Supreme Court Decisions (Landmarks Timeline Cases [1961-2014]

0.0(0) Reviews
Report Flashcard set

Spaced Repetition

Scientifically backed study method

spaced repetition


Review terms and definitions



Study with MC, T/F, and other questions


Practice Test

Take a test on your terms and definitions

11 Terms
😃 Not studied yet (11)
Mapp V Ohio (1961)
Police recieved tip about whereabouts on a illegal gambling racket at the home of Dollree Mapp. Police enter the house without a warrant and find pornographic material which was illegal at the time and arrest Dollree Mapp which she fought since the evidence the police took wasn't to be admitted in if it was obtained through an illegal search (4th Amendement) This landmark discourages police misconduct by preventing the government from using a violation of a suspect's right to obtain evidence.
Gideon V Wainwright (1963)
Clarence Earl Gideon was near a location where a burglary just happnened and was arrested. He couldn't afford any lawyer and asked the judge to assign one to him (6th Amendment). Judge denines his request, so Gideon represents himself which he was found guilty, during his time in prison, he petitioned his trial to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case. A person charged with a crime is entilited to a court-appointed attorney. Regardless of financial situation.
Brady V Maryland (1963)
John Brady was accused of murder with a accomplice, Donald Boblit. Brady's attorney requested access to Boblit's statements, most were provided, but one of them was where Boblit confessed to the murder, was withheld by the prosecution. Brady's attorney learned of the statement after conviction and demanded a new trial. The government must provide the defense with favorable evidence discovered during the investigation. All relevant evidence must be shown regardless of if it will help the defense prove its case and hurt the chances of the prosecution proving its case.
Miranda V Arizona (1966)
Ernesto Miranada was charged with rape, kidnapping and robbery and was never informed of his rights prior to police interrogation. Miranda admitted to all crimes without a lawyer present and was convicted based on the confession, but was appealed claiming that the confession was obtained unconstitutionally. Statements obtained from suspects during interrogation are inadmissible in court if the suspect is not informed of their right to an attorney and right against self-incrimination. "Miranda Rights/Warning"
Katz V United States (1967)
Federal agents used electronic devices to listen/record on Charles Katz as he talked about illegal gambling wagers in a phone booth. When Katz was convicted he appealed the case on the grounds that his 4th Amendment right to privacy was violated.
Terry V Ohio (1968)
Cleveland police officer saw John Terry and Richard Chilton suspiciously observing a store, so he approcahed them, identifying himself as an officer. The officer patted down Terry, found a pistol and unable to remove the pistol, ordered the men into a store where he seized Terry's pistol and charged Terry with carrying a concealed weapon, but was appealed saying the search and seizure was unconstitutional. An officer may search a suspect to protect his or her safety while investigating. (reasonable suspicion/"Terry frisk")
United States V Leon (1984)
Alberto Leon was a suspected drug dealer and was survellied by police. A judge issued a search warrant on the survelliance evidence and police recovered large quantites of illegal drugs in the search. Leon was indicted on drug charges, but a judge said the evidence was insufficient to grant a search warrant so the evidence obtained under the warrant couldn't be used. Evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant is admissible in court. Allows for a "good faith" exception to the rule put forth by Mapp V. Ohio.
Tennessee V Garner (1985)
Edward Garner was shot by a officer while running from the officer after an alleged burglary. The officer admitted he saw no evidence Garner was armed. Garner later died in the hospitial and his father sued seeking damages for violations of his son's constitutional rights. Police apprehension of a suspect is not constitutional unless they believe the suspect poses a significant threat to the officer/community.
Crawford V Washington (2004)
Micheal Crawford was accused of stabbing a man. During his trial, prosectuors played a pre-recorded statement from Crawford's wife which described the stabbing and contradicted Crawfords explanantion of the event. Since it was a pre-recording they couldn't cross-examine his wife at trial. Crawford was convicted and appealed, clamining it violated his 6th Amendment right. 6th Amendment gives defendants the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine their testimony, including testimony gathered by police.
Maryland V King (2013)
Alonzo King, Jr. was arrest on assault charges. During booking, his DNA was collected and was matched with an unsolved rape case, and he was convicted of rape based solely on the DNA evidence. King appealed saying that it violated his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search. Collecting a DNA swab as part of arrest and detainment for serious crimes is a legitimate procedure which is considered reasonable under the 4th Amendment.
Fernandez V California (2014)
Walter Fernandez attacked a man, who calls 911. Police arrive and was old the suspect was in an apartment and found Fernandez and arrested him. Fernandez refused a search, but a co-tenant later consented, so police searched and found evidence and Fernandez was found guilty. He appealed saying the search violated his 4th Amendment right. If all present tenants consent to a warrantless search, the search is considered reasonable and constitutional.