Case Laws

The following Case Laws are currently the only US case laws San Andreas accepts.

OOC: Not every US Case Law is recognized within MidwestRP. This is to make it easier for LEOs and Civilians not to need to know every case law ever created. However, every member, LEO or Civilian, is responsible for knowing when a case law is added and recognized by the community.

Arizona V. Gant

After a recent arrest, the police may search a recent occupant’s vehicle if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment during the search or if it is reasonable to believe evidence related to the crime is present in the vehicle.

More Information: https://youtu.be/p-Ts09utgKQ?si=jdGxClslDeVkIzvq

Carroll V. United States

Allows officers to search a vehicle without a search warrant if they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is in the vehicle. The exception is based on the idea that there is a lower expectation to privacy in motor vehicles because of regulations under which they operate.

More Information: https://youtu.be/sF0BY7nBvck?si=3H1d9g1myfog-iBx

Graham V. Connor

When a person claims that police used excessive force during an investigatory stop, arrest, or other type of seizure, the claim must be reviewed using the “objective reasonableness” standard under the Fourth Amendment, not under a standard of substantive due process.

More Information: https://youtu.be/zhtQovjR2C0?si=NSyJ9diNTOoKPUbi

Illinois V. Rodriguez

A warrantless entry is valid when based upon the consent of a third party whom the police, at the time of entry, reasonably believe has common authority over premises but who in fact does not.

More Information: https://youtu.be/xEmkxKb89Kc?si=Qg4Q4d8VGU3MOKxg

Mapp V. Ohio

The prosecution is not allowed to present evidence that law enforcement secured during a search that was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

More Information: https://youtu.be/jVl4XD3NkKo?si=jJWacZcxvqGhkQCb

Miranda V. Arizona

Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started, and the rights were either exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.

More Information: https://youtu.be/0zXqp_2Vh1c?si=CdxwcjubcdC7pFPk

New York V. Belton

When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile,” and “the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the compartment.

More Information: https://youtu.be/ngn9LATgI-M?si=WmBykVlJFqQaVVyv

Payton V. New York

In Payton v. New York (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that, without a warrant or consent, police cannot enter a suspect’s home for a routine felony arrest, emphasizing the strong protection the Fourth Amendment affords to individuals’ homes.

More Information: https://youtu.be/WqlZSSSHFUo?si=EsBEOuQBylvgivxe

Pennsylvania V. Mimms

The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State’s proffered justification for such order — the officer’s safety — is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent’s personal liberty occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer’s safety.

More Information: https://youtu.be/5lmdeAQ1VJE?si=jm7hWYuix-Wj1s-T

Tennessee V. Garner

A police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

More information: https://youtu.be/zVYvSQhkt2Y?si=pAPRNcFjyxQUeXE_

Terry V. Ohio

A police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”

It is important to note that a frisk must only be done on the outside of the pockets. Reaching into pockets of pants or jackets is not allowed UNLESS a possible weapon is felt.

More Information: https://youtu.be/AVDy0EZFv3s?si=Fagi_mwXlrFl-YmR