Brady v. Maryland

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Holding that police who obtained evidence voluntarily from a suspect's wife did not need a search warrant because the officers exerted no effort to coerce or dominate her and were not obligated to refuse her offer to take the evidence

United States v. Jacobsen

Holding that a legal seizure of a package became illegal when officers conducted a field test on it because the test "affect[ed] respondents' possessory interests ... by destroying a quantity of the powder [thereby] convert[ing] what had been only a temporary deprivation of possessory interests into a permanent one"

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn

Holding that alcohol and drug tests mandated for railroad employees were reasonable searches and seizures, even in the absence of a warrant or reasonable suspicion, in part because of the "surpassing safety interests" served by such tests

United States v. Nixon

Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254

Camara v. Municipal Court

Holding that "broad statutory safeguards are no substitute for individualized review, particularly when those safeguards may only be invoked at the risk of a criminal penalty"

Walter v. United States

Holding that even though federal agents obtained mailed packages of videos lawfully, they nevertheless violated the Fourth Amendment when they viewed the videos without a warrant

U.S. v. Warshak

Holding that 18 U.S.C. § 982 forfeiture provision reached "proceeds obtained" from money generated through "legitimate" sales because they "resulted ‘directly or indirectly’ " from the criminal offense

Burdeau v. McDowell

Holding that when “no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of the petitioner's property, . . . there was no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as whatever wrong was done was the act of individuals in taking the property of another”

Section 2701 - Unlawful access to stored communications

Holding liable any person who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided ... and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage"

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 1524 - Grounds for search warrant

Noting that "[t]he property" listed in a search warrant "may be taken on the warrant from any place"

Section 1523 - Search warrant