Case Law Search

Terry V. Ohio

Terry (defendant) and Chilton were observed by a police officer and suspected of planning a robbery. Upon confrontation and a pat-down search by the officer, weapons were found on both men, leading to charges against them.

The legal dispute centered on whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Terry’s conviction, reasoning that the officer’s actions were justified given the specific circumstances of the case. Read more (here)

Carroll V. US

On September 29, 1921, undercover prohibition agents met with Carroll in an apartment in Grand Rapids, for the purpose of buying illegal whiskey. Carroll left in order to get the whiskey. He returned and said that his source was not in, but that he would deliver it the next day. The proposed vehicle did not return, and the evidence disclosed no explanation for failure to do so.

On October 6, while patrolling the road leading from Detroit to Grand Rapids, the agents saw Carroll in the same Oldsmobile roadster going eastward from Grand Rapids towards Detroit. They gave pursuit, but lost the car. On December 15, again while on patrol on the same road, saw Carroll in the same Oldsmobile roadster coming from Detroit to Grand Rapids. They gave chase and stopped Carroll, searched the car, and found 68 bottles of illegal whiskey behind the upholstery, the filling of which had been removed. Carroll was arrested. In addition, the road from Detroit to Grand Rapids was heavily used to introduce illegal whiskey into the country.

The agents were not expecting to encounter Carroll at that particular time, but when they met them there they believed (the Court found the agents had probable cause) they were carrying liquor, and hence the search, seizure, and rescue. Read more (here)

Miranda V. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda (defendant) was convicted after a confession obtained during a police interrogation without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights.

The main issue was the admissibility of confessions obtained without informing defendants of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court concluded that such confessions are inadmissible, overturning Miranda’s conviction based on constitutional grounds. Read more (here)

Tennese V. Garner

Edward Garner’s (plaintiff) father sued after Garner was shot and killed by Officer Hymon (defendant) while fleeing from a suspected burglary. The issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether this use of deadly force was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that using deadly force against non-dangerous fleeing suspects violates the Fourth Amendment. The ruling mandated that deadly force can only be used if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat. The case was remanded for actions consistent with this ruling. Read more (here)