Terry V Ohio (Supreme Court, 1968) --

¶ … Terry v Ohio (Supreme Court, 1968) -- Found that the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure is not violated when an officer of the law stops a suspect on the street and frisks them with probably cause to arrest if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, is about to commit a crime, or is in the process of committing a crime. Subsequent rulings using Terry allow for a vehicle to be constitutionally searched if there is reasonable suspicion and a 2004 ruling that certain state laws requiring suspects to identify themselves were indeed constitutional.

Siborn v New York (Supreme Court, 1968) -- 8 to 1 decision of the Warren Court stating that although states may grant officers of the law latitude in making arrests, all search and seizures must be subject to constitutional limitations. There must be verifiable probably cause -- not simply the thought process of an officer, or other non-verifiable means.

Peters v New York -- Heard in conjunction with a related case, Court said it was lawful to stop and frisk if officers observed suspicious behavior and a subsequent search reveled incriminating burglary tools.

Georgia v Randolf (Supreme Court, 2006) -- Court holds that police have no constitutional right to search a house when one legal resident consents and the other objects. Scholars say this case is within the bounds of the battle between the originalists and living constitution philosophies of modern jurisprudence.

Arizona v Gant (Supreme Court, 2009) -- Court holds that the Fourth Amendment requires officers of the law to demonstrate and actual, reasonable and continuing threat to their personal safety or preserve the relevant evidence in order to justify the search of a vehicle without a warrant. This proof should be verifiable, preferably with witnesses or other tangible forms of evidence.

Oliver v United States (Supreme Court, 1984) -- Decision based on the open fields doctrine which limits the use of the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, this means that the protections under the Fourth Amendment do not hold for fields or growing areas around the home as if it were a home. Searches, therefore, can be made on open fields without violating the "knock and announce rule."

United State v Dunn (Supreme Court, 1987) -- Another open fields decision, limiting the use of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the Court was asked to rule whether the area between the barn and the house was within the "curtilage" or protected area, of the home. The Court found anything outside the home was not granted Fourth Amendment protection.

California v Ciraolo (Supreme Court, 1986) -- Court finds that Fourth Amendment protections are not granted regarding aerial surveillance of an individual's backyard and property. It is legal for law enforcement officers to observe a person's property from the air in order to determine if illegal actions are occurring.

Escobedo v Illinois (Supreme Court, 1964) -- Court holds that criminal suspects have a right to counsel under the Constitution during any police interrogations. This is based on the Court's interpretation of the Sixth Amendment and that there is a distinction between a pre- and post-indictment timeframe.

Miranda v Arizona (Supreme Court, 1966) -- Court holds that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements that are made by a suspect as a result of questioning or interrogation by legal authority are only admissible if the prosecution can prove that it informed the suspect of his or her rights, the rules against self-incrimination, and that to proceed, the suspect must be informed and voluntarily waive the rights or the evidence is not admissible. Landmark case that paved way for Miranda Warnings.

United States v Wade (Supreme Court, 1967) -- Holds that a criminal defendant has rights under the Sixth Amendment to have counsel during a lineup that might be held after an indictment.

Kirby v Illinois (Supreme Court, 1972) -- Court holds that a suspect does not have Sixth Amendment rights prior to the beginnings of a criminal prosecution- those rights to counsel attach during an official criminal prosecution. A pre-indictment interview is not within the bounds of a formal criminal proceeding; but only an information gathering situation.