Click to read cases and listen to oral argument

These cases help 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.

These cases collectively establish 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.

These cases collectively shape 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.

These cases collectively shape 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.

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.

These cases highlight 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.

These cases collectively shape 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.

These cases collectively shape 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.

These cases help 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.

These cases address 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.

These landmark cases help 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.