Missouri v. McNeely 4th Amend.

Question Does the Fourth Amendment prevent the taking of a warrantless blood sample under exigent circumstances? Yes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 5-4 plurality. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches applies to blood alcohol tests unless specific exigent circumstances exist. Evidence breaks down naturally so the excuse the need for a warrantless violation to preserve evidence isn’t enough anymore. Implies! -Sotomayor  

Terry v. Ohio 4th Amend.

Question Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Terry upheld stop and frisk as a constitutionally permissible police practice, one that does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures if two conditions are met.

First, the investigatory stop must be lawful, that requirement is met in an on-the-street encounter when the police officer reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a criminal offense.

Second, to proceed from a stop to a frisk, the officer must reasonably suspect that the person stopped is armed and dangerous.

A third hidden one is the time it takes to complete its mission see RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES No. 13–9972. Argued January 21, 2015—Decided April 21, 2015

Rodriguez v. United States 4th Amend.

Question Is the use of a K-9 unit, after the conclusion of a traffic stop and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures? Yes. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that the use of a K-9 unit after the completion of an otherwise lawful traffic stop exceeded the time reasonably required to handle the matter and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.  

Kolender v. Lawson 1st Amend.

Lawson was frequently subjected to police questioning and harassment when he walked in white neighborhoods. Lawson challenged the California law “that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a ‘credible and reliable’ identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer.” Question Is the California statute unconstitutionally vague? The law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause for an arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone. The majority hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.