[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Greenwood, 486 U.S.35, 108 S.Ct.1625,100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988) 603Bond v.United States, 529 U.S.334, 120 S.Ct.1462,146 L.Ed.2d 365 (2000) 604Mapp v.Ohio, 367 U.S.643, 81 S.Ct.1684,6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) 606 PART II: TABLE OF CASES 535Flippo v.West Virginia, 528 U.S.11, 120 S.Ct.7,145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999) 607United States v.Robinson, 414 U.S.218, 94 S.Ct.467,38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973) 608Chimel v.California, 395 U.S.752, 89 S.Ct.2034,23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) 609Arizona v.Gant, ___ U.S.___, 129 S.Ct.1710,173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) 611Wyoming v.Houghton, 526 U.S.559, 119 S.Ct.1297,143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) 611Florida v.Jimeno, 500 U.S.248, 111 S.Ct.1801,114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991) 613Arizona v.Hicks, 480 U.S.321, 107 S.Ct.1149,94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987) 615United States v.Weinbender, 109 F.3d 1327 (8th Cir.1997) 617State v.Wilson, 112 N.C.App.777, 437 S.E.2d 387 (1993) 618United States v.Dunn, 480 U.S.294, 107 S.Ct.1134,94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987) 621Muehler v.Mena, 544 U.S.93, 125 S.Ct.1465,161 L.Ed.2d 299 (2005) 623Brigham City, Utah v.Stuart,547 U.S.398, 126 S.Ct.1943,164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) 625Herring v.United States, ___ U.S.___, 129 S.Ct.695,172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) 627Cases Relating to Chapter 5LAWS GOVERNING POLICE SURVEILLANCEOlmstead v.United States, 277 U.S.438, 48 S.Ct.564,72 L.Ed.944 (1928) 631Katz v.United States, 389 U.S.347, 88 S.Ct.507,19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) 635United States v.McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.1999) 637United States v.Lee, 359 F.3d 194 (3d Cir.2004) 639United States v.Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir.2006) 643Kyllo v.United States, 533 U.S.527, 121 S.Ct.2038,150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001) 644United States v.McIntyre, 582 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir.1978) 647United States v.Turner, 209 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir.2000) 648United States v.Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15 (2d Cir.1988) 649United States v.Jones, 451 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C.2006) 651 536 CONSTITUTIONAL LAWUnited States Code Annotated.Title 18.Crimes and Criminal Procedure.Part I.Chapter 121.Stored Wire and Electronic Communications andTransactional Records Access 652Cases Relating to Chapter 6INTERROGATIONS AND CONFESSIONSArizona v.Fulminante, 499 U.S.279, 111 S.Ct.1246,113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) 655Kaupp v.Texas, 539 U.S.623, 123 S.Ct.1843,155 L.Ed.2d 814 (2003) 656Title 18.Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 3501.Admissibility of confessions 657Miranda v.Arizona, 384 U.S.436, 86 S.C.t 1602,16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) 658Berkemer v.McCarty, 468 U.S.420, 104 S.Ct.3138,82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1985) 666Rhode Island v.Innis, 446 U.S.291, 100 S.Ct.1682,64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) 669Pennsylvania v.Muniz, 496 U.S.582, 110 S.Ct.2638,110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) 671Benson v.State, 698 So.2d 333 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) 671Davis v.United States, 512 U.S.452, 114 S.Ct.2350,129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) 673Montejo v.Louisiana, ___ U.S ___, 129 S.Ct.2079,173 L.Ed.2d 955 (2009) 675Kuhlmann v.Wilson, 477 U.S.436, 106 S.Ct.2616,91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986) 677Missouri v.Seibert, 542 U.S.600, 124 S.Ct.2601,159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) 678Cases Relating to Chapter 7COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATIONUnited States v.Hubbell, 530 U.S.27, 120 S.Ct.2037,147 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000) 681Schmerber v.California, 384 U.S.757, 86 S.Ct.1826,16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) 684Pennsylvania v.Muniz, 496 U.S.582, 110 S.Ct.2638,110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) 687State v.Tapp, 353 So.2d 265 (La.1977) 689 PART II: TABLE OF CASES 537Cases Relating to Chapter 8RIGHT TO COUNSELGideon v.Wainwright, 372 U.S.335, 83 S.Ct.792,9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) 695Rothgery v.Gillespie County, Texas, ___ U.S.___, 128 S.Ct.2578,171 L.Ed.2d 366 (2008) 697State v.Quattlebaum, 338 S.C.441, 527 S.E.2d 105 (2001) 699United States v.Downs, 230 F.3d 272 (7th Cir.2000) 700Cases Relating to Chapter 9TRIAL AND PUNISHMENTAmerican Bar Association Standards forCriminal Justice.Standard 8-1.1.Extrajudicial Statements by Attorneys 703American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice.Standard 8-2.1.Release of Information byLaw Enforcement Agencies 704Kyles v.Whitley, 514 U.S.419, 115 S.Ct.1555,131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) 704People v.Wright, 658 N.E.2d 1009, 635 N.Y.S.2d 136(N.Y.Ct.App.1995) 706Arizona v.Youngblood, 488 U.S.51, 109 S.Ct.333,102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988) 708Coker v.Georgia, 433 U.S.584, 97 S.Ct.2861,53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977) 710Cases Relating to Chapter 10CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIABILITIESIN THE WORKPLACEGarcetti v.Ceballos, 547 U.S.__, 126 S.Ct.1951,164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006) 713Vose v.Kliment, 506 F.3d 565 (7th Cir.2007) 716Connick v.Myers, 461 U.S.138, 103 S.Ct.1684,75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) 718Locurto v.Giuliani, 447 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.2006) 720O Connor v.Ortega, 480 U.S.709, 107 S.Ct.1492,94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) 722People v.Neal, 109 Ill.2d 216, 486 N.E.2d 898 (1985) 724Lingler v.Fechko, 312 F.3d 237 (6th Cir.2002) 726Ricci v.DeStefano, ___ U.S.___, 129 S.Ct.2658 (2009) 727 538 CONSTITUTIONAL LAWDothard v.Rawlinson, 433 U.S.321, 97 S.Ct.2720,53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977) 730Rogers v.City of Little Rock, Ark., 152 F.3d 790 (8th Cir.1998) 733Vann v.City of New York, 72 F.3d 1040 (2d Cir.1995) 734Yang v.Hardin, 37 F.3d 282 (7th Cir.1994) 736 Cases Relating to Chapter 1History, Structure, and Contentof the United States Constitutionbalance of power between the States and theUNITED STATESFederal Government will reduce the risk ofv.tyranny and abuse from either front. LOPEZThe Constitution delegates to Congress thepower [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign514 U.S.549, 115 S.Ct.1624,Nations, and among the several States, and131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995)with the Indian Tribes. .[Citations and footnotes omitted.]* * *[Lopez, a 12th-grade student, was con-victed of violating the Gun-Free School.[W]e have identified three broad cat-Zones Act, which made it a federal offense egories of activity that Congress may regulatefor any individual knowingly to possess a under its commerce power.First, Congressfirearm in a school zone.The issue before may regulate the use of the channels of inter-the Supreme Court was whether Congress state commerce. [T]he authority of Congresshad the power to enact the Gun-Free School to keep the channels of interstate commerceZones Act under the Commerce Clause.] free from immoral and injurious uses has beenfrequently sustained, and is no longer open toquestion. Second, Congress is empoweredChief Justice REHNQUIST delivered theto regulate and protect the instrumentalities ofopinion of the Court.interstate commerce, or persons or things ininterstate commerce, even though the threat* * *may come only from intrastate activities. [F]or example, the destruction of an aircraft.The Constitution creates a Federalor.thefts from interstate shipments.Finally,Government of enumerated powers.AsCongress commerce authority includes theJames Madison wrote, [t]he powers del-power to regulate those activities having aegated by the proposed Constitution to thesubstantial relation to interstate commerce,federal government are few and defined.i.e., those activities that substantially affectThose which are to remain in the State gov-interstate commerce.ernments are numerous and indefinite. Thisconstitutionally mandated division of author-* * *ity was adopted by the Framers to ensureprotection of our fundamental liberties.JustWe now turn to consider the power ofas the separation and independence of theCongress, in the light of this framework,coordinate branches of the Federal Governmentto enact [The Gun-Free School Zones Act]serve to prevent the accumulation of exces-922(q)
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]