¶ US Case Law
The following sections offer comprehensive summaries of landmark federal cases categorized by their legal domains. These cases represent pivotal judicial decisions made by U.S. federal courts, significantly impacting the interpretation and enforcement of laws across various fields. Each summary highlights the facts, legal issues, court reasoning, and implications of the rulings, providing an in-depth understanding of how these decisions have shaped current legal standards and practices. These summaries serve as valuable resources for anyone seeking to understand the evolution and nuances of federal case law.
¶ Traffic and Pedestrian Stops
This type of case deals with answering questions of reasonable suspicion, as well as determining which detainments are permissible under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Case Law:
Terry v. Ohio - Establishes that a person may be subject to a cursory pat-down of their person for officer safety reasons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and there is reason to believe the person is armed and presently dangerous.
Brown v. Texas - Establishes that law enforcement may not detain a person solely for refusing to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion of some other offense.
Whren v. United States - Establishes that any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate legal basis for detaining that individual in a traffic stop.
Minnesota v. Dickerson - Establishes that contraband seized during a Terry frisk is only admissible if it was possible to identify the contrabrand within the scope of the Terry frisk. Id est, 'squeezing' bumps or entering pockets to determine their nature is not allowed as a Terry frisk only permits a protective pat-down.
Illinois v. Caballes - Establishes that a dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Rodriguez v. United States - Establishes that absent reasonable suspicion, officers may not extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff, but may call a K9 unit if the unit arrives before the traffic stop is terminated.
United States v. Place - Establishes that a sniff by a police dog specially trained to detect the presence of narcotics or firearms is not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because the sniff of a dog is sui generis, intended to reveal only the presence or absence of narcotics or firearms.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Establishes that a police officer may order an individual out of his or her car following a traffic stop and may subsequently conduct a pat-down to check for weapons if the officer has reason to believe the driver is armed and dangerous.
Michigan State Police v. Sitz - Established that the impact of checkpoints on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, or checking their ID was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" of a road law violation similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search, and was therefore constitutional.
Illinois v. Wardlow - Establishes that sudden and unprovoked flight when in the near-presence of law enforcement, coupled with the fact that such flight happens in a high-crime area, can create reasonable suspicion to justify the detainment of a suspect.
Prado Navarette v. San Andreas - Establishes that police, when acting upon information provided by an anonymous tip, do not need to personally verify the existence of ongoing criminal activity.
Brendlin v. San Andreas - Establishes that automobile passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the car in which they are riding is held at a law enforcement traffic stop.
¶ Searches, Seizures, and Admissibility of Evidence
This type of case deals with answering questions of determining which evidence can and cannot be included in a trial, as well as which searches and seizures are permissible under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Case Law:
- Mapp v. Ohio - Establishes that evidence collected illegally, without probable cause, without permission, or without a warrant cannot be used in a court of law.
- Malloy v. Hogan - Establishes that when determining if state officers properly obtained a confession, one must focus on whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without any direct or implied promise or improper influence.
- Miranda v. Arizona - Establishes that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney.
- Salinas v. Texas - Establishes that a person does not have a protection against self-incrimination before they have been subjected to a custodial interrogation, and that statements provided without a Miranda warning are admissible provided that the person was not in custody.
- Kastigar v. United States - Establishes that a witness who asserts their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination may be compelled to testify if they are first given absolute immunity for any crime that may be revealed.
- Garrity v. New Jersey - Established that where police officers being investigated were given choice either to incriminate themselves or to forfeit their jobs under New Jersey statute on ground of self-incrimination, and officers chose to make confessions, confessions were not voluntary but were coerced, and Fourteenth Amendment prohibited their use in subsequent criminal prosecution in state court.
- Kentucky v. King - Establishes that warrantless searches are permitted in Exigent Circumstances such as that a threat to life is imminent (Injured person, sounds of violence, weapons) or there's an imminent threat to the preservation of evidence (shredding documents while waiting on a warrant). It always requires a Knock and Notice by Law Enforcement prior to entry.
- Carpenter v. United States - Establishes that police must have a duly-authorized search warrant in order to track the active GPS position of a person's phone, because accessing the real-time location of a person (according to a cellular tower) is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment.
- Heien v. North Carolina - Establishes that a police officer who stops a car based on a reasonable though mistaken understanding of the law does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
- Berghuis v. Thompkins - Establishes that a suspect's silence during interrogation does not invoke his right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona. The invocation of that right must be unambiguous, and silence is not enough to invoke it. Voluntarily and knowingly responding to police interrogation after remaining silent constitutes a waiver of the right to remain silent, provided that a Miranda warning was given and the suspect understood it.
- Kyllo v. United States - Establishes that police officers' use of thermal imaging upon a private residence to discover criminal activity, absent a search warrant, constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- Harris v. United States - Establishes that law enforcement may search a person's immediate premises "incident to arrest" if a person is subjected to a custodial arrest. Further extended by United States v. Robinson to constitute both an exception to the fourth amendment and a reasonable search under the meaning of the fourth amendment. Further extended by United States v. Rabinowitz to include properties where the arrestee is located during the arrest.
- Arizona v. Gant - Establishes that law enforcement must first obtain a search warrant prior to subjecting a person suspected of driving under the influence to a blood test, because the natural metabolism of blood alcohol (or other substances) does not create a per se exigency that would allow for an exception to the fourth amendment.
- Riley v. San Andreas - Establishes that law enforcement may not, absent exigent circumstances, search a suspect's cell phone without a search warrant. Reasoned that law enforcement may seize a cell phone incident to arrest or with exigent circumstances, however a search of the contents of the phone was not subject to such an exception to the fourth amendment. Precedent also limited by the Border Search and Transit Search exceptions to the fourth amendment.
- United States v. Vaccaro - Establishes that when a suspect in a vehicle performs "furtive movements" and is objectively and reasonably believed to be trying to arm himself or conceal evidence, then law enforcement is authorized to search the immediate area where the suspect reached.
- Pennsylvania v. Labron - Establishes that a suspect's vehicle may be searched without a warrant if probable cause exists and the vehicle is readily mobile, because the mobility of the vehicle creates an exigent circumstance. This case established the Vehicle Search exception.
- Arkansas v. Sanders - Establishes that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search containers (such as personal luggage) found in a vehicle, even if the vehicle was first subject to the Vehicle Search exception.
- Florida v. Jardines - Establishes that an open air sniff by a police canine at the closed threshold of a domicile, absent a search warrant, is an impermissible warrantless search and violates the fourth amendment because it attempts to peer into the private residence of a home. This contrasts sharply with United States v. Place (which dealt with open air dog sniffs on vehicles) because, as the Supreme Court reasoned, the Fourth Amendment is at its "absolute zenith" in a person's home and a vehicle operated on public roads is not subject to the same protection under the fourth amendment as one's home.
¶ Use of Force
This type of case deals with determining if uses of force by law enforcement are permissible under the meaning of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment.
Case Law:
Graham v. Connor - Establishes that the correct test for determining if a police officer has used excessive force is a three-part test known as the "Graham Factors", which seek to determine if the level of force is objectively reasonable given three factors: (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and; (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to evade by flight. Additionally established that if an officer commits excessive force in violation of these factors, he may be held criminally or civilly liable.
Tennessee v. Garner - Establishes that police have a right to use deadly force on an individual who, when fleeing, is reasonably believed will cause further harm to others in the process.
Bryan v. MacPherson - Establishes that the use of a TASER or other such device constitutes an intermediate level of force and is an excessive degree of force unless there is active resistance or an attempt to flee. Also establishes that peace officers who use a TASER or other such device without active resistance or attempt to flee are no longer entitled to qualified immunity.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales: While not a use of force case, it addressed the issue of whether police have a duty to protect individuals from private violence, even when they have a restraining order in place.
Whren v. United States: Held that the subjective motivations of police officers in making a traffic stop are irrelevant as long as the stop is objectively reasonable. This has implications for the use of force during traffic stops.
¶ Qualified Immunity
This type of case deals with determining if members of Law Enforcement can be held personally liable for mistakes they make on duty or laws they break under color of law. Generally, a Peace Officer by default has qualified immunity unless it can be shown through previous case law that they were "placed on notice" of some conduct being unconstitutional or illegal.
Case Law:
- Pierson v. Ray - Establishes the modern doctrine of Qualified Immunity as it applies to Police Officers under 42 USC §1983.
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald - Establishes that the correct test to determine when government officials are entitled to qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness test, requiring that the officer must have been placed "on notice" by existing case law from a District Court in their particular Circuit, the relevant Circuit Court, a majority of the Circuits, or the Supreme Court.
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Services - Establishes that departments or agencies may be held liable as an organization if a "pattern or practice" of illegal or unconstitutional conduct can be demonstrated. Under 42 USC §1983, such a claim is known as a "Monell Claim" or "Monell Charge".
- Bryan v. MacPherson - Establishes that the use of a TASER or other such device constitutes an intermediate level of force and is an excessive degree of force unless there is active resistance or an attempt to flee. Also establishes that peace officers who use a TASER or other such device without active resistance or attempt to flee are no longer entitled to qualified immunity.
- Pearson v. Callahan: Established that qualified immunity is a defense that should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of the litigation.
- Saucier v. Katz: Set forth a two-step test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity.
¶ First Amendment Issues
This type of case deals with the critical freedoms of speech, press, petition, assembly, and redress of grievances against the government, and determining whether restrictions or limitations imposed by law are permissible under the meaning of the First Amendment. Also deals with issues of compelled speech.
Case Law:
- New York Times v. Sullivan - Established that public figures suing for defamation must prove "actual malice" in order to successfully sue for slander or libel, and established that the proper test for actual malice is two-pronged: (1) the defendant knew the statement was false at the time, or; (2) demonstrated "reckless disregard" as to the falsity of a claim (failing to perform due diligence).
- Fordyce v. City of Seattle - Establishes that recording the police is a constitutionally-protected right.
- Kastigar v. United States - Establishes that a witness who asserts their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination may be compelled to testify if they are first given absolute immunity for any crime that may be revealed.
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - Establishes that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2003, for-profit businesses may be exempt from any regulation the owners religiously object to, provided the belief is truly-held, if there is a less-restrictive means to further the underlying law's interest.
- Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Establishes that private businesses engaged in creative acts for sale may not be compelled to perform create or manufacture artistic works that would be repugnant to their truly-held religious beliefs.
- 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis - Upheld and extended the ruling in Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission to websites and other creative ventures.
- Texas v. Johnson - Establishes that symbolic speech, such as burning the American flag, is protected speech under the meaning of the first amendment.
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Establishes that certain speech that is offensive to such a degree that it induces turmoil or a reaction, so-called "fighting words" in its recipient is not protected under the first amendment, and an arrest resulting from such speech does not violate the Free Speech guarantee. Courts undecided as to whether this case applies to law enforcement on duty, namely criticism therein.
- Duran v. City of Douglas - Establishes that law enforcement may not initiate a traffic stop solely because the driver engaged in protected speech or offensive gestures against officers, and that law enforcement who engage in such conduct are not entitled to Qualified Immunity.
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic Institutional Rights: Upheld the Solomon Amendment, which required law schools to allow military recruiters on campus or risk losing federal funding.
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette: Prohibited schools from requiring students to salute the American flag.
- Brandenburg v. Ohio: Established the "incitement test" for determining whether speech can be restricted. Under this test, speech can only be restricted if it is directed at inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.
¶ Second Amendment Issues
This type of case deals with the possession of firearms and firearms licensing, as well as determining whether firearms laws are permissible under the meaning of the Second Amendment.'
Case Law:
- District of Columbia v. Heller - Establishes that the right to purchase a firearm for self-defense use in the home was divorced from the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a militia, reasoning that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment does not restrict the meaning of the operative clause.
- McDonald v. City of Chicago - Establishes that the Second Amendment is incorporated on the states by the Privileges Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and no state may deny the rights and privileges granted by the Second Amendment onto a qualified citizen of the United States.
- Caetano v. Massachusetts - Establishes that stun guns are not unusual weapons under the meaning of the Second Amendment, and ownership therein may not be restricted by law to an otherwise-qualified person who is not prohibited from owning firearms.
- New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen - Establishes that strict scrutiny applies to any firearms law created by a state, and that firearm laws must be consistent with the text, history, and tradition of the United States and the Second Amendment as it was understood in 1789 (initial ratification) or 1874 (fourteenth amendment and reconstruction). Further struck down "may-issue" licensing schemes, requiring that states with licensing schemes "shall issue" a firearms license to any person who is not a prohibited person due to criminal records, mental illness, or other disqualifying factors.
- United States v. Lopez: Establishes and limited the scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause, affecting gun control laws.
¶ Fifth Amendment Issues
This type of case deals with the rights of individuals to due process under law, essentially meaning "getting one's day in court" and "getting a fair trial" and is secured by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Also deals with issues of eminent domain, or invocations of the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Case Law:
- Gideon v. Wainwright - Establishes that the government must provide legal counsel to any person facing criminal trial, if they cannot afford such counsel on their own.
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada - Establishes that law enforcement may, with reasonable suspicion of a crime, require a person to identify themselves and that requiring a person to identify themselves does not violate the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination.
- Miranda v. Arizona: Established the Miranda rights, which require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during interrogations.
- Mapp v. Ohio: Incorporated the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to the states, meaning that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court.
- Escobedo v. Illinois: Established that individuals have a right to an attorney during custodial interrogations.
¶ Other Issues
This category is a catch-all that deals with other miscellaneous issues that do not fit into another category and which do not justify a category of their own.
Case Law:
- Marbury v. Madison - Establishes that a court may, by process of Judicial Review, strike down laws that would tend to violate the United States Constitution. By extension, laws that violate federal law or a state constitution may also be struck down on similar grounds.
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - Overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey, holding that there is no constitutionally-protected right to abortion services under the Fourteenth amendment, and that determination of such rights falls to the states under the meaning of the Tenth amendment. Reasoned that the doctrine of substantive due process, through the "penumbra of the fourteenth amendment", does not apply.