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.
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:
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.
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.
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 to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.