Riley v. California

Holding that an employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call records and text messages contained on a cell phone owned by his employer because he "had a right to exclude others from using the phone" and explaining that "a property interest in the item searched is only one factor in the analysis, and lack thereof is not dispositive"

Davis v. U.S.

Holding "newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure 'must apply retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception.'"

United States v. Jones

Holding that installation of a tracking device was "a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted"

Herring v. United States

Holding that the good-faith exception may apply "when police mistakes are the result of negligence ... rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements"

Rakas v. Illinois

Holding that the determinative question is "whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place"

Powers v. Ohio

Holding that a white defendant has standing to challenge strikes of black jurors

U.S. v. Stevens

Holding law unconstitutional under First Amendment where "impermissible applications ... far outnumber[ed] any permissible ones"

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

Holding parts of § 223 unconstitutional under the First Amendment

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

Holding that even if violent video games cause aggression, a state could not prohibit their sale to children

Alderman v. United States

Holding that the victim of a warrantless search may object to the use of its fruits "not because he had any interest in the seized items as 'effects' protected by the Fourth Amendment, but because they were the fruits of an unauthorized search of his house, which is itself expressly protected by the Fourth Amendment"

Section 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records

Recognizing that these providers "shall disclose" such information "when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute"

Section 2705 - Delayed notice

Requiring government to demonstrate "reason to believe" that disclosure of the warrant will "seriously jeopardiz[e] an investigation" or result in another enumerated harm

Section 500.1 - General requirements