Supreme Court briefs

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) , is a 1969 Supreme Court of the United States case. In Chimel, the Court held that police officers arresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they may search the area within immediate reach of the person. Chimel v. California

evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts as had previously been the law The Exclusionary Rule Mapp v. ohio

Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous Stop and Frisk Terry v. ohio

juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, such as the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. In re gault

criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment and that indigent criminal defendants had a right to be provided counsel at trial Escobedo v. illinois

both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant 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 Miranda v. arizona

Evidence that is seized during a search incident to arrest is admissible and does not violate the 4th Amendment Draper v. us

although an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was credible or his information reliable Aguilar v. texas

Coolidge v, new hampshire warrant for the search and seizure of petitioner's automobile did not satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, because it was not issued by a "neutral and detached magistrate The magistrate was also the chief prosecutor Further defined the plain view doctrine Coolidge v, new hampshire

although the officers correctly approached Mr although the officers correctly approached Mr. Royer in the airport, they moved him without his consent to the small room and held him there without probable cause. Therefore, his consent to search the suitcase resulted from an illegal custody and the marijuana discovered could not be admitted into evidence. Royer was never ‘placed into custody’ but believed he was which was why he gave the implied consent. Florida v. royer