Spratt 1 of 24

Case Name: Brigham City, Utah v. STUART (2006)

Issue-
Did the responding officers enter the home lawfully and under the
4th Amendment? Was there exigent circumstance for the officers
to enter without permission?

Rule-
The 4th Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and
seizures.
Exigent circumstances are circumstances that give a person or
officer reasonable belief to enter a building or facility without
permission.

Analysis-
July 23, 2000, law enforcement officers responded to a residential
property in Brigham City, Utah. They were responding to a call
dealing with a loud party and a noise complaint.
When officers responded they went towards the back of the home
where they found underage juveniles drinking beer. The officers
noticed an ongoing altercation between other juveniles. These
juveniles were being held back by four adults. One juvenile broke
free and assaulted one of the adults. The officers proceeded to
enter the home after they announced themselves. After
announcing themselves twice the altercation stopped. Those
involved were then placed under arrest.

Conclusion-
The Utah Supreme Court found that the responding officers entry
was not justified. This rule is used when officers have probable
cause to enter a home without a warrant.

Case Name: Gault v. Arizona (1967)

 Spratt 2 of 24

Issue-
Was Gerald Gault taken into custody lawfully and did it follow
Habeas Corpus laws? Was due process done correctly?

Rule-
Due Process in delinquent cases requires that written notices
must be given out to the juvenile and his legal guardians.
Habeas Corpus Action is unlawful detention or imprisonment of
an individual.

Analysis-
15 year old, Gerald Gault was arrested after a complaint was filed
against him for making lewd telephone calls. Gault was ordered to
attend the Industrial School as a juvenile delinquent by a juvenile
court judge. Due process requires that the juvenile and his legal
guardians receive notice in advance of the hearing. This notice
sent out to Gault and his guardians was not sent out in a timely
manner nor was it specific.

Conclusion-
Due process in the Gault v. Arizona case was not completed
lawfully.

Case Name: Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

 Spratt 3 of 24

Issue-
Was the search and seizure done unlawfully since there was no
warrant or consent?

Rule-
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unlawful
searches and seizures. There must be a warrant, consent or
probable cause to enter a home or building.

Analysis-
Consent was given to search the marital residence by the
estranged wife. The respondent gave no consent to search the
residence. The police found cocaine during the search of the
residence. The court denied the respondent's motion to suppress
the cocaine evidence found during the warrantless search
because unauthorized consent was given by the estranged wife. It
was found that consent given by an occupant is not valid if the
other occupant refused the content given.

Conclusion-
The co-occupant of the home refused law enforcement officials to
enter the home. This means they must get a warrant to enter the
home and do any searches. The cocaine found in the case could
not be used because the estranged wifes consent was not legal.

Case Name: Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)

Issue-
 Spratt 4 of 24

Was the Miranda Warning used lawfully in this case?

Rule-
Miranda Warning (Miranda v. Arizona)-Whenever a person is
taken into custody it is mandatory for the arresting officer to read
the suspect their Miranda Warning so they know their rights.

Analysis-
Muniz was arrested for driving under the influence. Upon being
arrested he was not read his Miranda Rights. After being taken to
the station Muniz answered multiple questions and this was
recorded. This recording was then taken to court to be used
against Muniz.

Conclusion-
Since Muniz was not read his Miranda Warning the videotape
evidence was thrown out for the case.

Case Name: Walder v. United States

Issue-
Was the 4th Amendment used correctly in the case?
 Spratt 5 of 24

Rule-
The 4th Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and
seizures.

Analysis-
The 4th amendment was used incorrectly by federal agents in the
case and an illegal search and seizure was committed to obtain
the heroin in the case.

Conclusion-
Since the heroin was unlawfully collected the case must be
thrown out.

Case Name: Alabama v. Shelton

Issue-
Was counsel offered to the defendant lawfully?
 Spratt 6 of 24

Rule-
A defendant cannot be imprisoned without right of counsel.

Analysis-
Shelton was charged and placed into jail for 30 days following a
misdemeanor assault charge. He opted for self-representation in
court. But he was never offered

Conclusion-
Sheltons sentence was invalid because the court did not offer
him counsel. Because of this he cannot be placed into prison
because he was absent of counsel throughout his whole case.

Case Name: Culombe v. Connecticut

Issue-
Was the Miranda Warning used and was it done lawfully?

Rule-
 Spratt 7 of 24

Miranda Warning must be read to a suspect whenever they are

taken into custody so they know their rights upon being taken into
custody.

Analysis-
A thirty-three year old, handicapped man was placed under arrest
after he confessed to participating in a holdup where two men
were murdered. He finally confessed after his wife urged him to
confess and tell the truth. The confession was made without being
afforded counsel. He was never made aware of his Miranda
Rights either.

Conclusion-
Since the suspect was never given his Miranda Rights nor was he
afforded the right to counsel after he requested it the confession
was not admissible as evidence. This was a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

Case Name: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Issue-
 Spratt 8 of 24

Was the case in violation of the suspects Fourteenth

Amendment?

Rule-
The fourteenth Amendment protects citizens against the laws.

Analysis-
The defendant was asked for the court to appoint him counsel
since he could not afford someone to represent him. His request
was denied and he was sentenced to prison for the crime.

Conclusion-
The Fourteenth Amendment was not followed and the defendant
was denied his right for an appointed counsel after requesting
one. This is in violation of the law.

Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona

Issue-
Were the rights of the person being interrogated told before being
questioned and placed into police custody?

Rule-
 Spratt 9 of 24

Before defendants are placed into custody and questioned they

must be read their rights as a citizen.

Analysis-
The defendant was placed into police custody, locked into a room
with no rights read before this all took place. This was unlawful
and broke the Fifth Amendment agains self-incrimination.

Conclusion-
Prosecution could not use the statements made by the defendant
because they were not given their rights before the interrogation
process began. They were not aware of their rights.

Case Name: Terry v. Ohio

Issue-
Did the officer search the suspects lawfully?

Rule-
 Spratt 10 of 24

The Fourth Amendment: Citizens rights and protection against

unreasonable searches and seizures.

Analysis-
The detective witnessed suspicious looking gentleman.
McFadden suspected these men of planning to break into the
store when he decided to confront them after they met up with a
third party. He patted them down, found concealed weapons and
took them into the police station.

Conclusion-
McFadden did indeed follow the law when searching the three
suspects. He had reasonable cause that these suspects were
armed and were planning on breaking into those stores.

Case Name: Powell v. State of Ala

Issue-
Was the case in violation of the suspects Fourteenth
Amendment?

Rule-
 Spratt 11 of 24

The Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens and grants them

counsel if they cannot provide one themselves.

Analysis-
African American men were charged with the rape of a white
woman. They all plead not guilty. No counsel was given to the
suspects even after request. They were not given a fair trial, no
counsel was given and members from their race were excluded
from being in the jury.

Conclusion-
The Fourteenth Amendment was broken in this case and the men
did not receive a fair and legitimate trial.

Case Name: Barber v. Page

Issue-
Was the cross examination done correctly and was the statement
made by Woods prosecutable in court?

Rule-
 Spratt 12 of 24

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Sixth Amendment

promises a speedy trial, a fair jury and council if wanted.

Analysis-
Two suspects were charged with armed robbery. Woods waived
his privilege of self-incrimination and testified agains Petitioner.
Because of this testimony, Petitioner was sentenced.

Conclusion-
Woods was not cross-examined by council. So this could not be
used.

Case Name: Jackson v. Denno

Issue-
Was the interview with Petitioner done lawfully?

Rule-
The confession made my Petitioner was given while he was not in
his right state of mind.
 Spratt 13 of 24

Analysis-
Petitioner had lost a huge amount of blood and taken to the
hospital where he was given medications. After this, police
interviewed him and he confessed to the crime. He had already
been given medication when he made this statement and he was
not in the right state of mind.

Conclusion-
The confession made by Petitioner was found to be voluntary and
was used against him in court.

Case Name: Pointer v. Texas

Issue-
Was the Sixth Amendment law broken? Did Petitioner have a fair
trial?

Rule-
Sixth Amendment protects a citizen against witnesses and cross-
examinations. It says they have the right for a fair trial.
 Spratt 14 of 24

Analysis-
Petitioner was arrested for a robbery charge. He did not have
counsel and was not cross-examined. He was later found guilty
and tried for the robbery he committed. This appeal was made
and the court found the same conclusion.

Conclusion-
It was found that the case held before, the same conclusion was
made. The case was fair and the findings were still lawful.

Case Name: Griffin v. California

Issue-
Did the defendant admit guilt because he did not wish to speak at
his trial?

Rule-
Fifth Amendment- Self-Incrimination clause: A defendant does not
have to speak if they do not wish to during their trial.
 Spratt 15 of 24

Analysis-
Petitioner was convicted for first degree murder. He did not testify
in court. The defendant has the constitutional right to not testify in
court if they do not wish to speak. The defendant was seen at the
crime scene next to the victims dead body. But during his trial, he
did not wish to speak or give facts on the case. He was found
guilty in the case by the Jury.

Conclusion-
The defendant does not have to speak at his trial and act as a
witness against himself in court if he does not wish. But he was
still found guilty for the crime he committed.

Case Name: United States v. Wade

Issue-
Was the defendants Fifth and Sixth Amendment privileges
revoked?

Rule-
Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Protection against self-incrimination
and the right to counsel.
 Spratt 16 of 24

Analysis-
The defendant was identified in a lineup after robbery of a bank.
Two bank employees identified the defendant as the suspect in
the robbery. The defendant said that this lineup was in violation of
his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

Conclusion-
The court found that the lineup was done lawfully and the
identification by the bank employees was done correct.

Case Name: Gilbert v. California

Issue:
Was the defendants Fourth Amendment right violated by police
when they did a search and seizure of his dwelling?
Rule: The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful
searches and seizures.

Analysis:
The defendant was arrested for armed robbery and the murder of
a police officer. He was found guilty for these charges and was
sentenced the death penalty. The defendant argued that after his
 Spratt 17 of 24

arrest the police searched and seized evidence from his dwelling
without a warrant.

Conclusion:
Under the circumstances of the crime law officials had the right to
enter his dwelling and collect evidence. The court found this was
legal and they did not violate his Fourth Amendment right by
doing so.

Case Name: Coy v. Iowa

Issue:
Was the Defendants Sixth Amendment right violated during his
court hearing?

Rule:
Sixth Amendment which gives the defendant the right to see the
person who is making a testimony against them in court.

Analysis:
The defendant was charged for sexually assaulting two different
thirteen-year-old girls. During court the two minors were placed
 Spratt 18 of 24

behind a screen so the defendant could not see them clearly and
not hear them clearly while they testified. This was part of a 1985
state statute that was made to protect children who were victims
of sexual abuse. The defendant argued that his Sixth Amendment
right was violated because he could not see the witnesses face
to face.

Conclusion:
The court found that the defendants Sixth Amendment right was
violated in this case and it was reversed. The case remained
open for further proceedings.

Case Name: Nardone V. United States

Issue:
Was the federal evidence obtained legally?

Rule:
Rule 605 of the Communications Act of 1934: This protects
citizens communications from being wire-tapped.

Analysis:
The defendants telephone was tapped and the conversation was
used against him in court. This wire-tap was done illegally and
they violated Rule 605 of the Communications Act of 1934.
 Spratt 19 of 24

Conclusion:
The court decisions were reversed and the District Court kept it
open for further proceedings since the 605 rule was violated.

Case Name: Michelson v. United Stated

Issue:
Could the witness statements be used in this case to prove or
disprove Michelsons guilt in the case?

Rule:
Cross-examination. A persons guilt cannot be determined by
having a witness cross-examined and give a statement saying the
defendant is a good person. Their character is irrelevant to a
case.

Analysis:
Michelson was arrested for bribing a federal agent. This bribe was
used to influence the federal agents actions. Michlson argued
 Spratt 20 of 24

that he was only doing that the federal agent had told him to do.
The jury then had to decide if the defendant or the federal agent
were in the wrong. Michelsons counsel cross-examined multiple
witnesses to show that the defendant was a good person and to
show he had a good reputation.

Conclusion:
In court, you cannot show any kind of evidence of a defendant to
prove they are a good person or show their good reputation as a
way out of establishing guilt. These witnesses testimonies had to
be thrown out.

Case Name: Giglio v. United Stated

Issue:
Was the statement made by the witness made because of the
promise he was given by government officials? Can it be used in
court to determine a verdict?

Rule:
Due Process; Requirement of a new trial because of the new
evidence.

Analysis:
A new trial was held because new evidence was brought to the
table in the case. A promise was made to a witness or the
coconspirator in the case, that he would not be prosecuted if he
made a statement to the grand jury and at trial against the
 Spratt 21 of 24

defendant. This evidence was not known during the trail and
because of this, lawfully a new trial must be created.

Conclusion:
All information and evidence must be given during a case or a
new case must be made. Since this evidence was not known in
the beginning they had to start a new case and process.

Case Name: Rochin v. California

Issue:
Was the case made against the defendant lawful and was the
evidence obtained lawfully?

Rule:
Fourth Amendment- Protects citizens against unlawful searches
and seizures. Also the Fourteenth Amendment.

Analysis:
Three officers heard some information that the defendant was
selling narcotics. They entered his home and forced their way into
the bedroom. After entering the bedroom, they found the
defendant and two capsules laying on the bedside table. The
defendant quickly swallowed these capsules. The officers then
tried to extract the capsules by force but were unsuccessful. They
 Spratt 22 of 24

took him to the hospital where the pills were extracted against the
defendants will. He was charged with possession of narcotics.
The officers entered the home without a warrant and they got the
drugs from the defendant unlawfully.

Conclusion:
The charges against the defendant must be dropped because the
case was made unlawfully. The officers did not enter the home
with a warrant and they obtained the drugs from the defendant
against his will.

Case Name: SCHMERBER v. California

Issue:
Did law officials break violate the defendants Fourth Amendment?

Rule:
Fourth Amendment- Protects citizens against unlawful searches
and seizures. The Miranda Warning and Probable Cause.

Analysis:
On scene of the crime as well as at the hospital, law officials
smelled alcohol on the defendant. This is when probable cause
comes into play. Since the officers can smell the alcohol on the
defendant they do not need a warrant to search the suspect or
arrest him. The officer has reason to believe that the defendant
had been drinking and this was the cause of the accident.

Conclusion:
 Spratt 23 of 24

No violation was made in this case. The defendant was given his
rights during his arrest. He denied his rights when they were read
to him. His blood draw was taken lawfully and booked into
evidence against the defendant. Since probable cause was used
in the case the officers did not break the Fourth Amendment.

Case Name: Chimel v. California

Issue:
Did law officials violated the defendants Fourth Amendment
rights?

Rule:
Fourth Amendment- Protects citizens against unlawful searches
and seizures.

Analysis:
Law officials had an arrest warrant for the defendant but not a
search warrant. The defendant denied the law officials to search
his home but the continued to do one anyway. Evidence was
taken from this search and it was used against him in court. The
defendant argued that the arrest warrant was invalid and
charges against him should be dropped.

Conclusion:
 Spratt 24 of 24

Since the law officials had an arrest warrant this granted them the
power to search the home. This was a justified search and the
evidence found was lawfully used against the defendant in court.

Case Name: MAPP v. OHIO

Issue:
Did law officials break the Fourth Amendment?

Rule:
Fourth Amendment- Protects citizens against unlawful searches
and seizures.

Analysis:
Police forcefully entered a home where a person who was wanted
for questioning was hiding. Miss. Mapp did not give law officials
permission to enter her home, nor did they have a search warrant.
The officers then took her into custody and began to search her
dwelling.

Conclusion:
This case and the evidence found had to be thrown out because
law officials did not have a search warrant. They had no right to
enter Miss. Mapps home and search her dwelling.