Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the United States had no right to appeal the suppression order.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746 (1886)
Here, the Court held that “a search and seizure [was] equivalent [to] a compulsory production of a man's private papers” and that the search was “an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967)
In Katz, the Court ruled that he was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the doctrine of search and seizure into play.
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1983)
The Court held that the "sniff" of a properly trained narcotics detection dog does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1979)
With regard to the reaosnable expectation of privacy needed for a valid search, the Court held that the privacy interests of travelers outweighed the state interests in discretionary spot checks of automobiles.
Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1967)
In this case, the Court said since the Fourth Amendment was meant to protect the privacy of citizens from being violated by the government, the type of property that is the subject of the search is irrelevant to the protection provided.
Berger v. State of N.Y., 388 U.S. 41, 87 S. Ct. 1873, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1040 (1967)
In this case, a New York statute was ruled unconstiutional because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.
Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 66 S. Ct. 1256, 90 L. Ed. 1453 (1946)
The holding of this case is best summarized by Justice Alito: "Searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule."
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 132 S. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2012)
In this Supreme Court decision, the warrantless use of a tracking device on Jones's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violate Jones' Fourth Amendment rights
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S. Ct. 2301, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990)
Held in this case, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain sight if the discovery of such evidence was not inadvertent.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S. Ct. 2038, 150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001)
The use of a thermal-imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home constitutes an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973)
Here, the Supreme Court held that whether consent is voluntary can be determined from the totality of the circumstances. It is unnecessary to prove that the person who gave consent knew that he had the right to refuse.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014)
The evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches.
