Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query fourth and amendment returned 138 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. [Syllabus] Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self-representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. [Syllabus] Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self-representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?
	HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. [Syllabus] Whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to require someone to identify himself when stopped by police?
	KENTUCKY V. KING [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS [Syllabus] The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
	CHANDLER V. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER [Syllabus] Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about預nd look for witnesses to葉he offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after預nd at approximately the same time of day as葉he offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
	VIRGINIA V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. CARTER, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MV. CHICAGO [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SNYDER V. PHELPS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	KYLLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Where the Government uses a device, such as a thermal imager, that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
	ONTARIO V. QUON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GROH V. RAMIREZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?
	DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the passage of 18 U.S.C. 3501 Was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?"
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. KOKINDA, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MUEHLER V. MENA [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CARMELL V. TEXAS [Syllabus] Whether the Texas Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of the 1993 version of Texas's article 38.07, Code of Criminal Procedure, was not ex post facto when: (I) the offense occurred in 1992, a full year before adoption of the new rules of law; (ii) there was no outcry for approximately three years, and the law in effect at the time required outcry within 6 months; and , (iii) the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to an acquittal, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON [Syllabus] A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM誰 [Syllabus]
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	SCOTT V. HARRIS [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AL-KIDD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS [Syllabus] Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	THORNTON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?
	DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [Syllabus]
	VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM誰 OF MD. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
	ILLINOIS V. MCARTHUR [Syllabus] Whether it is constitutionally reasonable for police officers to secure a residence from the outside, and prohibit the occupant's entry into that residence for a short time while they obtain a search warrant based on probable cause, when this Court has suggested that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in Segura v. United States 468 U.S. 796, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, 104 S.Ct. 3380 (1984) and other courts have found similar behavior consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and Segura."
	DEVLIN V. SCARDELLETTI [Syllabus] Nonnamed class members who have objected in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing have the power to bring an appeal without first intervening in the lawsuit.
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM誰 V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	UNITED STATES V. COTTON [Syllabus] A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM誰 V. BEAUMONT [Syllabus] The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. JOHNSON [Syllabus]
	INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND [Syllabus] Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a ""narcotics detection"" dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK [Syllabus]
	RENO V. CONDON [Syllabus] Whether the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, contravenes constitutional principles of federalism.
	ARIZONA V. EVANS, 514 U.S. 1 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ROTHGERY V. GILLESPIE COUNTY [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WYOMING V. HOUGHTON [Syllabus]
	BOND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether a search occurs when a law enforcement officer manipulates a bus passenger's personal carry-on luggage to determine its contents."
	ERIE V. PAP担 A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	NKEN V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	MICKENS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] In order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where the trial court fails to inquire into defense counsel's potential conflict of interest about which the court knew or reasonably should have known, the defendant must establish that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance.
	BURGESS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY [Syllabus] 1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
	ILLINOIS V. RODRIGUEZ, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. WILSON, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HAMDI V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus] Did the court of appeals erred in holding that the U.S. has established the legality of the military's detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a presumed American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan during the combat operations in late 2001, and was determined by the military to be an enemy combatant who should be detained in connection with the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan?
	RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CAMRETA V. GREENE [Syllabus]
	WIGGINS V. SMITH [Syllabus] Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
	O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SAUCIER V. KATZ [Syllabus] A qualified immunity ruling requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making an arrest; petitioner, a military police officer, was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in arresting respondent.
	VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BANKS [Syllabus] Whether law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search for illegal drugs violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered a small apartment in the middle of the afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence.
	GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DIST. V. UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WILSON V. ARKANSAS, 514 U.S. 927 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. VENTRIS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PEARSON V. CALLAHAN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ARVIZU [Syllabus] Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by a border patrol agent and the District Court Judge, the agent had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity when he was stopped while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona.
	KNOWLES V. IOWA [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	DEVENPECK V. ALFORD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FLORES-MONTANO [Syllabus] Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?
	UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.
	WALLACE V. KATO [Syllabus]
	CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO V. LEWIS, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CONN V. GABBERT [Syllabus]
	WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. V. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VERMONT V. BRILLON [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. ROBINETTE, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
	LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	MOSELEY V. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. [Syllabus] The Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual dilution; the evidence in this case is insufficient to support summary judgment for respondents on the dilution count.
	SKILLING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. WARDLOW [Syllabus] Whether a person's sudden and unprovoked flight from a clearly identifiable police officer, who is patrolling a high crime area, is sufficiently suspicious to justify a temporary investigator stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio.
	FCC V. AT&T INC. [Syllabus]
	BEARD V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LARA [Syllabus] Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	UTTECHT V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CBOCS WEST, INC. V. HUMPHRIES [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA V. J. L. [Syllabus] Whether an anonymous tip which states that a person is carrying a concealed firearm at a specific location, with a detailed description of the person and his attire, is sufficiently reliable to justify an investigatory detention and frisk where the police immediately verify the accuracy of the tip?"
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. PRINGLE [Syllabus] Where drugs and a roll of cash are found in the passenger compartment of a car with multiple occupants, and all deny ownership, does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a police officer form arresting the occupants of the car?
	HERRING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. GANT [Syllabus]