ASS Class Case Law ONLY
Duran v. City of Douglas - ✔✔ correct answer Right to free speech against police officer
Terry V. Ohio - ✔✔ correct answer Reasonable suspicion that crime may be afoot required to stop and
frisk an individual
Chimel v. California - ✔✔ correct answer Incident to arrest an officer may search the person and the
"area within the immediate control"
Wong Sun v. US - ✔✔ correct answer Exclusionary Rule; fruits of the poisonous tree
CASE
Brothers v Klevenhagen - ✔✔ correct answer Shot fleeing felon. Upheld decision made in Garner.
Miranda v Arizona - ✔✔ correct answer detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be
informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte - ✔✔ correct answer case involving a consent search, although knowledge of
a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary,
the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to
refuse consent under the Fourth Amendment.
Brinegar v. US - ✔✔ correct answer police need not always be factually correct in conducting a
warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable.
Arizona V. Gant - ✔✔ correct answer Passenger compartment search incident to arrest if occupant may
have accessed compartment
Cruz v City of Laramie (T) - ✔✔ correct answer Excited Delirium (Response to E.D.)
No "Hog Tie" restraints
Beck V. Ohio - ✔✔ correct answer Probable cause for arrest can't be formed after an arrest. Evidence
suppression if evidence found after non-PC arrest
, ASS Class Case Law ONLY
US V. Sokolow - ✔✔ correct answer Minimal level of objective justification for reasonable suspicion stop
Florida V. Royer - ✔✔ correct answer Consensual Encounters
Payton v. New York - ✔✔ correct answer W/o exigent circumstances you can not enter a house unless
you have a warrant
Dyar V. State - ✔✔ correct answer Peace officers must be able to articulate specific facts and
circumstances to justify an arrest regarding "suspicious places" and "circumstances".
Steagald v. US - ✔✔ correct answer Absent exigent circumstances or consent, houses can't be searched
without a warrant
Creager V. State - ✔✔ correct answer No Miranda warning given + incriminating statements made =
Inadmissible evidence
Brigham City v. Stuart - ✔✔ correct answer No warrant needed if officers believe someone to be in
imminent danger, but must be based on objective reasoning.
Maryland v. Shatzer - ✔✔ correct answer Once a person in custody indicates their right to remain silent,
interrogations must cease until there is an attorney present; or
there is at least a 14 day break in Miranda custody
Brown V. Texas - ✔✔ correct answer Fail to ID does not apply to detention
Pennsylvania V. Mimms - ✔✔ correct answer *Police may order driver out of vehicle during lawful traffic
stop*
City of Seagoville v Lytle 2007 - ✔✔ correct answer three issues, arguing the trial court erred when it
denied its plea to the jurisdiction because:
Duran v. City of Douglas - ✔✔ correct answer Right to free speech against police officer
Terry V. Ohio - ✔✔ correct answer Reasonable suspicion that crime may be afoot required to stop and
frisk an individual
Chimel v. California - ✔✔ correct answer Incident to arrest an officer may search the person and the
"area within the immediate control"
Wong Sun v. US - ✔✔ correct answer Exclusionary Rule; fruits of the poisonous tree
CASE
Brothers v Klevenhagen - ✔✔ correct answer Shot fleeing felon. Upheld decision made in Garner.
Miranda v Arizona - ✔✔ correct answer detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be
informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte - ✔✔ correct answer case involving a consent search, although knowledge of
a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary,
the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to
refuse consent under the Fourth Amendment.
Brinegar v. US - ✔✔ correct answer police need not always be factually correct in conducting a
warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable.
Arizona V. Gant - ✔✔ correct answer Passenger compartment search incident to arrest if occupant may
have accessed compartment
Cruz v City of Laramie (T) - ✔✔ correct answer Excited Delirium (Response to E.D.)
No "Hog Tie" restraints
Beck V. Ohio - ✔✔ correct answer Probable cause for arrest can't be formed after an arrest. Evidence
suppression if evidence found after non-PC arrest
, ASS Class Case Law ONLY
US V. Sokolow - ✔✔ correct answer Minimal level of objective justification for reasonable suspicion stop
Florida V. Royer - ✔✔ correct answer Consensual Encounters
Payton v. New York - ✔✔ correct answer W/o exigent circumstances you can not enter a house unless
you have a warrant
Dyar V. State - ✔✔ correct answer Peace officers must be able to articulate specific facts and
circumstances to justify an arrest regarding "suspicious places" and "circumstances".
Steagald v. US - ✔✔ correct answer Absent exigent circumstances or consent, houses can't be searched
without a warrant
Creager V. State - ✔✔ correct answer No Miranda warning given + incriminating statements made =
Inadmissible evidence
Brigham City v. Stuart - ✔✔ correct answer No warrant needed if officers believe someone to be in
imminent danger, but must be based on objective reasoning.
Maryland v. Shatzer - ✔✔ correct answer Once a person in custody indicates their right to remain silent,
interrogations must cease until there is an attorney present; or
there is at least a 14 day break in Miranda custody
Brown V. Texas - ✔✔ correct answer Fail to ID does not apply to detention
Pennsylvania V. Mimms - ✔✔ correct answer *Police may order driver out of vehicle during lawful traffic
stop*
City of Seagoville v Lytle 2007 - ✔✔ correct answer three issues, arguing the trial court erred when it
denied its plea to the jurisdiction because:
