Rules and Reasons

Area	Rule	Reason	Cases
Sentencing	Any finding of fact increasing the penalty of a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be either admitted or proven to a jury beyond reasonable doubt.	6th Amendment (right to trial by jury), 14th Amendment (due process)	Apprendi v. New Jersey: analogous to Mullaney Blakely v. Washington: includes sentences imposed after guilty plea) Booker & Fanfan: federal guidelines are advisory Kimbrough v. United States: guidelines for crack vs. powder cocaine are also advisory
Sentencing	The goal is to impose "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" sentence to accomplish the goals of sentencing: Reflecting the seriousness of the offense Promoting respect for the law Provide just punishment for the offense Deter other criminal conduct Protect the public from further crimes by the defendant	8th Amendment (cruel and unusual)	Booker: Consider factors like the nature and circumstances of the offense, history and characteristics of the defendant, pertinent statements of sentencing policy, and the need to avoid unwarranted disparities Ewing: Three strikes laws are constitutional (incapacitation of recidivists is a rational goal)
Sentencing	Review of sentences is deferential and confined to looking for abuse of discretion.	Booker (so, 14th Amendment, indirectly)	Gall: since guidelines are advisory, the sentencer has discretion-- an appeals court can't superimpose guidelines of their own. Gallion: the court must explain, by reference to relevant facts and factors, how the components of the sentence accomplish the objectives
Search and Seizure	Evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment (i.e., without a warrant or probable cause) is excluded at trial	Court-created remedy to deter police from lawless conduct (unreasonable searching). When searches are justified, it is to protect the officer, and to preserve evidence (in the case of search incident to arrest).	Terry: Checking for weapons is an exception to the warrant requirement and the probable cause requirement: you can be frisked even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. This is not a search to get evidence; it is a search to keep the officer safe. Minnesota v. Dickerson: If you go beyond what Terry authorizes, the evidence will be excluded. If you touch something, and it gives you probable cause (i.e., more than reasonable suspicion) to think it's a weapon, you can look at it, otherwise not. Michigan v. Long: a frisk can include the grabbable area of the person's car. Fourth Amendment: the warrant requirement. Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process clause makes fourth amendment applicable to the states. Davis v. Mississippi and Hayes v. Florida: In order to take peopl in and and fingerprint them, you need probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is insufficient. Mapp v. Ohio: Quoting Brandeis-- if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law and invites anarchy. California v. Hodari D.: you are not seized unless your liberty is constrained. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule: Good Faith: warrant was improperly issued, but searchers thought the warrant was valid, and it was reasonable to think that. Not followed in WI! Inevitable Discovery: evidence won't be suppressed when it can be shown that it would have been discovered without reference to police error or misconduct. Independent Source: if the evidence is also discovered without reliance on anything impermissible, it can be admitted. Plain View: if officers are legally in a place, and they inadvertantly discover something that is connected to specific criminal activity (with probable cause), they can sieze it. This is different from public view. See Horton v. California and Texas v. Brown. Automobile: automobiles move around, so if you have probable cause to think there's evidence in there, you can search it, lest it vanish. Inventories: when a car is impoinded, it can be inventoried, lest property go missing, etc. Incident to Arrest: you can search a person, and the grabbable area, incident to arrest. (Chimel v. California, United States v. Robinson including containers in the grabbable area: New York v. Belton). Also, a protective sweep might be allowed in some circumstances. (Maryland v. Buie). There is NO SUCH THING as search incident to citation Knowles v. Iowa
Search and Seizure	Just finding stuff discarded by people is not a seizure or a search. Seizing stuff in public view falls under the Fourth Amendment if doing so would require entry into a protected area.	Plain common sense	California v. Hodari D.: Property found where it was left by defendant before defendant was seized. Molina v. State: Picking up property discarded in plain view during chase is neither a seizure nor a search. California v. Greenwood: Looking in garbage cans left outside is permitted. Kyllo v. United States: the home is especially intimate, and a search occurs when a commonly accepted reasonable expectation of privacy is violated, as with sense-enhancing technology.
Stopping and Questioning	Police may frisk those whom they stop and question, if they have specific articulable facts that lead them to infer a person might be armed.	Safety of the officer	Terry: It is not a 4A violation to do this, but it is a seizure, and the search must be confined to the purpose of checking for weapons. Michigan v. Long: the grabbable area of the car is fair game for frisking.
Stopping and Questioning	Police may stop and question when they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.	Without this, there really wouldn't be much policing.	Terry: If it is reasonable for the police to suspect that a crime is afoot, they can stop and question. People are not obliged to answer, however. Illinois v. Wardlow: Evasive behavior is grounds for reasonable suspicion. Hiibel v. Nevada: When there's reasonable suspicion, an officer can stop someone and ask questions. Delaware v. Prouse: evidence produced by random stopping is inadmissible U.S. v. Sokolow: merely meeting a drug courier profile is not sufficient for reasonable suspicion, but it can be taken into account along with other factors. Hiibel v. Nevada, Michigan v. Sitz: Fourth amendment interests are balanced against the state's legitimate interest (e.g., efficient law enforcement, or saving lives stopping drunk driving). City of Indianapolis v. Edmond: you can't just set up a roadblock to sieze people for general law-enforcement purposes without reasonable suspicion (this is the opposite of Sitz, where the objective was saving lives). Illinois v. Lidster: specific law-enforcement purposes (i.e., getting information about a particular crime that has been committed) are a valid justification for checkpoints.
Stopping and Questioning	Whether there was vuluntary consent to a search is to be determined from the totality of the circumstances.	Per se rules are not sensitive to individual facts.	Florida v. Bostick: Courts must examine the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether police conduct made a person feel that he/she was not free to decline the police request or terminate the encounter. United States v. Drayton: Again with the totality: whether or not you were formally notified of your right to refuse is but one of the many factors the court may consider when deciding whether a search was legitimate. Scheckloth v Bustamonte: Whether a search was voluntary or the product of express or implied coercion or duress is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. Hiibel v. Nevada: The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against the government's unreasonable acts; here, the requirement to identify one's self came from state law, and was rationally related to important state interests.
Questioning	You can't be compelled to incriminate yourself	Lots of reasons, including the fact that you can be compelled to confess to things you didn't even do.	Hiibel v. Nevada: the Fifth Amendment privileges only communications that are testimonial, incriminating, and compelled. Miranda v. Arizona: Custodial interrogation requires procedural safeguards: information of the right to counsel, the right not to be questioned, and the right to silence. These rights can only be waived intelligently and explicitly. Some additional notes: Custody must be caused by the police A stop does not require warnings Voluntary trips to the police station aren't custody Volunteered statements don't require warnings Interrogation is that which calls for an incriminating response Silence and ambiguous responses make things confusing: i.e., may we resume questioning you? Statements obtained in violation of Miranda can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony Public safety exception: you can ask people where they dropped the gun before cautioning them Routine booking questions don't count (name, address, non-incriminating biographical junk like that) Legislative attempts to override Miranda have been struck down. If an arrest is illegal, and you've been cautioned, Fourth Amendment concerns will likely suppress your confession anyway. State v. Driver: You can be compelled to take a breathalyzer, give fingerprints, etc. This is not testimonial evidence. Brewer v. Williams: You have the right to counsel. They can't question you without your lawyer if you have indicated that's what you want. :
Standards of belief	Different activities require different degrees of certainty	These are serious matters	Reasonable suspicion: required for stop (and frisk). Cause to suspect that some criminal activity is afoot, and a need to resolve the ambiguity. Based on specific articulable facts. Probable cause: required for warrants and arrest. The belief that a specific person is committing or has committed a specific crime, or that evidence could be obtained. The facts giving rise to probable cause do not themselves have to be admissible as evidence. Would the facts and circumstances be sufficient in themselves to warrant someonw with reasonable caution to believe that this offence has been or is being committed?
Arrest	Arrest is a seizure (and taking into custody) supported by probable cause	Fourth Amendment	Draper v. United States: the standard for probable cause. Illinois v. Gates: hearsay from anonymous informants can be sufficient to produce probable cause: the totality of the circumstances. Florida v. J.L.: The opposite of Illinois v. Gates... an anonymous tip is insufficient in this case. However, the greater the risk, the more likely the tip merits action. United States v. Watson: arrest without warrant is permitted if authorized by statute and supported by probable cause Payton v. New York: officers can't enter a home without consent to make a warrantless arrest. State v. Smith: Illegal arrest is not a bar to prosecution or a defense to conviction. Due process can still be satisfied. The fruits of illegal arrest may be suppressed (or maybe not, if the state can prove a confession was voluntary, e.g.). State v. King: Search incident to arrest for a non-criminal violation is permitted. Whren v. United States: pretext arrests are permitted. Atwater v. Lago Vista: warrantless arrest is permitted even for things like misdemeanor seatbelt violations. Probable cause is the standard for all arrests. :