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
Berghuis V. Thompkins
To invoke the right to remain silent, a suspect must clearly state that intention. Simply staying quiet is not enough. If a suspect is Mirandized and begins to speak voluntarily, their statements are admissible—even after a long silence—unless they specifically invoked their right to silence.
More Information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63b6-xo-hHw
Cady V. Dombrowski
Police officers may conduct limited, warrantless searches or actions under the ‘community caretaking’ function when not investigating a crime but acting to ensure public safety. This includes checking on a disabled vehicle, conducting a welfare check, or securing property. It does not allow full searches or home entry unless supported by additional legal grounds, such as exigent circumstances.
More Information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55gW0DPIY0M
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
Florida V. Harris
A K-9 alert on a vehicle can establish probable cause for a search if the dog is properly trained and certified. This allows officers to conduct a warrantless vehicle search based on the alert. However, defense attorneys may challenge the reliability of the K-9 based on training history and past performance.
More Information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZT6AXfWjhg
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. Gates
Probable cause for a search or arrest is based on the totality of the circumstances, not a rigid checklist. Officers and courts may consider tips, behavior, and patterns when evaluating whether probable cause exists. This case gives flexibility when building warrants or justifying an arrest based on combined factors.
More Information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5p_6-bj5d8
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
Katz V. United States
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not just physical spaces. A person has a right to privacy when they have a reasonable expectation of it—even in public. This case applies to surveillance, phone calls, trash searches, and similar situations where privacy might still be expected.
More Information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS79Qz4TmV4
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
North Carolina V. Butler
A suspect can waive their Miranda rights without explicitly stating it. If, after being Mirandized, the suspect chooses to speak voluntarily, their statements can be admissible in court—even if they didn’t clearly say ‘I waive my rights.’ It is the behavior that matters, not the words.
More Information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SQYkUIrHN8
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
Riley V. California
Officers must obtain a warrant to search the contents of a suspect’s cellphone, even if the suspect is lawfully arrested. This case reinforces digital privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment. Phone evidence obtained without a warrant may be excluded from court.
More Information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZ6RdVXT10
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
United States V. Leon
The ‘good faith’ exception allows evidence to be admitted in court even if the warrant used to obtain it is later found to be invalid, as long as officers reasonably believed the warrant was valid at the time. This helps avoid suppression for minor errors, but major warrant defects still risk exclusion.
More Information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGe-biktRFk
Whren V. United States
A traffic stop is considered lawful as long as the officer has a valid reason to stop the vehicle, even if the real motive is unrelated (e.g., investigating drugs). This ruling allows pretextual stops based on observed traffic violations, as long as the stop itself is legal.
More Information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-KgLXrENFA
Last updated