Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1,
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape 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."

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752,
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, is a 1969 Supreme Court of the United States case. In Chimel, the Court held that police officers arresting a person at home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but police may search the area within immediate reach of the person. The rule on searches incident to a lawful arrest within the home is now known as the Chimel Rule.

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119,
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, is a case decided before the United States Supreme Court involving U.S. criminal procedure regarding searches and seizures.

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429,
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, was a United States Supreme Court case that overturned a per se rule imposed by the Florida Supreme Court that held consensual searches of passengers on buses were always unreasonable. The Court ruled that the fact that the search takes place on a bus is one factor in determining whether a suspect feels free to decline the search and walk away from the officers.

Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925)

Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925)-Police may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle stopped on traffic if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1(1968)

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1(1968)-An officer can briefly detain a person, based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, long enough to dispel the suspicion or to allow it to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. The officer is also permitted to do a limited "frisk" search of the person without a warrant. Before the officer can frisk search the subject, he must:

1. Have articulable facts that the person could be armed with a weapon.

2. Limit the search to pat searching the outer garments of the suspect to feel for objects that might be weapons.

3. Only reach inside the clothing after feeling such objects.

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

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)-The US Supreme Court applied the "exclusionary rule" to the states. Any evidence illegally obtained by the government cannot be used in court against the accused.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106,

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997)

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997)- An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)
When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality.

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

Police officers with probable cause to search a vehicle, as in this case , may inspect passengers’ belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.

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

Graham v. Connor Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his or her person.

Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)

Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that a police officer may not legally stop and frisk someone based solely on an anonymous tip that describes a person's location and appearance, but does not furnish information as to any illegal conduct.