Criminal Procedure and Due Process
How has the Supreme Court interpreted rights concerning criminal procedure, search and seizure, and due process? Explore these landmark Supreme Court cases to find out.
Supreme Court Case Analysis This is not just a summary.
I want you to begin with a brief summary of the case. What are your thoughts? Any foreseeable procedural conflict? Any systemic issues that were spotted? Did the Court get it right-why or why not? Do some outside research and find out what has happened since? Has it been overruled? Is it still good law?
The review should be four pages minimum (cover page which does not count as a text page and is required, double spaced, Times New Roman, 12-point font, justified margins, and 1-inch margins all around). the document don’t need to be short or format incorrect.
CHOOSE 1 OF THE CASES FROM THE LIST BELOW TO ANALYZE:
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
The Court extended the “exclusionary rule” to include any confessions obtained by unconstitutional means. Once questioning reaches past a stage of “general inquiry,” the suspect has the right to have an attorney present.
Nix v. Williams (1984)
The Court found that if police learn of evidence by unconstitutional means, they may still introduce it at trial if they can prove that they would have found the evidence anyway through constitutional means. There is an “inevitable discovery” exception to the Exclusionary Rule.
Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)
Police may search the belongings of all passengers in a car when lawfully seeking evidence against the driver.
Dickerson v. United States (2000)
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not pass a law that would contradict a Supreme Court ruling. They cited Marbury v. Madison (1803) as the source of their power. Judicial Review gave the Court the final say on an act’s constitutionality. Justices writing in dissent called the ruling the “Pyramid of judicial arrogance.”
Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Warrantless use of thermal-imaging devices to monitor heat emissions from a private residence violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada (2004)
The Court ruled that requiring citizens to identify themselves to police does not violate their Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights if police have a “reasonable suspicion” that someone was involved in or has knowledge of a crime.
Georgia v. Randolph (2006)
Police acted unconstitutionally when they searched a home with one resident’s permission over the objections of the other resident.
Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
The Exclusionary Rule did not apply to evidence gathered “no knock” searches. Police who did not first knock on the door, announce themselves, and wait a reasonable time before forcing their way in, would still be subject to any penalties called for by state law, but evidence obtained could still be used at trial.
