Brigham City v. Stuart

Holding subjective intent of officers does not control exigency analysis

Payton v. New York

Holding that a New York statute "authoriz[ing] police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest" was "not consistent with the Fourth Amendment"

Rhode Island v. Innis

Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred

Kyllo v. United States

Holding that the use of a thermal imager to detect heat radiating from a home was a search

Dunaway v. New York

Holding that seizing and transporting a suspect to a police station for interrogation without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment

Oliver v. United States

Holding that narcotics agent searching for marijuana in the open fields of a farm was not a search even though it was a trespass

Brewer v. Williams

Holding a police officer violated Williams' Sixth Amendment right to counsel by “deliberately and designedly set[ting] out to elicit information from Williams just as surely as and perhaps more effectively than if he had formally interrogated him”

New York v. Quarles

Holding that an officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant to determining the applicability of the public safety exception to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694

Michigan v. Fisher

Holding that it was objectively reasonable to believe that a medical exigency existed where defendant was seen screaming and throwing things because defendant's projectiles “might have a human target”

People v. Crimmins

Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals