References

Riley v California (2014) - Police are required to acquire a warrant to access digital media.  The court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Brown v Texas (1979) - The Court held that the Fourth Amendment covers all police seizures, even those as brief as preventing a person from walking away.  This requires the officers to have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity.

Terry v Ohio (1968) - A police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." 

" ... in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."

Cohen v California (1971) - Justice Harlan recognized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." In doing so, the Court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas). 

Katz v United States (1967) - It is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to conduct a search and seizure without a warrant anywhere that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless certain exceptions apply.  This also created the Katz two prong test to determine expectation of privacy:  first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable'.

Hartman v Moore (2006) - The court created standards for the prosecution of retaliation claims, stating one must prove the absence of probable cause for the retaliation as an essential element of their claims.  The court went on to condemn retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected activities, stating ...

“The reason why such retaliation offends the Constitution is that it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right.”

Pennsylvania v Mimms (1977) - Permits law enforcement to order occupants out of the vehicle during a traffic stop for officer's safety.

"The State's proffered justification for such order -- the officer's safety -- is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety." 

Florida v Jardines (2013) - Prevents police from lingering on property curtilage without warrant or invitation to stay beyond what any other private individual would be allowed.  

"This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave ... Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.”

Terminiello v Chicago (1949) - "A function of free speech ... is to invite dispute ... (and) may best serve its high purpose when it induces unrest, dissatisfaction or stirs people to anger (sic)"

Snyder v Phelps (2011) - "(we) protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate"

Rodriguez v United States (2015) - The Supreme Court of the United States held that absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff (or anything else) violated the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures.  Because the mission of the stop determines its allowable duration, the authority for the stop ends when the mission has been accomplished. 

(9th Circuit) Askins v USDHS (2019) - established the right to record law enforcement/government officials in the course of their duties on public property, in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.  This jurisdiction is comprised of the 9 western states (Alaska; Arizona; California; Hawaii; Idaho; Montana; Nevada; Oregon; Washington) and 2 Pacific territories (Guam; Northern Mariana Islands).

(9th Circuit) United States v Landeros (2019) - Law enforcement officers may not extend a lawfully initiated vehicle stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense. The court also clarified the Hiibel decision to require officers have reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to demand identification.

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) - term used by activists and legal experts referring to an officers requirement to be able to articulate to the court their reasonable suspicion of criminal activity being afoot - meaning, based on all of the facts and circumstances of the situation (know as 'the totality of the circumstances'), a reasonable police officer would have the same suspicion that a crime HAS been, IS being or IS ABOUT to be committed.

Prior Restraint - government suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous or harmful.  In US law, the First Amendment severely limits the ability of the government to do this.  This could be a city ordinance, such as anti-vagrancy or anti-panhandling laws, or purposeful actions by police to prevent the lawful gathering of information and video evidence, such as blocking the camera with their body or shining a flashlight into the lens of the camera.  

Hecklers Veto - (aside from 'fighting words') - a situation in which a party who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to unilaterally trigger events that result in the speaker being silenced. For example, a heckler can disrupt a speech to the point that the speech is canceled. 

26 U.S. Code § 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

42 U.S. Code § 1985  - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

We are not attorneys, and nothing contained in this website (including videos or any other materials originating on this site, or linked from a 3rd-party website) is to be construed as legal advice.  We are a News Service that provides information to the public that has been verified as accurate, to the best of our ability, at the time of publication.