CASE LAW
The 13 decisions the Massachusetts file rests on. Each one carries the question it answers in plain words, how far it reaches, and the sections of this guide that stand on it.
13 of 13 have a summary written. A summary is not the decision: every card links to the opinion, and the one thing that settles what a case held is reading it.
13 decisions
U.S. Supreme Court
Binds every court in the country.
Can refusing a test be a separate crime?
Birchfield v. North Dakota · 579 U.S. 438 (2016) · 2016
The Court held that a breath test may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving without a warrant, and that a blood test may not. It held that a driver may not be criminally punished for refusing a blood test where no warrant was obtained.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
Can they come in without a warrant if someone is hurt?
Brigham City v. Stuart · 547 U.S. 398 (2006) · 2006
The Court held that officers may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury, and that the officers' subjective motivation does not control.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
How soon do I see a judge after a warrantless arrest?
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin · 500 U.S. 44 (1991) · 1991
The Court held that a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest is generally prompt enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. It stated that a hearing inside that window may still be unreasonable where it was delayed for delay's sake or to gather additional evidence.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
Can one person let police in over another's objection?
Georgia v. Randolph · 547 U.S. 103 (2006) · 2006
The Court held that where one occupant consents to a search of a shared home and another occupant is physically present and expressly refuses, the search is unreasonable as to the occupant who objected.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
What standard applies when an officer uses force on me?
Graham v. Connor · 490 U.S. 386 (1989) · 1989
The Court held that a claim of excessive force during an arrest, investigatory stop or other seizure is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with hindsight.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
Do I have to give my name to an officer?
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District · 542 U.S. 177 (2004) · 2004
The Court held that a state law requiring a person lawfully detained on reasonable suspicion to state their name does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and on the facts of that case did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.
Since Whether any such duty exists is a question of each state's own statute. What Massachusetts requires is in the section this case is cited from.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
When do they have to read me my rights?
Miranda v. Arizona · 384 U.S. 436 (1966) · 1966
The Court held that before questioning a person in custody, officers must warn that the person may remain silent, that anything said can be used against them, and that they have a right to counsel, appointed if they cannot afford one. It held that statements obtained by custodial questioning without those warnings are inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
Can they draw my blood without a warrant because alcohol burns off?
Missouri v. McNeely · 569 U.S. 141 (2013) · 2013
The Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not by itself create a per se exigency justifying a warrantless blood draw in every drunk driving case, and that exigency is decided on the totality of the circumstances, case by case.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
Can they come into my house to arrest me without a warrant?
Payton v. New York · 445 U.S. 573 (1980) · 1980
Absent consent or exigent circumstances, the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers from entering a home without a warrant to make a routine felony arrest. The Court treated the entrance to the home as the line the amendment draws most firmly.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
Can they search my phone because they arrested me?
Riley v. California · 573 U.S. 373 (2014) · 2014
Officers must generally obtain a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone seized from a person who has been arrested. The Court held that the search incident to arrest exception, built around officer safety and evidence destruction, does not carry over to the data on a phone.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
When can an officer use deadly force on someone fleeing?
Tennessee v. Garner · 471 U.S. 1 (1985) · 1985
The Court held that deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
Can an officer stop and pat me down without arresting me?
Terry v. Ohio · 392 U.S. 1 (1968) · 1968
An officer who can point to specific facts suggesting criminal activity may stop a person briefly to investigate, and where the officer reasonably believes that person is armed and dangerous may pat down their outer clothing for weapons. The Court described the pat down as a search for weapons and limited it to that purpose.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it
Do they have to knock before coming in with a warrant?
Wilson v. Arkansas · 514 U.S. 927 (1995) · 1995
Whether officers knocked and announced their presence before entering is part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that the common law knock and announce principle forms part of that analysis rather than being a rigid rule without exceptions.
Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.
The section that rests on it