-
Period: to
Justice System Timeline
Justice System Timeline -
Fingerprinting
Fingerprinting is first used in the United States by law enforcement. -
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Confirmed As Associate Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., appointed by President Roosevelt, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
William R. Day Confirmed As Associate Justice
William R. Day, appointed by President Roosevelt, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
William Henry Moody Confirmed As Associate Justice
William Henry Moody, appointed by President Roosevelt, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Moyer v. Peabody
Affirmed dismissal of detainee's action for wrongful imprisonment against the ex-Governor, former Adjutant General of the national guard, and a national guard company captain. -
Horace Harmon Lurton Confirmed As Associate Justice
Horace Harmon Lurton, appointed by PresidentTaft, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Charles Evans Hughes Confirmed As Associate Justice
Charles Evans Hughes, appointed by President Taft, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Edward Douglass White Confirmed As Chief Justice
Edward Douglass White, appointed by President Taft, was confirmed as a chief justice. -
Willis Van Devanter Confirmed As Associate Justice
Willis Van Devanter, appointed by President Taft, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Joseph Rucker Lamar Confirmed As Associate Justice
Joseph Rucker Lamar, appointed by President Taft, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Mahlon Pitney Confirmed As Associate Justice
Mahlon Pitney, appointed by President Taft, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Weeks v. United States
Decided that the warrant-less seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment and that local officers can not secure evidence by means prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule. -
James Clark McReynolds Confirmed As Associate Justice
James Clark McReynolds, appointed by President Wilson, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Louis Brandeis Confirmed As Associate Justice
Louis Brandeis, appointed by President Wilson, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
John Hessin Clarke Confirmed As Associate Justice
John Hessin Clarke, appointed by President Wilson, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S.
Determined that since illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial, neither can evidence that derives from an illegal seizure. -
William Howard Taft Confirmed As Chief Justice
William Howard Taft, appointed by President Harding, was confirmed as a chief justice. -
George Sutherland Confirmed As Associate Justice
George Sutherland, appointed by President Harding, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Pierce Butler Confirmed As Associate Justice
Pierce Butler, appointed by President Harding, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Edward Terry Sanford Confirmed As Associate Justice
Edward Terry Sanford, appointed by President Harding, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Harlan F. Stone Confirmed As Associate Justice
Harlan F. Stone, appointed by President Coolidge, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Carroll v. United States
Upheld the warrant-less searches of an automobile. -
Charles Evans Hughes Confirmed As Chief Justice
Charles Evans Hughes, appointed by President Hoover, was confirmed as a chief justice. -
Owen Josephus Roberts Confirmed As Associate Justice
Owen Josephus Roberts, appointed by President Hoover, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Benjamin N. Cardozo Confirmed As Associate Justice
Benjamin N. Cardozo, appointed by President Hoover, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Powell v. Alabama
Established that due process requires appointment of attorney at government's expense for indigent defendants facing capital charges. -
Hugo Black Confirmed As Associate Justice
Hugo Black, appointed by FDR, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Stanley Forman Reed Confirmed As Associate Justice
Stanley Forman Reed, appointed by FDR, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Johnson v. Zerbst
Decided that the right to an attorney provided by the federal government is applicable to all federal felony cases. -
Felix Frankfurter Confirmed As Associate Justice
Felix Frankfurter, appointed by FDR, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
William O. Douglas Confirmed As Associate Justice
William O. Douglas, appointed by FDR, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Frank Murphy Confirmed As Associate Justice
Frank Murphy, appointed by FDR, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
James F. Byrnes Confirmed As Associate Justice
James F. Byrnes, appointed by FDR, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Harlan F. Stone Confirmed As Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone, appointed by FDR, was confirmed as a chief justice. -
Robert H. Jackson Confirmed As Associate Justice
Robert H. Jackson, appointed by FDR, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Betts v. Brady
Denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state. -
Wiley Blount Rutledge Confirmed As Associate Justice
Wiley Blount Rutledge, appointed by FDR, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
Harold Hitz Burton Confirmed As Associate Justice
Harold Hitz Burton, appointed by Harry S. Truman, was confirmed as an associate justice. -
United States v. Rabinowitz
Determined that a warrant-less search of a surrounding area to a lawful arrest is constitutional and not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. -
Mapp v. Ohio
Decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, nor in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. -
Hamilton v. Alabama
Established that an absence of counsel for a petitioner at the time of his arraignment violates his right to due process. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
Established that states are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide an attorney to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford their own attorneys (overturned Betts v. Brady). -
Brady v. Maryland
Decided that withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." -
Escobedo v. Illinois
Held that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Made is necessary to inform one being arrested of their Miranda rights. -
Schmerber v. California
Decided that warrants must be obtained for bodily intrusions unless fast action is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence by natural physiological processes. -
In re Gault
Determined that juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. -
Warden v. Hayden
Established that the distinction prohibiting seizure of items of only evidential value and allowing seizure of instrumentalities, fruits, or contraband is no longer accepted as being required by the Fourth Amendment. -
Washington v. Texas
Established that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. -
Katz v. United States
The Supreme Court established reasonable expectation of privacy and that the Fourth Amendment applied only to such places. -
Harris v. United States
Established that objects are subject to seizure if they are in plain view of an officer who has the legal right to be in a position to see them. -
Terry v. Ohio
Found that police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. -
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Research grants were provided to develop alternative sanctions for punishment of young offenders, interstate trade in handguns was prohibited and the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns was increased. -
Chimel v. California
Established that an arresting officer may search only the area "within the immediate control" of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Any other search of the surrounding area requires a search warrant. -
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
US federal law that required the pharmaceutical industry to maintain both physical security and strict record keeping for certain types of drugs. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Established that a criminal defendant may not be actually imprisoned unless provided with counsel. -
Imbler v. Pachtman
Found that state prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for their conduct in initiating prosecution and in presenting a state's case. -
United States v. Scott
Established that officers must make every reasonable effort to monitor only those conversations that are specifically related to the criminal activity under investigation. -
Brown v. Texas
Found that officers may not stop and question unwilling citizens whom they have no reason to suspect of a crime. -
United States v. Mendenhall
Determined that a person is "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment if a "reasonable person" in the same position "would have believed that he was not free to leave." This test must be viewed under the totality of the circumstances. -
Illinois v. Gates
The Supreme Court adopted a totality-of-circumstances approach for assessing informant information. -
Nix v. Williams
Ruled that evidence that would inevitably have been discovered by law enforcement through legal means remained admissible. -
New York v. Quarles
Found that considerations of public safety override and negate the need for the Miranda warning to protect the public from harm. -
United States v. Leon
Established that evidence obtained in good faith by police relying upon a search warrant that subsequently is found to be deficient may be used in a criminal trial. -
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
First comprehensive revision of of US criminal code since early 1900's. -
Tennessee v. Garner
Established that law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. -
United States v. Montoya De Hernandez
Found that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal; here, the facts, and their rational inferences, known to the customs officials clearly supported a reasonable suspicion that respondent was an alimentary canal smuggler. -
United States v. Bagley
Ruled that prosecution must disclose any evidence in its possession that the defense requests. -
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
Changed system of federal supervised release from a rehabilitative system into a punitive system. -
Arizona v. Hicks
Found that police require probable cause to seize items in plain view. -
United States v. Dunn
Determined that the area near the barn is not within the curtilage of the house for Fourth Amendment purposes. -
Taylor v. Illinois
Decided that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. -
California v. Greenwood
Determined that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrant-less search and seizure of waste left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. -
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
Created the policy goal of a drug-free America, established the Office of National Drug Control Policy. -
United States v. Sokolow
Established reasonable suspicion stops; stops must be evaluated based on a "totality of the circumstances" criterion in which all aspects of the defendant's behavior, together, provide the basis for a legitimate stop based on reasonable suspicion. -
Graham v. Connor
Found that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his person. -
Maryland v. Buie
Found that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and justifiable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. -
Smith v. Ohio
Found that an individual has the right to protect his belongings from unwarranted police inspection. -
Horton v. California
Determined that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrant-less seizure of evidence in plain view even though the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. Although inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures, it is not a necessary condition. -
Illinois v. Rodriguez
Decided that under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant-less entry is valid when based upon the consent of a third party whom the police, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises, but who in fact does not. -
Burns v. Reed
Decided that a state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from liability for damages for participating in a probable cause hearing, but not for giving legal advice to the police. -
Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes
Found that a respondent is entitled to a federal evidentiary hearing [only] if he can show cause for his failure to develop the facts in the state court proceedings. -
Herrera v. Collins
Determined that a petitioner's claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not ground for federal habeas relief. -
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
This bill was the largest crime bill ever passed in United States history as a response to large increases in crime. It banned "assault weapon" manufacturing, created 60 new death penalty offenses under 41 capital statutes, eliminated higher education opportunities for prison inmates and allocated federal money to increase policing among other things. -
Arizona v. Evans
Decided that the exclusionary rule does not apply when an error in a warrant, or the misrepresented existence of a warrant, occurs due to the actions of personnel not enforcing the law. -
Wilson v. Arkansas
Found that police officers must "knock and announce" before entering a house. -
United States v. Carey
A federal appellate court held that the consent a defendant had given to police for his apartment to be searched did not extend to the search of his computer once it was taken to police station. -
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
The Supreme Court limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicion-less searches, specifically, using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks. -
United States v. Arvizu
Reaffirmed the proposition that the Fourth Amendment required courts to analyze the reasonableness of a traffic stop based on the totality of the circumstances instead of examining the plausibility of each reason an officer gives for stopping a motorist individually. -
Alabama v. Shelton
Found that a suspended sentence that may result in incarceration may not be imposed if the defendant did not have counsel at trial. -
Illinois v. Lidster
Ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not forbid the use of a checkpoint to investigate a traffic incident. -
United States v. Flores-Montano
Found that at the international border, the Fourth Amendment does not require reasonable suspicion for customs agents to remove the gas tank from a vehicle entering the United States in order to check for drugs. -
Yarborough v. Alvarado
Found that whether a person is actually free to leave can only be determined by examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation -
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Decided that laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment. -
Illinois v. Caballes
Found that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment. -
United States v. Grubbs
Determined that an anticipatory warrant was not defective under the Fourth Amendment for failing to list the "triggering condition" necessary for its execution, because a warrant only needs to describe with particularity the place or person to be searched and the items to be seized. -
Brigham City v. Stuart
Established that police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. -
Arizona v. Gant
Held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrant-less vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. -
Prado Navarette v. California
Decided that when acting upon information provided by an anonymous tip, police officers need not personally verify the existence of ongoing criminal activity. -
Turner v. United States
Held that the warrant-less search of a personal computer while in the defendant's apartment exceeded the scope of his consent
