MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
Discusses when a seizure is permissible without a warrant under the
plain view doctrine.
ARIZONA v. HICKS, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)
Under the plain view doctrine, the incriminating character of the
evidence must be immediately apparent.
UNITED STATES v. DUNN, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)
The use of drug dogs to detect narcotics in luggage is not a search
because it exposes only contraband.
OLIVER v. UNITED STATES, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)
Discusses the open fields exception to the Fourth Amendment search
warrant requirement.
UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
"The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent
checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for
brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the
Fourth Amendment."
ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ v. UNITED STATES, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)
Searches without reasonable suspicion at checkpoints located away
from the border are not permissible.
UNITED STATES v. BRIGNONI-PONCE, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)
"The Fourth Amendment held not to allow a roving patrol of the Border
Patrol to stop a vehicle near the Mexican border and question its
occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, when the only
ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican
ancestry."
COLONNADE
CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 397 U.S. 72 (1970)
The court held that health and other administrative exceptions, although
different than searches for criminal evidence, still had to comply with
the Fourth Amendment.
NEW JERSEY v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
"The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and
seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials and is
not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers."
VERNONIA SCHOOL DIST. 47J v. ACTON, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)
The Petitioner school district's Student Athlete Drug Policy, which
authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of students who participate in
its athletics programs, was held to be consistent with the Fourth
Amendment.
SKINNER v. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSN., 489 U.S. 602
(1989)
Mandating submission of biological samples to be tested for drugs
without suspicion or warrant was upheld when the company requiring the
samples was already heavily regulated by the government.
HUDSON v. PALMER, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)
"A prisoner has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell
entitling him to the protection of the Fourth Amendment against
unreasonable searches."
UNITED STATES v. BISWELL, 406 U.S. 311 (1972)
Airport searches by metal detectors and x-ray devices were upheld.
SCHNECKLOTH
v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
"When the subject of a search is not is custody and the State would
justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact
voluntary; voluntariness is to be determined from the totality of the
surrounding circumstances. While knowledge of a right to refuse consent
is a factor to be taken into account, the State need not prove that the
one giving permission to search knew that he had a right to withhold his
consent."
LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 206 (1966)
The Court Rejected petitioner's motion to suppress the purchased
narcotics by an undercover agent as illegally seized without
warrant.
BUMPER v. NORTH CAROLINA, 391 U.S. 543 (1968)
"A search cannot be justified as lawful on the basis of consent when
that "consent" has been given only after the official conducting the
search has asserted that he possesses a warrant; there is no consent
under such circumstances."
UNITED STATES v. MATLOCK, 415 U.S. 164 (1974)
"When the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of
voluntary consent it is not limited to proof that consent was given by
the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from
a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient
relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected."
ILLINOIS v. RODRIGUEZ, 497 U.S. 177 (1990)
"A warrantless entry is valid when based upon the consent of a third
party whom the police, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe to
possess common authority over the premises, but who in fact does not."
UNITED STATES v. KARO, 468 U.S. 705 (1984)
"The monitoring of a beeper in a private residence, a location not
opened to visual surveillance, violates the Fourth Amendment rights of
those who have a justifiable interest in the privacy of the residence."
FLORIDA v. RILEY, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
A law enforcement officer did not need a warrant to circled twice over
defendant's property in a helicopter at the height of 400 feet and make
naked-eye observations through openings in the greenhouse roof and its
open sides and determine there were marijuana plants inside.
RAKAS v. ILLINOIS, 439 U.S. 128 (1978)
"...a person aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the
introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third
person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment
rights infringed."
RAWLINGS v. KENTUCKY, 448 U.S. 98 (1980)
Rawlings did not have standing to object to the search of a friend's
purse in which he had placed drugs belonging to him.
SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
The court upheld the taking of a blood sample from a person without a
warrant under acceptable medical standards because there were exigent
circumstances: if law enforcement waited for a warrant, alcohol in the
suspect's blood would dissipate.
WINSTON v. LEE, 470 U.S. 753 (1985)
"A compelled surgical intrusion into an individual's body for evidence
implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that
the intrusion may be "unreasonable" even if likely to produce evidence
of a crime."
MINNESOTA v. OLSON, 495 U.S. 91 (1990)
"Olson's status as an overnight guest is alone sufficient to show that
he had an expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable."
HENRY v. UNITED STATES, 361 U.S. 98 (1959)
The relaxation of the search warrant requirement in cases of automobile
searches did not relax the probable cause requirement.
CARROLL v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
Held that a warrantless search of a vehicle is not a violation of the
Fourth Amendment.
CALIFORNIA
v. CARNEY, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)
The warrantless search of respondent's motor home did not violate the
Fourth Amendment.
PENNSYLVANIA v. MIMMS, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
"The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was
lawfully detained, was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth
Amendment. The State's proffered justification for such order - the
officer's safety - is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion
into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being at
most a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against
legitimate concerns for the officer's safety."
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al. v. EDMOND et al.
(2000)
Because a narcotics checkpoint program's primary purpose is
indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the
checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. [Unlike Sitz, where
there was a public safety concern].
CHIMEL v. CALIFORNIA, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
"An arresting officer may search the arrestee's person to discover and
remove weapons and to seize evidence to prevent its concealment or
destruction, and may search the area "within the immediate control" of
the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence."
NEW YORK v. BELTON, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)
"Not only may the police search the passenger compartment of the car in
such circumstances, they may also examine the contents of any containers
found in the passenger compartment. And such a container may be searched
whether it is open or closed, since the justification for the search is
not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container but that
the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy
interest the arrestee may have."
TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
"Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of
a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is
endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person
believed by him to be armed and dangerous
regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that
individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is
armed."
UNITED STATES v. SHARPE, 470 U.S. 675 (1985)
"In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be
justified as an investigative stop, it is appropriate to examine whether
the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely
to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was
necessary to detain the defendant."
MARYLAND v. BUIE, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)
"Here, the police had an analogous interest in taking steps to assure
themselves that Buie's house was not harboring other persons who were
dangerous and who could unexpectedly launch an attack, and the fact that
Buie had an expectation of privacy in rooms that were not examined by
the police prior to the arrest does not mean that such rooms were immune
from entry. No warrant was required, and as an incident to the arrest
the officers could, as a precautionary matter and without probable cause
or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately
adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be launched."
