Case Laws

Recognized United States Supreme Court Case Laws: Although the nation of San Andreas is roleplayed as a separate unconnected entity in relation to the United States, we recognize the same 10 amendments at Bill of Rights. Instead of recognizing all case law and creating a very complicated legal battlefield, we instead will recognize specific effects of case laws as explicitly stated below.

Terry v Ohio (Terry Stop): Permits detainment and frisk search for weapons under reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime.

Salinas v Texas: An individual who refuses to answer questions by saying nothing has not effectively invoked their fifth amendment right to remain silent. A suspect who stands mute has not done enough to put police on notice that invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent.

Pennsylvania v Mimms: Police officers may order any and all occupants of a vehicle to exit during a traffic stop. Police officers may conduct a pat down.

Miranda v Arizona: Suspect must be informed of their rights prior to questioning in an incriminatory fashion, otherwise testimony or confession extracted through questioning may be determined as inadmissible in trial. The suspect has the right to remain silent and not answer any incriminating questions without an attorney present; if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to them for free. Specifically: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say {and/or do} can {and will} be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. {If you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you for free.}" (The portions in braces are optional).

Gant v Arizona: Police may search the vehicle if a recent occupant was arrested only if it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest.

New York v Belton: When a police officer has made a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, the officer may search the passenger compartment of that automobile (in effect, searches incident to arrest). Police officers may conduct a search of a vehicle upon the sensory (sight or smell) detection of illegal substances such as the emission of the odor of marijuana from a vehicle.

South Dakota v Opperman: Police may conduct an inventory search of a vehicle that is being lawfully impounded.

Carroll v United States: A search of a vehicle is permitted if a reasonable suspicion exists that evidence of an arrestable criminal offence is present in the vehicle.

Michigan v Long: A search of a vehicle's storage compartments is permitted if reasonable suspicion exists that evidence of an arrestable offence is present in the vehicle.

Chimel v California: The arrest of a person in their home does not allow the warrantless search of the whole house incident to arrest.

Horton v California: The 4th Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence that is in plain view.

Minnesota v Dickerson: If law enforcement personnel physically feel something that might be illegal contraband whilst performing a lawful weapons-pat-down, the contraband may legally be allowed to be removed and seized.

Heien v North Carolina: A mistaken arrest or detention of an individual matching a suspect description, nor the search related to such arrest or detention, shall not constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment if the mistaken identity was reasonably factual.

Arizona v Johnson: Law enforcement may conduct a weapon-pat-down of all passengers in a vehicle that has been lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, provided the police have reasonable suspicion that the passengers are armed or dangerous.

Checkpoints

Delaware v Prouse: Law enforcement may not stop a motorist without reasonable suspicion only to check the status of a driver's license or ID unless the stop is made at a stationary enforcement or inspection checkpoint.

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz: A sobriety or license checkpoint is considered constitutional so long as all vehicles travelling through the checkpoint are stopped and checked. Motorists shall not be compelled to answer questions or provide biological samples without law enforcement having first detected signs of intoxication thereby granting them reasonable suspicion or probable cause to further detain the driver on real suspicion of intoxication.

United States v Martinez: Inland Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement checkpoints are permitted on public roads.

Use of Force Section

Use of Force: A police officer is permitted to use reasonable and appropriate physical force (if the use of nonviolent means would be ineffective) against another person when they believe it is necessary to effect an arrest, prevent escape from custody, to defend oneself, or to defend another person from a reasonably perceived physical danger. Tennessee v. Garner (Based on): Fleeing Suspect Doctrine

Graham v. Connor: Excessive use of force claims must be evaluated under the "objectively reasonable" standard. Objectively reasonable force is force that appears to be necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of the event. This standard requires courts to consider the facts and circumstances surrounding an officer's use of force rather than with full-knowledge in-hindsight. Use of Force Doctrine

Missouri v. McNeely (2013), Exigent Circumstance Doctrine

The Supreme Court clarified, "A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement's need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home, engage in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect, or enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause."

Oklahoma v. Elizabeth Rodriguez (2013) Accessory/Association Doctrine

The supreme court ruled that Elizabeth Rodriguez would be charged with 3 counts of first-degree murder, for her role in a home invasion, whereby the 3 individuals whom raided the home, were shot and killed by a resident in the home. Elizabeth Rodriguez was tasked with being the getaway driver, and played no active role breaking into the residential home and attempted to steel goods. Elizabeth Rodriguez initially pleaded not guilty to 3 counts of first degree murder, along with a number of other charges. She then pled guilty to 3 counts of second degree murder, along with a number of another offences.