Important Supreme Court Decisions
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - Although every person is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection, a police officer may "stop and frisk" a person he reasonably suspects to be engaged in a violation of the law, providing the officer can articulate that suspicion. Such 'stop and frisk' must be confined to a person's outer clothing without placing hands into the person's pockets or under outer clothing. Such a stop and frisk constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and is subject to constitutional review. The Constitution forbids all unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonableness of a search is to be determined by balancing the need to search or seize a person or his property against the invasion to the person the search or seizure creates.
Blockberger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) - If a person is charged with similar crimes arising out of the same conduct, it shall be a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause if one of the crimes charged does not require proof of an additional element separate from the other crime charged.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) - The protection against self incrimination does not extend to all forms of evidence which may be provided by the individual to the state. Rather, the Fifth Amendment privilege only protects the individual from being compelled to provide evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature. The results of the blood alcohol test are considered real or physical evidence, and as such are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Since results of the test are not constitutionally protected evidence, refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test is not a constitutionally protected right. As such, law enforcement authorities may force the taking of a person's blood, even if the person adamantly refuses such an invasion.
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) - The privilege against self incrimination protects a person from being forced to give evidence of a "testimonial or communicative nature", but not from being compelled to produce "real or physical evidence". To be testimonial, a communication must explicitly or implicitly relate a factual assertion or disclose information. Slurred speech is a physical characteristic of a defendant and not "testimonial", and thus not subject to Fifth Amendment protection.
Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990) - Where a person requests an attorney and is provided with an attorney, police may not reinitiate interrogation of the person without the attorney present, unless the person voluntarily decides to speak with police without his/her attorney. To do so would violate the Fifth Amendment.
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) - Police may not make random stops of vehicles to investigate crime absent an articulable and reasonable suspicion that the motorist or his/her vehicle is subject to seizure for some violation of the law. The essential purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to impose a standard of reasonableness upon the exercise of discretion by government officials in order to safeguard privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasion.
Old Chief v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 644 (1997) - It shall be an abuse of discretion when courts refuse to allow a defendant to stipulate to prior convictions when such convictions are an element of the current offense. To allow such an abuse would be to prejudice the factfinder and risk tainting the verdict with "improper considerations". However, prior offense evidence may still be admissible for impeachment purposes.
South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) - Where Defendant's refusal was coupled with an incriminating statement, "I'm too drunk, I won't pass the test", Defendant's refusal can be admitted into evidence. Such admission of evidence does not offend a person's privilege against self-incrimination, since no improper coercion is involved when a suspect refuses to submit to a chemical test of their breath, blood or urine, regardless of the form of the refusal.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) - After having been lawfully detained, any inconvenience caused to the motorist by having to exit the vehicle is outweighed by the need to ensure the safety of the police officer.
Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989) - The Court held Sixth Amendment right to jury does not apply to petty offenses and that such term shall be defined by an offense carrying a minimum prison term of six months. However, if a defendant could demonstrate that there were additional statutory penalties which, included with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, clearly manifested a legislative intent to make such offense serious, the defendant would be entitled to a jury trial.