38 Cited authorities

Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968) Cited 38,137 times 73 Legal Analyses
Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop
Illinois v. Caballes
543 U.S. 405 (2005) Cited 2,507 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that use of narcotics-detection dog during a lawful traffic stop "generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests"
Florida v. Bostick
501 U.S. 429 (1991) Cited 4,588 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that police officers' search of a bus passenger's luggage can be based on consent
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
412 U.S. 218 (1973) Cited 11,956 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search
Florida v. Royer
460 U.S. 491 (1983) Cited 6,697 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government bears the burden of demonstrating reasonable suspicion
Brendlin v. California
551 U.S. 249 (2007) Cited 2,083 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that when police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the vehicle, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and may challenge the stop's constitutionality
California v. Hodari D
499 U.S. 621 (1991) Cited 3,610 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence abandoned during flight was not fruit of the poisonous tree because defendant was not seized until after brief foot chase
Wong Sun v. United States
371 U.S. 471 (1963) Cited 12,232 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding evidence stemming from Fourth Amendment violations must be excluded from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree
Ohio v. Robinette
519 U.S. 33 (1996) Cited 1,815 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Fourth Amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is "free to go" before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary
Johnson v. Zerbst
304 U.S. 458 (1938) Cited 8,796 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent

The People, Respondent,v.Jeffrey Mercado, Appellant.

38 Cited authorities

Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop

Holding that use of narcotics-detection dog during a lawful traffic stop "generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests"

Holding that police officers' search of a bus passenger's luggage can be based on consent

Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search

Holding that the government bears the burden of demonstrating reasonable suspicion

Holding that when police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the vehicle, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and may challenge the stop's constitutionality

Holding that evidence abandoned during flight was not fruit of the poisonous tree because defendant was not seized until after brief foot chase

Holding evidence stemming from Fourth Amendment violations must be excluded from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree

Holding that the Fourth Amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is "free to go" before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary

Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent