Top Ten Most Important US Supreme Court Cases for Cops to Know!
In this episode Dennis goes over the 10 most important U.S. Supreme Court cases that cops need to know.
0:00 - Intro
1.
01:02 Terry v. Ohio (1968)
There must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.
03:07 Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980)
One who challenges an allegedly illegal search bears the burden of proving not only that the search was illegal, but also that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area to be searched.
04:50 Payton v. New York (1980)
It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Yet it is also well settled that objects such as weapons or contraband found in a public place may be seized by the police without a warrant.
2.
08:37 Steagald v. United States (1981)
Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be obtained, absent exigent circumstances or consent, for a law enforcement officer to legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party.
09:49 Michigan v. Summers (1981)
A case in which the Court held that a warrant to search for contraband grants police officers the limited authority to detain occupants of a house.
3.
10:39 - Delaware v. Prouse (1979)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that police may not stop motorists without any reasonable suspicion to suspect crime or illegal activity to check their driver's license and auto registration.
4.
13:54 - Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.
5.
16:28 - Brendlin v California (2007)
The U.S. Supreme Court that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.
6.
18:46 - Pennsylvania v Mimms (1977)
The 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.
20:39 - Maryland v Wilson (1997)
An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.
7.
22:24 Berkemer v. McCarty
The safeguards prescribed by Miranda become applicable as soon as a suspect's freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest. If a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop is subjected to treatment that renders him in custody, he will be entitled to the protections prescribed by Miranda. However, the initial stop of a vehicle by an officer does not amount to being in custody.
8.
24:46 - United States v. Sharpe
In assessing whether detention is too long in duration to be justified as investigative stop, court considers it appropriate to examine whether police diligently pursued means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain defendant.
9.
26:09 - Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)
Observation of a syringe in the driver's pocket during a lawful traffic stop gave rise to probable cause to search the vehicle.
10
29:22 - Tex. v. Brown (1983)
The "plain view" doctrine permits the warrantless seizure by police of private possessions where three requirements are satisfied. First, the police officer must lawfully make an "initial intrusion" or otherwise properly be in a position from which he can view a particular area. Second, the officer must discover incriminating evidence "inadvertently," which is to say, he may not know in advance the location of certain evidence and intend to seize it, relying on the plain-view doctrine only as a pretext. Finally, it must be "immediately apparent" to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
Bonus
30:53 - Whren v. United States (1996)
An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be "unreasonable" under the circumstances.
32:38 - Outro
*
*
*
*
How to join the StreetCop Community
Facebook: [ Ссылка ]
Facebook Group: [ Ссылка ]
Instagram: [ Ссылка ]
LEO only Instagram: [ Ссылка ]
LinkedIn: [ Ссылка ]
