I call this section 'search and seizure', because it's original intent was to cover exactly that. I suspect in the future that I will expand this out a bit to be inclusive of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment cases that I find to be interesting for whatever reason. There is no particular order here, but in general, you'll find newer stuff on top.
Carpenter vs. United States
On 11/29/17 a case concerning warrantless cell-phone tracking was heard at oral arguments before the Supreme Court. This issue is bigger than most folk think, as it covers many issues that will become increasingly relevant to all of us as time passes and more of our lives becomes computerized, and we all carry little tracking devices on our persons, in the guise of a cell phone. While you can't always tell exactly what justices are thinking based on their questions, as they will sometimes play devils' advocate just for the heck of it, and oral arguments are a bit of theater, it is still interesting to read through what arguments and questions they are thinking are most important.
When the actual decision is posted next year, I will post a copy here as well. I converted the original PDF from the court into HTML to make it a bit easier to read. It is not as clean as it probably could be, but is at least better than the original PDF.
United States v. Banks
(02-473) 282 F.3d 699, reversed.
This case was decided on 12-03-2003. Apparently the supreme court believes that cops don't have to have the common decency to wait more than twenty seconds before busting down somone's door. Apparently "Drugs" is the root passphrase to the Constitution.
Knowles v. Iowa
(97-7597)569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded.
This case concerns "stop" and search rules.
Illinois v. Wardlow
(98-1036) 183 Ill. 2d 306, 701 N. E. 2d 484, reversed and remanded.
This case concerns "stop" and search rules.
Wyoming v. Houghton
(98-184) 956 P.2d 363, reversed.
This case concerns "stop" and search rules.
Florida v. White
(98-223) 710 So. 2d 949, reversed and remanded.
This case concerns search and seizure.
Indianapolis v. Edmond
(99-1030) 183 F.3d 659,affirmed
This case concerns vehicular stops, search and seizure.
Kyllo v. United States
(99-8508) 190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.
This case concerns using surveillance aircraft to look at houses to see if agents of the state can detect heat signatures that might indicate possible indoor marijuana cultivation.
Indiana v. Gerschoffer
Court of Appeals of Indiana
This is a state court decision of the kind that would not normally be posted here. However, it was such a wonderful read, that it must be included.
The following is a direct swipe from the state court at the lengths SCOTUS will go to emasculate the constitution:
Some courts have invoked "great public concern" about the danger of intoxicated drivers on our roadways as an excuse to manufacture new rules which have eroded the Fourth Amendment. See Garcia, 500 N.E.2d at 161-62; see also Sitz I, 596 U.S. at 451; Brown, 443 U.S. at 50. But our judiciary has no license to authorize the systematic violation of individual rights in the name of "great public concern," a theory of federal search and seizure law that finds no basis in the text, history, or well-settled interpretation of the Indiana Constitution. We will not sacrifice the rights guaranteed under Article I, Section 11 for an indeterminate social agenda of "great public concerns."
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||