 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Berkemer v. McCarty, No. 83-710,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, July 2, 1984, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's officer stopped respondent's vehicle and asked if respondent had been using intoxicants. Respondent replied in the affirmative. Respondent was arrested, asked again about the use of intoxicants, and again answered in the affirmative. Respondent was never advised of his constitutional rights. Respondent was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants. He appealed, asserting that the incriminating statements were not admissible as he had not been informed of his constitutional rights prior to interrogation. The appellate court reversed respondent's conviction and held such rights must be given to all individuals prior to the custodial interrogation. On review, the Supreme Court held because the initial stop of respondent's car, by itself, did not render respondent in custody, respondent was not entitled to a recitation of constitutional rights. However, after respondent was arrested, any statements made were inadmissible against him without a reading of his constitutional rights. Because it could not be determined which statements were relied upon in convicting respondent, vacation of respondent's conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Allen v. Wright, No. 81-757,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, July 3, 1984, Decided **Together with No. 81-970, Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. v. Wright et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondents challenged the IRS guidelines and procedures with respect to granting tax-exempt status to private schools under Rev. Proc. 75-50, 1975-2 C.B. 587. Respondents alleged that the IRS violated their rights by granting tax-exempt status to discriminatory private schools. The district court dismissed the action for lack of standing. The court of appeals reversed, holding that respondents had standing and enjoined the IRS from granting tax-exempt status to any racially discriminatory schools. Petitioners sought review. The Court granted certiorari, and reversed the court of appeals' ruling and vacated the injunction. The first basis for standing alleged by respondents, that they were harmed directly by the mere fact of government financial aid to discriminatory private schools, did not constitute a judicially cognizable injury and second basis, that their children were being deprived of an opportunity to receive an education in racially integrated schools, although a judicially cognizable injury, was not fairly traceable to the government conduct that respondents challenged as unlawful.
|
|||||
| Hudson v. Palmer, No. 82-1630,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, July 3, 1984, Decided **Together with No. 82-6695, Palmer v. Hudson, also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner correctional officer conducted a search of respondent inmate's prison cell for contraband. During the search, a ripped pillowcase was found in a trashcan near respondent's cell. Charges were filed against respondent, and he was ordered to reimburse the state for the destroyed material. Respondent then filed an action in district court under 42 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1983, alleging that certain of his personal property was destroyed in violation of his right to due process of law. The district court granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded on the basis that respondent had a limited privacy right in his cell. The Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that respondent had no legitimate expectation of privacy, and that the prohibition on unreasonable searches under U.S. Const. amend IV did not apply to prison cells. The Court further held that intentional deprivation of property by the state could not violate due process under U.S. Const. amend. XIV if a post-deprivation remedy was available. The Court concluded that several state law remedies were available to respondent to provide adequate compensation for his loss.
|
|||||
| United States v. Leon, No. 82-1771,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, July 5, 1984, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: This case presented the question whether the exclusionary rule should be modified so as to allow the use of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause. During trial, respondents filed motions to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant and said motions were granted in part based on the conclusion that the warrant was not supported by probable cause despite the fact that the police officer was acting in good faith reliance on what he believed to be a valid warrant. The lower court affirmed and held that there was no good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and held that the exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that was subsequently held to be defective. The Court concluded that the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant could not justify the substantial costs of exclusion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
