Brendlin v.

California establishes that passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment when the car in which they are riding is held at a law enforcement traffic
stop. This means the driver and any passengers in a lawfully stopped vehicle are detained.

Glik v. Cunniffe establishes that a citizen has the right to film public officials in a public place;
the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press, and that this falls
under the first amendment.

Minnesota v. Dickerson establishes that when a police officer who is conducting a lawful
patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband (even if not a weapon),
the object may be seized.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms establishes that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a
traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating
the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Mapp v. Ohio establishes that evidence confiscated as a result of unlawful searches is

inadmissible in court. This is referred to as "fruit of the poisonous tree", where if the basis of the
search (tree) was unlawful, then anything gained from that search (fruit) is also unlawful.

Tennessee v. Garner establishes that police have a right to use deadly force to prevent escape,
only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of
death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Prado Navarette v. California that police need not personally verify the existence of criminal
activity resulting from a reliable tip provided via a 911 call. This means deputies can conduct
investigatory stops based on anonymous tips or 911 calls.

Kentucky v. King establishes that warrantless searches conducted in exigent circumstances do

not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating
or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

Miranda v. Arizona establishes that prior to custodial interrogations all suspects must be read
their Miranda rights, otherwise their statements cannot be used in criminal prosecution.
Suspects must be informed that:
• They have the right to remain silent;
• Anything they say can and will be used against them;
• They have the right to have an attorney present before and during the questioning;
• If they cannot afford an attorney, they have the right to have an attorney appointed to them, at
public expense and without cost to them, to represent them before and during the questioning.
Terry v. Ohio establishes that peace officers have a right to frisk individuals for weapons for
their safety; when they are able to provide reasonable suspicion as to why they thought the
individual was armed or their safety was at risk. This frisk is referred to as a "Terry Frisk" and is
only a frisk of a person's outer clothing for weapons.