Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Katz v US

• Katz was using a phone booth for gambling when the government listened to his call, leading to his arrest.
• Supreme Court ruled that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected; privacy may apply in public areas.

Mincey v Arizona

• Following a drug arrest, a fatal gun battle led to a four-day warrantless search of Mincey's home.
• The court determined the "Murder Scene Exception" to be inconsistent with 4th and 14th amendments, emphasizing no emergency justification for warrantless searches.

Thompson v Louisiana

• Police conducted an exploratory search of a residence after the wife killed her husband and attempted suicide, leading to illegal evidence seizure.
• The court found that the "general exploratory search" violated the 4th amendment, resulting in the acquittal of the mother.

Michigan v Tyler

• Tyler hired an individual to burn down his store for insurance, which led to his arrest.
• Investigators need a warrant to enter commercial buildings for fire investigations; expectation of privacy remains intact.

Michigan v Clifford

• Fires on residential properties require warrant protections under the 4th amendment.
• Homeowners keep privacy expectations even in fire-damaged homes, necessitating a criminal search warrant to seize evidence.

Carroll v US

• Established the motor vehicle emergency exception allowing searches based on probable cause without a warrant.

Brinegar v US

• Differentiated privacy levels between vehicles and private homes, stating vehicles have a slightly reduced privacy expectation.

Johnson v US

• Emphasized that the right to privacy and search needs judicial determination rather than police discretion.

Coolidge v New Hampshire

• Found that police or attorney general's involvement fails neutrality in determining probable cause for warrants under the 4th amendment.

Connally v Georgia

• Ruled that a payment structure for Justices of the Peace violated the 4th amendment’s requirement for neutral magistrates.

Illinois v Gates

• Police acted on an anonymous tip about drug trafficking; the search warrant application was based on corroborated facts.
• Introduced a two-pronged test assessing the informant's basis of knowledge and reliability.

Wilson v Arkansas

• Addressed the "knock and announce" rule, indicating the right to privacy and statutory validity.

US v Banks

• Outlined requirements for “knock and announce” and allowed for exigent circumstances.

US v Brown

• Introduced a six-factor test assessing the seriousness of the crime and circumstances surrounding police entry.

Buie v Maryland

• After an armed robbery, a plain view seizure of criminal evidence was deemed permissible under suspicion circumstances post-arrest.

US v Rubin

• Asserted that imminent evidence destruction justifies search without requiring actual knowledge of the destruction.

Schneckloth v Bustamonte

• Established that consent for searches must be voluntary and involve lawful control of the property.

Bumper v North Carolina

• Found that coerced consent due to police warrant claims violates voluntary consent standards.

Nix v Williams

• Addressed the unfolding of evidence during investigative conversations leading to locating a victim's body, focusing on independent investigations.

California v Greenwood

• Garbage placed outside for collection loses expectation of privacy; police may seize it from trash collectors.

Nardone v US

• Labeled illegally obtained evidence as "fruits of the poisonous tree," unadmissible in prosecutions.

Wong Sun v US

• Established that evidence purged from unlawful search could still be admissible if obtained independently.

US v Leon

• Introduced the good faith exception where evidence is not suppressed if investigators acted in good faith despite warrant issues.

Mapp v Ohio

• Highlighted that illegally seized evidence violates the 4th and 14th amendments, affecting both state and federal prosecutions, prompting review by the Supreme Court.