Political Science 157B Case List Web Page

Here is a list of most of the cases covered in the class so far. They are divided into subject matter, and roughly sorted by date. The important cases will have briefs online eventually. If you would like to contribute, send me mail.

  • Nationalization of the Bill of Rights

    • Barron v. The Mayor and the City of Baltimore (1833) brief
    Fifth Amendment was not "applicable to the States"
    Prudential Insurance Company v. Cheek (1922) 259 US 530
    "The Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states no obligation to confer upon those within its jusrisdiction the right ot free speech."
    The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)
    Rejected the view that the Fourteenth Amendment's' priviledge and immunities clause incorporated the Bill of Rights.
    Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Nebraska and Chicago (1896) 164 US 403
    Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Chicago     (1897) 166 US 226
    Both rulings involved the application of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
    Hurtado v. California (1884)
    States need not honor the Fifth Amendment's requirement the individuals be indicted by a grand jury before being prosecuted.
    Maxwell v. Dow (1900) 176 US 581
    States were free to convict before juries of less than 12 members and without unanimous verdicts.
    Twining v. New Jersey (1908) 211 US 78
    States need not honor the Fifth Amendment's priviledge against self-incrimination.
    Gilbert v. Minnesota (1920) 254 US 652
    Individuals may challenge the Constitutionality of a state law making it illegal to falsely or maliciously criticize the government.
    Gitlow v. New York (1925) 168 US 652
    "Freedom of speech and of the press ... are among the fundamental rights and liberties protected ... from impairment of the states."
    Powell v. Alabama (1932) 287 US 32
    Relying on the principals of "natural justice", the court held the trial of seven black in front of an all white jury without counsel denied their rights to due process and subjected them to a fundamentally unfair trial.
    Norris v. Alabama (1935) 294 US 587
    Jury trials are required in criminal cases.
    Brown v. Mississippi (1936) 297 US 278
    Confessions coerced by third-degree police tactics violate due process.
    Palko v. Connecticut (1937) brief
    Articulated the theory of selective incorporation of some of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights which are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."
    Adamson v. California (1947)
    Further adherence to the theory of selective incorporation.
    Rochin v. California (1952)
    Invented a "shocks-the-conscience" test for determining when police practices violate the due process clause.
    Irvine v. California (1954) 347 US 128
    Failed to find police bugging of an entire house for over a month without a warrant violated either the Fourteenth Amendment or the shocked the conscience,
    Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 US 643 brief
    Exclusionary rule applies to the states.
    Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
    Created a right to privacy found in the penumbras of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Ammendments and enforceable against the states via the Fourteenth Ammendments.
    Duncan v. Louisianna (1968)
    Defendants charged with serious crimes are entitled to a trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment.
    Williams v. Florida (1970) 399 US 78
    States are free to use juries of less than 12.
    Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) 406 US 404
    States are free to use less than unanimous verdicts.

  • Exclusionary Rule

    • Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 US 383
    Evidence seized by federal officials in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be admitted as evidence in federal courts.
    Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 338 US 25
    Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure was "implicit to a concept of ordered liberty" and as a result could be enforced against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
    Elkin v. United States (1960) 364 US 206
    Illegal for evidence unconstitutionally seized by State officials to be turned over to Federal officials.
    Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 US 643 brief
    Exclusionary rule was the only realistic method to guarantee the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

  • Restricting the Exclusionary Rule

    • Linkletter v. Walker (1965)
    Convictions based upon illegally seized evidence introduced in cases before the Mapp need not be overturned.
    United States v. Calandra (1974)
    The exclusionary rule does not apply to the Grand Jury.
    Stone v. Powell (1976)
    Eliminated Habeas corpus relief for state prisoners whose Fourteenth Amendment objections to their convictions have been rejected by State appellate courts.
    Illinois v. Gates (1983) brief
    "Totality of Circumstances" should be used to determine if a warrant could be issued based on information provided by an anonymous informant.
    United States v. Leon (1984)
    Illegally seized evidence could be included at trial if the search had been conducted in good faith.
    Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984) 468 US 981
    Evidence obtained with a "technically defective warrant" is admissible.
    INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) 468 US 1032
    Illegal seized evidence could be used at a deportation hearing since it was not a criminal proceeding.
    Illonois v. Krull (1987) 480 US 340
    Exclusionary rule does not apply to police who acted in "objectively reasonable reliance" upon a statue later found to violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • Warrant Requirement

    • Chimel v. California
    Unreasonable for police to delay serving an arrest warrant until suspect is at home in order to conduct a lengthy search of the premises "incident to a valid arrest."
    Carroll v. United States (1925) 267 US 123
    Diminished privacy expectation and inherent difficulties involved with automobiles justified a waiver of the warrant requirement.
    Chambers v. Maroney (1970) 399 US 42
    Reinforced a categorical exception for automobile searches.
    Collidge v. New Hampshire (1971)
    Exception for automobile searches does not apply when police flagrantly avoided obtaining a valid warrant when more than enough time was available.
    Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) brief
    Test to determine if consent was given could incorporate "Totality of the Circumstances".
    United States v. Ross (1982) 456 US 798
    Entire car and every object inside capable of containing the desired evidence without a warrant provided there is probable cause.
    California v. Carney (1985) 471 US 386
    Warrantless search of a motor home based on probable cause was not unreasonable.
    Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573 brief
    The Court held that police could not enter a dwelling without a warrant in order to make an arrest.
    United States v. Santana (1976) 427 US 38
    "Totality of Circumstances" does not lend itself to clear rules.
    Chimel v. California (1969)
    Cupp v. Murphy (1973) 412 US 291
    Evidence gathered from scrapings of stains on a suspect fingernails without a warrant is admissible under the plain sight exception to the warrant rule.
    Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 US 1 brief
    Permits police officers to "stop and frisk" individuals for weapons if there is reasonable suspicion that they might be armed based on "specific articulable facts."
    Michigan v. Summers (1981) 452 US 692
    Does not violate Fourth Amendment right to detain a suspect while a search warrant is executed, while not arresting until after completion of search.
    Michigan v. Long (1983) 463 US 1032
    Upheld a body frisk and interior search of car which suddenly swerved off the road, and in which a hunting knife was plainly seen on the seat.
    United States v. Place (1983) 462 US 969
    Seizure of luggage following "sniff test" by trained airport security dog does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
    United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) 473 US 531
    Upheld a long detention, based on a "risk profile" of woman suspected of smuggling cocaine in her alimentary canal.
    United States v. Sokolow (1989) 57 LW 4401
    Articulated a full-fledged rationale for an expanded "investigative detention" exception to the warrant requirement as it relates to the war on drugs.
    O'Conner v. Ortega (1987) 480 US 709
    Attempted to balance the expectation of privacy against the "operational realities of the workplace."
    New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) 469 US 325
    Fullest expression to date of the "reasonableness" standard governing searches and seizures.
    Omstead v. United States (1928) 277 US 438
    Fourth Amendment speaks to the privacy of persons, papers and homes, not public telephones allowing the use of warrantless wiretaps.
    Berger v. New York (1967) 388 US 41
    Forced the enactment of more stringent criteria for obtaining a warrant for wiretaps.
    Katz v. United States (1967)
    Expressly overruled Olmstead and included public telephone in the range of protection by the Fourth Amendment.
    United States v. White (1971) 401 US 745
    There was no legitimate expectation of privacy in information disclosed to others.
    Hoffa v. United States (1966) 385 US 293
    Even if information is disclosed under deceptive conditions, there is still no expectation of privacy.
    United States v. Knotts (1983) 460 US 276
    No expectation of privacy when traveling along public streets, as it relates to police following a suspect to a destination.
    United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 US 109
    Test which revealed only whether "white powder" was cocaine does not qualify as a search under the Fourth Amendment.
    California v. Ciraolo (1986) 476 US 206
    Even though building a high fence expresses an expectation of privacy for ground based observers, it does not manifest such expectation as it related to airborne observers.
    United States v. United States District Court (1972) 441 US 238
    The Fourth Amendment does not require specific authorization to enter premises in order to install electronic surviellence devices.
    Wyman v. James (1971)
    Upheld suspension of person who refused to allow a social worker to examine the premises.
    Alameda-Sanchez v. United States (1973) 413 US 266
    Roving border patrol patrols could only stop cars if there was probable cause to believe there were illegal aliens in the particular car stopped.
    Unites States v. Martinez Fuerte (1976) 428 US 543
    Permanent check points near the border could stop cars with no particular suspicion at all.
    Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives (1989) 109 S. Ct. 1402
    Mandatory drug and alcohol test were a reasonable and effective way to meet the government's "surpassing safety interests" in protecting the safety of the public.
    National Treasury Employees v. Von Raab (1989) 109 S. Ct. 1384
    The governments interest in safeguarding the borders and in protecting the public outweighed the privacy concerns in the case.
    United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 US 218
    The authority to search based upon a lawful arrest does not depend on the probability that such a search would actually find a weapon.
    Illinois v. Lafayette (1983) 462 US 640
    Upheld the police practice of searching suspect possessions following arrest, on the grounds of protection of such possessions from theft.
    Sibron v. New York (1968) 392 US 40
    Terry exception does not apply when an officer is searching for narcotics, not weapons.
    Peters v. New York (1968)
    When a frisk is lawful, the state can use any evidence seize even if it was not specifically sought after in the frisk.
    Adams v. Williams (1972) 407 US 143
    Frisk may go beyond cursory pat down if officer has additional reason to fear for safety, specifically on the basis of a tip.
    Sharlene Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) 514 US __ brief
    Common law "knock and announce" policy form part of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard.