General Cases

Attorney–Client Privilege (Common Law): Prohibits the criminal evidentiary use of confidential and/or private communications between a client and their attorney so long as the communications involve matters related to an actual current, former, or future case wherein the attorney is acting as the actual counsel of the case and the client is the actual defendant of the case. The communication will not be considered "privileged" - and therefore not protected - if it was communicated in the presence of others not involved in the case, if it was communicated publicly during or after the fact, or if the communication was specifically intended to commit, coordinate, or further a crime (as opposed to discussing a case -- For example, if a defendant tells their attorney that they likely committed an offence during a private meeting, this is privileged information; as opposed to if a defendant tells their attorney that they are planning to murder the officer whom arrested them, which is not privileged information.) This privilege also applies to joint defendants.

Terry v Ohio (Terry Stop): Permits detainment and frisk search for weapons under reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime.

Salinas v Texas: An individual who refuses to answer questions by saying nothing has not effectively invoked their fifth amendment right to remain silent. A suspect who stands mute has not done enough to put police on notice that invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent.

Pennsylvania v Mimms: Police officers may order any and all occupants of a vehicle to exit during a traffic stop. Police officers may conduct a pat down.

Miranda v Arizona: Suspect must be informed of their rights prior to questioning in an incriminatory fashion, otherwise testimony or confession extracted through questioning may be determined as inadmissible in trial. The suspect has the right to remain silent and not answer any incriminating questions without an attorney present; if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to them for free. Specifically: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say {and/or do} can {and will} be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. {If you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you for free.}" (The portions in braces are optional).

Gant v Arizona: Police may search the vehicle if a recent occupant was arrested only if it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest.

New York v Belton: When a police officer has made a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, the officer may search the passenger compartment of that automobile (in effect, searches incident to arrest). Police officers may conduct a search of a vehicle upon the sensory (sight or smell) detection of illegal substances such as the emission of the odor of marijuana from a vehicle.

South Dakota v Opperman: Police may conduct an inventory search of a vehicle that is being lawfully impounded.

Carroll v United States: A search of a vehicle is permitted if a reasonable suspicion exists that evidence of an arrestable criminal offence is present in the vehicle.

Michigan v Long: A search of a vehicle's storage compartments is permitted if reasonable suspicion exists that evidence of an arrestable offence is present in the vehicle.

Chimel v California: The arrest of a person in their home does not allow the warrantless search of the whole house incident to arrest.

Horton v California: The 4th Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence that is in plain view.

Minnesota v Dickerson: If law enforcement personnel physically feel something that might be illegal contraband whilst performing a lawful weapons-pat-down, the contraband may legally be allowed to be removed and seized.

Heien v North Carolina: A mistaken arrest or detention of an individual matching a suspect description, nor the search related to such arrest or detention, shall not constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment if the mistaken identity was reasonably factual.

Arizona v Johnson: Law enforcement may conduct a weapon-pat-down of all passengers in a vehicle that has been lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, provided the police have reasonable suspicion that the passengers are armed or dangerous.