. Glover, 120

419. Kansas v. Hendricks, 599

420. Kansas v. Ventris, 471

421. Kashem v. Barr, 728

422. Katz v. United States, 57, 58, 83, 101

423. Kaupp v. Texas, 133, 457

424. Kelly v. South Carolina, 688

425. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 688

426. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 669

427. Kennedy v. Ridgefield City, 509

428. Kentucky v. King, 181

429. Kentucky v. Stincer, 634

430. Kernan v. Cuero, 654

431. Ker v. California, 175

432. Kimbrough v. United States, 676

433. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 573

434. Kirby v. Illinois, 342, 410, 412, 439, 566

435. Kisela v. Hughes, 194, 498

436. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 34 (table), 604

437. Kneipp v. Tedder, 517

438. Knowles v. Iowa, 238

439. Koons v. United States, 678

440. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 514

441. Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 391

442. Kuren v. Luzerne County, 660

443. Kyle v. Whitley, 710

444. Kyllo v. United States, 74–76, 101

445. Lafler v. Cooper, 657

446. Lange v. California, 179

447. Lankford v. Gelston, 517

448. Latif v. Obama, 738

449. Lego v. Twomey, 335

450. Leonzal v. Grogan, 519, 520

451. Lewis v. United States, 64, 614

452. Lisenba v. California, 333

453. llinois v. Lidster, 294

454. Lockhart v. McCree, 624

455. Lockyer v. Andrade, 690

456. Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 505

457. Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 561

458. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 516

459. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 683

460. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 515

461. Luis v. United States, 572

462. Lynch v. Arizona, 688

463. Lynch v. United States, 526

464. Lynumn v. Illinois, 334

465. MacWade v. Kelly, 296

466. Madera v. State, 478

467. Madison v. Alabama, 689

468. Mallory v. United States, 340, 394, 541

469. Malloy v. Hogan, 33, 34, 34 (table), 331, 342, 345, 395

470. Manson v. Brathwaite, 414, 415, 417, 439

471. Maples v. Thomas, 709, 710

472. Mapp v. Ohio, 34 (table), 442, 445, 446, 450, 451, 456, 465, 472, 486

473. Marbury v. Madison, 21

474. Marron v. United States, 210 (table)

475. Marshall v. Rodgers, 584

476. Martinez v. California, 510

477. Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 584

478. Martinez v. Illinois, 599, 600

479. Martinez v. Ryan, 710

480. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 21

481. Maryland v. Buie, 145

482. Maryland v. Craig, 638

483. Maryland v. Garrison, 468, 210 (table)

484. Maryland v. King, 432, 433

485. Maryland v. Kulbicki, 574, 575

486. Maryland v. Macon, 69

487. Maryland v. Pringle, 165

488. Maryland v. Shatzer, 381, 396

489. Maryland v. Wilson, 141, 150

490. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 461, 462, 465

491. Massiah v. United States, 341, 389, 390, 396

492. Mathews v. United States, 477

493. Mayer v. Chicago, 569

494. McCarthy v. United States, 653

495. McCleskey v. Kemp, 700, 714

496. McCoy v. Louisiana, 703

497. McCray v. Illinois, 157, 158

498. McDonald v. Chicago, 34 (table), 47, 48

499. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 603

500. McKaskle v. Wiggins, 584

501. McNabb v. United States, 21, 340, 394, 448, 541

502. McNeil v. Wisconsin, 391, 392

503. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 710

504. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 640

505. Mempa v. Rhay, 672

506. Mercado v. City of Orlando, 494

507. Messerschmidt v. Millender, 497

508. Michigan v. Bryant, 639, 640

509. Michigan v. Chesternut, 94

510. Michigan v. Clifford, 283

511. Michigan v. Fisher, 180

512. Michigan v. Jackson, 390

513. Michigan v. Long, 144, 145, 150

514. Michigan v. Mosley, 380

515. Michigan v. Summers, 218

516. Michigan v. Tyler, 174, 175, 177

517. Miller-El v. Dretke, 631

518. Miller v. Alabama, 692, 698

519. Miller v. Fenton, 353

520. Mills v. District of Columbia, 295

521. Mills v. Maryland, 686

522. Mincey v. Arizona, 174, 336

523. Minnesota v. Carter, 456

524. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 142, 145, 150

525. Minnesota v. Murphy, 356

526. Minnesota v. Olson, 175, 455

527. Minnick v. Mississippi, 328, 382

528. Miranda v. Arizona, 44, 249, 330, 331, 342, 347, 348, 358, 359, 365, 385, 389, 395, 443, 710

529. Mireles v. Waco, 506

530. Missouri v. Frye, 657

531. Missouri v. McNeely, 182, 228

532. Missouri v. Seibert, 378, 379, 396

533. Mitchell v. United States, 672

534. Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 182, 228

535. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 677

536. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 513

537. Monroe v. Pape, 492

538. Montana v. Bauer, 195

539. Montejo v. Louisiana, 390–392

540. Montgomery v. Louisiana, 692, 698

541. Moore v. Dempsey, 26, 27

542. Moore v. Illinois, 411

543. Moore v. Madigan, 49

544. Moore v. Texas, 689

545. Moran v. Burbine, 369, 374, 375, 390

546. Morgan v. Illinois, 624

547. Morris v. Slappy, 571

548. Morse v. Frederick, 304

549. Mosley v. Michigan, 397

550. Muehler v. Mena, 218

551. Mullenix v. Leija, 192–193

552. Murphy v. Collier, 689

553. Murphy v. Florida, 609

554. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 343

555. Murray v. Giarratano, 708

556. Murray v. United States, 468

557. Nardone v. United States, 457

558. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 304

559. Navarette v. California, 121, 122

560. Neal v. Delaware, 619

561. Neder v. United States, 703

562. Neil v. Biggers, 416, 417

563. Nelson v. United States, 676

564. Neuens v. City of Columbus, 493

565. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 304, 306

566. New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, 50

567. New York v. Belton, 230, 231, 269, 463

568. New York v. Burger, 283, 323

569. New York v. Quarles, 366, 367, 395

570. Nichols v. United States, 567

571. Nieves v. Bartlett, 494, 495

572. Nishiyama v. Dickson County, 509, 512

573. Nix v. Whiteside, 575

574. Nix v. Williams, 468, 469

575. Norris v. Alabama, 620

576. North Carolina v. Alford, 653–655

577. North Carolina v. Butler, 376

578. North Carolina v. Pearce, 701

579. North Carolina v. Robinson, 700

580. O’Donnell v. Harris County, 586

581. Ohio v. Clark, 640

582. Ohio v. Roberts, 638, 639

583. Ohio v. Robinette, 252

584. Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 90

585. Olden v. Kentucky, 638

586. Oliver v. United States, 66, 67

587. Olmstead v. United States, 57, 448, 449, 452

588. Ontario v. Quon, 63

589. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 382, 396, 397

590. Oregon v. Elstad, 374

591. Oregon v. Hass, 471

592. Oregon v. Ice, 675

593. Oregon v. Kennedy, 601

594. Oregon v. Mathiason, 357

595. Ornelas v. United States, 108

596. Orozco v. Texas, 356

597. Owen v. City of Independence, 513

598. Oyler v. Boles, 36

599. Padilla v. Kentucky, 577, 708

600. Palko v. Connecticut, 28

601. Park v. Shiflett, 136

602. Patterson v. Illinois, 390

603. Patton v. Yount, 609, 610

604. Payne v. Arkansas, 334

605. Payne v. Tennessee, 672

606. Payton v. New York, 169, 174, 176, 177, 205

607. Pearson v. Callahan, 497, 498, 520, 533

608. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 513

609. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 647, 648

610. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 141, 150

611. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 344

612. People v. Alonzo, 168

613. People v. Burton, 168

614. People v. Bustamonte, 412

615. People v. Campa, 160

616. People v. Defore, 444

617. People v. Jefferson, 246

618. People v. Jimenez, 628

619. People v. Lidster, 294

620. People v. Madson, 140

621. People v. McCauley, 372

622. People v. More, 230

623. People v. Pendleton, 194

624. People v. Peppers, 432

625. People v. Perry, 221

626. People v. Robinson, 646

627. People v. Savinon, 637

628. People v. Scott, 435

629. People v. Thompson, 179

630. People v. Triggs, 63

631. People v. Utica Daw’s Drug Company, 36

632. People v. Walker, 36

633. Perez v. State, 473

634. Perry v. New Hampshire, 426, 439

635. Peters v. United States, 155

636. Peugh v. United States, 676, 677

637. Pierson v. Ray, 496

638. Pinder v. Johnson, 509

639. Platt v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., 611

640. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 192, 504

641. Pointer v. Texas, 34 (table), 637

642. Porter v. McCollum, 574

643. Powell v. Alabama, 27, 562, 564–565, 577

644. Powell v. Superior Court, 608

645. Powers v. Ohio, 630

646. Premo v. Moore, 576

647. Presley v. Georgia, 635

648. Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court I, 635

649. Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court II, 635

650. Preston v. United States, 229

651. Prince Jones v. United States, 80

652. Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 603

653. Purkett v. Elem, 629, 630

654. Rakas v. Illinois, 455

655. Ramirez v. Collier, 689, 690

656. Ramos v. Louisiana, 35 (table), 649, 650, 708

657. Randolph v. Georgia, 258

658. Rasul v. Bush, 734, 748

659. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 229, 455

660. Reichle v. Howards, 496, 497

661. Reid v. Georgia, 125

662. Renico v. Lett, 601

663. Rex v. Warickshall, 331

664. Rhode Island v. Innis, 383, 384, 389, 396, 397

665. Richards v. Wisconsin, 212, 214

666. Rideau v. Louisiana, 609

667. Riley v. California, 220, 223, 321

668. Ring v. Arizona, 687

669. Ristaino v. Ross, 623

670. Rita v. United States, 675, 676

671. Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 505, 506

672. Rivera v. Rhode Island, 513

673. Rizzo v. Goode, 495, 516

674. Robbins v. California, 72

675. Robinson v. California, 35 (table)

676. Rochin v. California, 28, 29, 444, 445

677. Rock v. Arkansas, 641

678. Rodriguez v. United States, 201–202

679. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 578

680. Rompilla v. Beard, 574

681. Roper v. Simmons, 688, 693

682. Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 623

683. Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 677, 702

684. Rose v. Mitchell, 594, 710

685. Ross v. Moffitt, 701

686. Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 389

687. Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 319

688. Rummel v. Estelle, 682

689. Ryburn v. Huff, 180, 181

690. Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 305

691. Salinas v. Texas, 377

692. Samson v. California, 318

693. Sanders v. City of Houston, 541

694. Sanders v. United States, 705

695. Santobello v. New York, 652, 654

696. Saucier v. Katz, 521

697. Schall v. Martin, 550

698. Schilb v. Kuebel, 545

699. Schmerber v. California, 177, 344, 345

700. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 244, 247, 254, 705

701. Schneider v. State, 109

702. Scott v. Harris, 191, 192

703. Scott v. Illinois, 567, 568, 588

704. Scott v. Sandford, 24

705. Screws v. United States, 526

706. See v. City of Seattle, 283

707. Sell v. United States, 702

708. Sessions v. Dimaya, 708

709. Shaw v. Stroud, 495

710. Shelling v. State, 632

711. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 608

712. Sherman v. United States, 474, 475

713. Shinn v. Ramirez, 710

714. Sibron v. New York, 143, 155

715. Silverman v. United States, 77

716. Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States, 468

717. Simmons v. United States, 424, 425, 601

718. Simpson v. Miller, 561

719. Sitz v. Michigan Department of State Police, 294

720. Skilling v. United States, 610

721. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association, 302

722. Smith v. Cain, 611, 612

723. Smith v. Doe, 669

724. Smith v. Hooey, 604

725. Smith v. Maryland, 62

726. Snyder v. Louisiana, 630

727. Sorrells v. United States, 474, 486

728. South Dakota v. Neville, 343

729. South Dakota v. Opperman, 267, 274

730. Southern Union Co. v. United States, 675

731. Spano v. New York, 333, 335, 341

732. Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 650

733. Spinelli v. United States, 158

734. Stack v. Boyle, 545, 551–553, 702

735. Stansbury v. California, 356

736. State v. Armijo, 429

737. State v. Baker, 353

738. State v. Barber, 127

739. State v. Brown, 195, 547

740. State v. Bryant, 69

741. State v. Chambers, 699, 700

742. State v. Clark, 366

743. State v. Clopten, 427

744. State v. Damon Williams, 651

745. State v. Davis, 69, 583

746. State v. DelValle, 108

747. State v. Dorsey, 436

748. State v. Edstrom, 76

749. State v. Ferrier, 246

750. State v. Goetz, 65

751. State v. Goss, 74

752. State v. Henderson, 427

753. State v. Jackson, 160

754. State v. Kramer, 183

755. State v. Ledbetter, 406

756. State v. Lopez, 255

757. State v. Loucks, 436

758. State v. Matsumoto, 353

759. State v. McLees, 255

760. State v. Medina, 433

761. State v. Miglavs, 146

762. State v. Munson, 135

763. State v. Serna, 144

764. State v. Shamblin, 274

765. State v. Smith, 141

766. State v. Soto, 275

767. State v. Sprague, 142

768. State v. Sullivan, 243, 244

769. State v. Tye, 246

770. State v. Whitaker, 76

771. State v. Woodall, 430–431

772. State v. Young, 97

773. Steagald v. United States, 174

774. Stengel v. Belcher, 493

775. Stephan v. State, 388

776. Stone v. Powell, 454, 461, 705, 706

777. Stovall v. Denno, 414, 423, 439

778. Strauder v. West Virginia, 619

779. Strickland v. Washington, 572, 577, 581, 588

780. Strunk v. United States, 605

781. Swain v. Alabama, 629

782. Tague v. Louisiana, 375, 395

783. Tanner v. United States, 647

784. Taylor v. Illinois, 641

785. Taylor v. Louisiana, 620, 621

786. Taylor v. State, 237

787. Taylor v. United States, 634

788. Teague v. Lane, 708

789. Tennessee v. Garner, 184, 185, 189, 192, 205, 499

790. Terry v. Ohio, 105, 106, 110, 116, 137, 138, 140, 142, 149, 150, 273

791. Texas v. Brown, 75, 269

792. Texas v. Cobb, 392

793. Texas v. White, 264, 265

794. Tharpe v. Sellers, 710

795. Thies v. State, 592

796. Thompson v. Clark, 540

797. Thompson v. United States, 601

798. Thompson v. Utah, 615

799. Thornton v. United States, 231, 235

800. Timbs v. Indiana, 35 (table), 671

801. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 304

802. Tison v. Arizona, 689

803. Torres v. Madrid, 98

804. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 495

805. Townsend v. Sain, 333, 334, 707

806. Traver v. Meshriy, 493

807. Trevino v. Thaler, 710

808. Trop v. Dulles, 682, 683

809. Turner v. Fouche, 620

810. Turner v. Murray, 623

811. Turner v. Rogers, 570, 571

812. Turner v. United States, 612, 613

813. Twining v. New Jersey, 26

814. United States ex rel. Maxwell v. Gilmore, 393

815. United States v. Abdul-Saboor, 221

816. United States v. Al-Azzawy, 169

817. United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 340

818. United States v. Armstrong, 37

819. United States v. Arvizu, 107

820. United States v. Ash, 412, 413, 439

821. United States v. Bagley, 611

822. United States v. Banks, 213, 214

823. United States v. Bass, 42

824. United States v. Batchelder, 538

825. United States v. Bautista, 127

826. United States v. Benchimol, 654

827. United States v. Bergman, 671

828. United States v. Berkowitz, 169

829. United States v. Blake, 253, 389

830. United States v. Blakeney, 210 (table)

831. United States v. Booker, 675

832. United States v. Boone, 457

833. United States v. Boustani, 565

834. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 286

835. United States v. Brownlee, 406, 407

836. United States v. Calandra, 445, 456

837. United States v. Carrillo, 367

838. United States v. Ceballos, 66

839. United States v. Ceccolini, 457

840. United States v. Chadwick, 229–230, 269

841. United States v. Ciambrone, 594

842. United States v. Classic, 493

843. United States v. Codd, 136

844. United States v. Cortez, 107

845. United States v. Cotterman, 321

846. United States v. Cronic, 577

847. United States v. Davila, 658

848. United States v. Davis, 109, 397

849. United States v. Dichiarinte, 253

850. United States v. DiFrancesco, 598, 602

851. United States v. Dinitz, 600

852. United States v. Di Re, 165

853. United States v. Dossie, 681

854. United States v. Dougherty, 650

855. United States v. Drayton, 94

856. United States v. Dunn, 67

857. United States v. Edwardo-Franco, 699

858. United States v. Edwards, 229

859. United States v. El-Mezain, 742

860. United States v. Elmore, 124

861. United States v. Emanuele, 429

862. United States v. Esieke, 287

863. United States v. Flores-Montano, 286

864. United States v. Forrester, 62

865. United States v. Foster, 108

866. United States v. Frady, 710

867. United States v. Freitas, 724

868. United States v. Fuccillo, 210 (table)

869. United States v. Fuentes, 254

870. United States v. Fusko, 475

871. United States v. Gaddy, 375

872. United States v. Gaitan-Acevedo, 175

873. United States v. Gallegos, 135

874. United States v. Garcia, 143

875. United States v. Gary, 703

876. United States v. Gillette, 156

877. United States v. Glover, 109

878. United States v. Gonzalez-Basulto, 244, 245

879. United States v. Gonzalez-Lauzan Jr., 380

880. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 571

881. United States v. Goodwin, 539, 540

882. United States v. Gouveia, 566

883. United States v. Grayson, 673

884. United States v. Green, 381

885. United States v. Grubbs, 209 (table)

886. United States v. Hall, 123

887. United States v. Harrington, 674

888. United States v. Harris, 158

889. United States v. Hatley, 246

890. United States v. Havens, 470

891. United States v. Haymond, 674

892. United States v. Henry, 367, 391

893. United States v. Hensley, 123

894. United States v. Hir, 545

895. United States v. Holland, 169

896. United States v. Humphries, 155

897. United States v. Hyde, 654

898. United States v. Ivy, 252

899. United States v. Jaimez, 66

900. United States v. Jakobetz, 431

901. United States v. Janis, 472

902. United States v. Johns, 267

903. United States v. Johnson, 286

904. United States v. Jones, 79, 80, 84, 126, 127, 275

905. United States v. Kadir, 742

906. United States v. Karo, 75

907. United States v. Kincade, 432

908. United States v. Kindle, 484

909. United States v. Knights, 131, 317

910. United States v. Knope, 246

911. United States v. Knotts, 75, 83

912. United States v. Lattimore, 254

913. United States v. Leon, 461

914. United States v. Lindh, 730

915. United States v. Lopez-Arias, 135

916. United States v. Lovasco, 605

917. United States v. Lyons, 221

918. United States v. Mahone, 429

919. United States v. Mantecon-Zayas, 553

920. United States v. Marion, 605

921. United States v. Marquez, 295

922. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 288

923. United States v. Matlock, 258, 260

924. United States v. Mayfield, 483, 484

925. United States v. Mendenhall, 92, 93, 95, 96, 124

926. United States v. Miller, 46, 62, 527, 724, 725

927. United States v. Moalin, 745

928. United States v. Modica, 645

929. United States v. Monclavo-Cruz, 274

930. United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 134, 286, 287

931. United States v. Morales, 169

932. United States v. Myers, 219

933. United States v. Nachtigal, 614

934. United States v. Newton, 366, 367

935. United States v. Olano, 702

936. United States v. Ortiz, 154

937. United States v. Pardue, 469

938. United States v. Patane, 461

939. United States v. Payner, 456

940. United States v. Perez, 601

941. United States v. Place, 100, 133, 134

942. United States v. Post, 63

943. United States v. Procter & Gamble, 596

944. United States v. Prout, 209 (table)

945. United States v. Quintana-Garcia, 109

946. United States v. Ramirez, 213

947. United States v. Ramos, 130, 131

948. United States v. Ramsey, 285

949. United States v. Reagan, 239

950. United States v. Redmon, 67

951. United States v. Reyes, 366

952. United States v. Reynolds, 728

953. United States v. Robinson, 144, 194, 237, 239, 241

954. United States v. Rodney, 253

955. United States v. Rogers, 426

956. United States v. Ross, 72, 210 (table), 266, 270

957. United States v. Rubin, 175

958. United States v. Russell, 477

959. United States v. Salerno, 547, 548, 587

960. United States v. Sanges, 703

961. United States v. Santana, 174, 177

962. United States v. Sattar, 727, 728

963. United States v. Scheffer, 435

964. United States v. Scott, 70

965. United States v. Seelye, 134

966. United States v. Sharpe, 133, 136

967. United States v. Simmons, 654

968. United States v. Smith, 252

969. United States v. Sokolow, 126

970. United States v. Steele, 36

971. United States v. Swindle, 99

972. United States v. Taylor, 263

973. United States v. Telfaire, 406

974. United States v. Thomas, 247, 650

975. United States v. Thompson, 254

976. United States v. Touset, 323

977. United States v. Tsarnaev, 611, 622, 687

978. United States v. Turner, 539

979. United States v. Tyler, 381

980. United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 720

981. United States v. Uribe, 109

982. United States v. Ursery, 671

983. United States v. Velasquez, 375

984. United States v. Ventresca, 156

985. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 241

986. United States v. Villegas, 724

987. United States v. Wade, 407, 412, 566

988. United States v. Waller, 263

989. United States v. Warshak, 63

990. United States v. Washington, 650

991. United States v. Watson, 168–170, 172, 173, 205, 251, 252

992. United States v. Weaver, 127, 128

993. United States v. White, 64

994. United States v. Young, 645, 702

995. United States v. Zubaydah, 728

996. Utah v. Strieff, 458, 459

997. Uthman v. Obama, 737, 738

998. Uttecht v. Brown, 623

999. Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 562

1000. Van de Kamp et al. v. Goldstein, 506, 507

1001. Varden v. Clanton, 547

1002. Vazquez v. Hillery, 594

1003. Vega v. Tekoh, 355

1004. Vermont v. Brillon, 606

1005. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 310

1006. Victor v. Nebraska, 644

1007. Vignera v. New York, 348

1008. Virginia v. Moore, 202

1009. Wade v. Hunter, 601

1010. Wainwright v. Sykes, 710

1011. Wainwright v. Torna, 701

1012. Wainwright v. Witt, 623

1013. Walder v. United States, 470

1014. Waller v. Florida, 603

1015. Waller v. Georgia, 634–635

1016. Warden v. Hayden, 54, 174, 177

1017. Warger v. Shauers, 647

1018. Warshak v. United States, 63

1019. Washington v. Lambert, 275

1020. Washington v. Texas, 35 (table), 642

1021. Washington v. Wilmore, 494

1022. Watts v. Indiana, 333

1023. Way v. County of Ventura, 494

1024. Wayte v. United States, 36, 538, 539

1025. Wearry v. Cain, 612

1026. Webb v. Texas, 641, 642

1027. Weeks v. United States, 442, 444, 447, 486

1028. Weems v. United States, 690

1029. Welch v. United States, 708

1030. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 175, 176

1031. West v. Atkins, 493

1032. Westover v. United States, 348

1033. Wheat v. United States, 578

1034. White v. Pauly, 193

1035. White v. Texas, 334

1036. White v. Wheeler, 623, 624

1037. White v. Woodall, 706

1038. Whren v. United States, 239, 240

1039. Wiggins v. Smith, 573, 574

1040. Wilbur v. City of Mount Vernon, 660, 661

1041. Wilkerson v. Utah, 683

1042. Williams v. Florida, 615–618, 662

1043. Williams v. Illinois, 640, 641

1044. Williams v. New York, 672, 673

1045. Williams v. Pennsylvania, 633

1046. Williams v. Taylor, 706

1047. Wilson v. Arkansas, 212, 214

1048. Wilson v. Layne, 210 (table), 521

1049. Wilson v. Sellers, 707

1050. Wisconsin v. Dubose, 425

1051. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 623, 624

1052. Withrow v. Williams, 710

1053. Wolf v. Colorado, 34 (table), 444, 446, 448, 450, 486

1054. Wong v. Belmontes, 576

1055. Wong Sun v. United States, 459

1056. Woodson v. North Carolina, 686

1057. Wood v. Georgia, 593

1058. Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 50

1059. Wyoming v. Houghton, 269, 270

1060. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 358

1061. Yarborough v. Gentry, 575

1062. Ybarra v. Illinois, 81

1063. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 36

1064. Young v. State of Hawaii, 50

1065. Zenquis v. Philadelphia, 493–494

1066. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 726

1067. Zolnowski v. County of Erie, 517