U.S. Supreme Court rulings
Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court bind every court in the country, state and federal, on questions of federal constitutional law. Plain-English summaries from Criminal Defense Resources™; general education, not legal advice.
42 rulings, newest first.
Chatrie v. United States
The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained a person's Google Location History data through a geofence warrant, because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location information. The Court did not decide whether this particular multi-step warrant was valid; it vacated the Fourth Circuit's decision and sent the case back for that court to decide.
Erlinger v. United States
The Court held that, under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, whether a defendant's past offenses happened on separate "occasions" must be decided by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or admitted by the defendant), not decided by a judge.
Vega v. Tekoh
The Court held that a violation of the Miranda rules, by itself, does not give a person the right to sue an officer for money damages under the federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. section 1983).
Garza v. Idaho
The Court held that when a lawyer ignores a defendant's instruction to file a notice of appeal, harm is presumed, even if the defendant signed a plea agreement that waived some appeal rights.
Carpenter v. United States
The Court held that when the government obtains a person's historical cell-site location records from a phone company, that is a Fourth Amendment search, and police generally need a warrant.
McCoy v. Louisiana
The Court held that a defendant has the right to insist that his lawyer not admit guilt at trial, even when the lawyer believes admitting guilt is the best way to avoid a death sentence. Violating that choice is a "structural" error that requires a new trial without any separate showing of harm.
Lynch v. Arizona
In a short unsigned opinion, the Court held that when a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue and the only alternative to death is life without parole, the defendant is entitled to tell the jury he would not be eligible for parole. The possibility of future clemency or law changes does not remove that right.
Grady v. North Carolina
In a short unsigned opinion, the Court held that a state program that attaches a satellite-based (GPS) monitoring device to a person's body to track the person's movements is a Fourth Amendment search. It sent the case back for the state courts to decide whether the search was reasonable.
Riley v. California
The Court held that police generally must get a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested.
Maryland v. King
The Court held that when officers arrest someone for a serious offense with probable cause and bring the person to the station, taking a DNA cheek swab is a legitimate booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, like fingerprinting and photographing.
Missouri v. Frye
The Court held that defense lawyers generally have a duty to tell their clients about formal plea offers from the prosecution that may be favorable. Failing to do so can be ineffective assistance of counsel.
United States v. Jones
The Court held that the government's installation of a GPS tracking device on a person's vehicle, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, was a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Perry v. New Hampshire
The Court held that the Due Process Clause requires a preliminary judicial check on the reliability of an eyewitness identification only when the police arranged the suggestive circumstances. Other suggestive circumstances are left to safeguards such as cross-examination and jury instructions.
Skinner v. Switzer
The Court held that a convicted prisoner seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence may bring that claim as a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, rather than only through habeas corpus.
District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne
The Court held that there is no freestanding federal constitutional right to obtain evidence for post-conviction DNA testing, and that the state's procedures for post-conviction relief were adequate.
Arizona v. Gant
The Court held that police may search a car after arresting a recent occupant only if the arrested person could reach into the passenger area at the time of the search, or if it is reasonable to believe the car contains evidence of the crime of arrest.
Indiana v. Edwards
The Court held that a state may require a lawyer for a defendant who is competent to stand trial but who, because of severe mental illness, is not competent to conduct the trial on his or her own.
Crawford v. Washington
The Court held that "testimonial" out-of-court statements from a witness who does not testify at trial cannot be used against the defendant unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that witness.
Ring v. Arizona
The Court held that Arizona's death-penalty system, which let a judge alone find the aggravating factors needed for a death sentence, violated the right to a jury trial. A jury must find those factors.
Apprendi v. New Jersey
The Court held that, other than a prior conviction, any fact that raises the penalty for a crime beyond the maximum set by law must be decided by a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District
The Court held that the Faretta right to self-representation does not extend to a direct appeal. The Constitution does not require states to let a defendant represent himself on appeal from a criminal conviction.
Kyles v. Whitley
The Court held that whether suppressed evidence is "material" depends on the combined effect of all the withheld evidence, not each item alone. The prosecutor has a duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others acting for the government, including the police.
Doggett v. United States
The Court held that an eight-and-a-half-year delay between indictment and arrest, caused by the government's negligence, violated the right to a speedy trial, even though the defendant could not point to specific harm to his defense.
United States v. Salerno
The Court upheld the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984, which allows a court to hold an arrested person before trial if the government shows by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect others and the community.
United States v. Karo
The Court held that monitoring a beeper inside a private home, in a place not open to visual surveillance, is a Fourth Amendment search that generally requires a warrant.
Strickland v. Washington
The Court set a two-part test for claims that a defense lawyer was ineffective. First, the lawyer's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Second, there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different without the lawyer's errors.
McKaskle v. Wiggins
The Court held that a judge may appoint standby counsel for a self-represented defendant, even over the defendant's objection. But standby counsel may not take over. The defendant must keep actual control over the case presented to the jury, and the jury must still see the defendant as representing himself.
United States v. Knotts
The Court held that using a radio beeper to follow a car on public roads was not a Fourth Amendment search, because a person traveling on public roads has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements others could see.
Edwards v. Arizona
The Court held that once a person in custody asks for a lawyer, police must stop questioning until a lawyer is present, unless the person himself starts further conversation with police.
Manson v. Brathwaite
The Court held that reliability is the "linchpin" in deciding whether an identification made after a suggestive procedure can be used. Courts weigh the Biggers factors against the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure, rather than automatically excluding the identification.
Faretta v. California
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment gives a person charged with a crime the right to represent himself or herself. A state cannot force a lawyer on a defendant who knowingly and intelligently chooses to go without one.
Neil v. Biggers
The Court held that even when police use a suggestive identification procedure, the identification may still be used if it is reliable under the totality of the circumstances. It listed factors: the witness's opportunity to view the person, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of any earlier description, the witness's level of certainty, and the time between the crime and the identification.
Barker v. Wingo
The Court held that the constitutional right to a speedy trial has no fixed deadline. Instead, courts weigh four factors: how long the delay was, the reason for it, whether and when the defendant asserted the right, and whether the delay harmed the defendant.
Giglio v. United States
The Court held that the prosecution's duty to disclose includes evidence that affects a key witness's credibility, such as a promise of leniency in exchange for testimony. A promise made by one prosecutor is charged to the whole prosecutor's office.
Terry v. Ohio
The Court held that a police officer may briefly stop a person when the officer has reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that criminal activity may be happening. If the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous, the officer may do a limited pat-down of outer clothing for weapons.
Katz v. United States
The Court held that the government's recording of a man's conversation in a public phone booth, without a warrant, was a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places.
United States v. Wade
The Court held that a post-indictment lineup is a critical stage of the prosecution at which the defendant has a right to have a lawyer present. A later in-court identification may still be allowed if the prosecution shows it has a source independent of the improper lineup.
Miranda v. Arizona
The Court held that statements made during custodial police interrogation cannot be used against the defendant unless police first give warnings: the right to remain silent, that statements can be used in court, the right to a lawyer, and that a lawyer will be appointed if the person cannot afford one.
Brady v. Maryland
The Court held that when the prosecution suppresses evidence favorable to the accused that was requested, it violates due process if the evidence is material to guilt or punishment. This is true whether the prosecutor acted in good faith or bad faith.
Gideon v. Wainwright
The Court held that the right to a lawyer is a fundamental right that applies in state courts. States must provide a lawyer to people charged with felonies who cannot afford one.
Mapp v. Ohio
The Court held that evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure cannot be used in state criminal trials. This applied the "exclusionary rule" to the states.
Stack v. Boyle
The Court held that bail set higher than an amount reasonably calculated to make sure the defendant shows up for trial is "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment. Bail must be based on standards tied to that purpose and to the individual defendant.