“Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” - No crime and no penalty without law

Case Laws

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) - The Miranda case is a very important case to law enforcement. The United States Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given. The warning requirements only apply when a person is in custody and interrogated. In this case, "custody" is an arrest or when freedom is significantly deprived to be equivalent to an arrest. "Interrogation" is the use of words or actions to elicit an incriminating response from an average person.

A example Of This case law is: A person is stopped by a police officer on a traffic violation. During a stop, the officer finds narcotics in the car. The officer asks the person questions about the narcotics. The person does not have the right to refuse to answer questions. Answers may be used against the person, so a person must have a good reason for refusing. For example, a person might have a right to refuse answering questions if a lawyer is present and the lawyer tells the person to not answer the questions. The case established rules of what can be used in court if a person is arrested and questioned.

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, They must:

Have articulable facts that the person could be armed with a weapon.
Limit the search to pat searching the outer garments of the suspect to feel for objects that might be weapons.
Only reach inside the clothing after feeling such objects.

A example Of This case law is: Two suspects have been involved in a bank robbery. The officer sees two people running away from the scene. It is raining, and the officer can see they have no guns or knives. The officer stops the two suspects. He feels both and finds one has a gun in his pocket. The gun is found to be the weapon used in the bank robbery.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) - This case sets aside the standard for determining the excessive use of force as established in the 1973 case of Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2nd Cir. 1973). If the use of force violates the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, then the standards listed in this Amendment will be used."All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard." In other words, was the decision of the officer reasonable based on the information he had at the time.

The case further dictates that the arrest must be reasonably proportionate to the need of force as measured by:

The severity of the crime.
The danger to the officer.
And, the risk of flight.

A example Of This case law is: Officer Smith stops a car and finds the driver is intoxicated. He takes the driver out of the car and handcuffs him. The driver becomes violent and punches the officer. The officer strikes back with his baton and breaks the man's arm. The judge says the force was not reasonable and violated the 4th Amendment. The court will not decide whether the arrest was legal. The case will be dismissed.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (USSC)(1985) - The use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is not justified unless it is necessary to prevent the escape, and it complies with the following requirements:

- The officer has the probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

- There must be no other means reasonably available to the officer to prevent escape or avoid the danger.

- The shooting must not be excessive in light of the seriousness of the crime being pursued and the threat the suspect poses at the time.

A example Of This case law is: Police officers were chasing a suspect who was a fleeing felon. They stopped him and surrounded him. They were in the woods and there were no houses around. The officer fired and hit the suspect with a shot through the heart. He died instantly. The courts held the officer's use of deadly force was justified.

Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) - It is not reasonable to use a flash-bang device under the Fourth Amendment by throwing it blindly into a room occupied by several innocent sleeping bystanders absent a strong governmental interest. In this case officers threw a flash-bang device in a room where Boyd was sleeping on the floor. The device went off next to her burning her arm.

Before deploying a flash-bang, the officer needs to:

Weigh the severity of the threat.
Look at the deployment area to minimize injury.
Give a warning where possible.

A example Of This case law is: In this case the defendant was arrested on a probation violation. His roommate came home from work and the defendant was asleep in a closet. Officers entered the house without a warrant. They deployed a flash-bang device without checking if the defendant was alone. The flash-bang was deployed and it injured the roommate.

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

A example Of This case law is: Officers conduct a stop for speeding and reckless driving. The officer orders the person out of the car. The officer does a pat-down search and finds narcotics on the person. The drugs are not thrown out the window of the car, so the case is allowed.

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, states that police may conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.

A example Of This case law is: Officers stop an elderly couple for speeding. They find a handgun under the seat. The officers did not know there was a gun in the car. The court held the search was not proper. The gun should have been thrown out the window, because the officers did not know the passengers were armed.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, states that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop. However, the subsequent search that followed the stop had to be related to the initial traffic offense.

A example Of This case law is: While driving, a suspect runs a red light. Officers pursue the suspect and pull the car over. When they approach the car, they can smell marijuana. They do not have a drug dog or other evidence of a drug crime, so the courts will not allow the officer's to search the car.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, states that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver. Therefore, police must issue a warrant or give Mirandas before questioning a passenger.

A example Of This case law is: An officer is doing a routine traffic stop. While talking with the driver, the officer hears the back door of the car open. He looks and sees the passenger jump out and run away. The officer does not have probable cause to pursue the passenger.

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrant-less searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. It states that the Fourth Amendment does not protect private property taken or used in the course of a traffic violation.

A example Of This case law is: While making a traffic stop, the officer discovers the passenger is wanted for a felony. The passenger runs and gets away. The officer can still use the car as evidence.

MacWade v. Kelly, 460 F. 3d 260 (2006), was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals that upheld the employ of random, suspicionless container searches by the governement to safeguard mass transportation facilities.

A example Of This case law is: Random stops have the benefit of deterring terrorism. Random stops do not violate the fourth amendment, because people do not have a right to privacy on public transportation.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse