Quotes from Erwin Chemerinsky

Rampart officers came to assume that all Latino and African American men between fifteen and fifty who had short hair and wore baggy pants were gang members, and that that warranted any efforts on their part to remove them from the streets. So they planted evidence to frame innocent people and lied in courts to gain convictions.

the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party . . ., even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed."55

Miller says that when police obtain information that a person has shared with a third party, it is not a search. Therefore, the requirements for probable cause and a warrant—the key protections of privacy under the Fourth Amendment—do not apply or need to be met.

Smith v. Maryland, it held that police can obtain a list of phone numbers that a person calls, or receives calls from, without needing to get a warrant or have probable cause.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later applied this notion to say that government can monitor the email addresses a person sends to or receives from, or a list of the websites a person visits, without needing

Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court did not overrule or narrow the third-party doctrine, but it refused to extend it to cover stored cellular location information.

The automobile exception provides that police may search a car without a warrant when they have probable cause that it may contain contraband or evidence of illegal activity.

Carroll v. United States, in 1925, involved a search of a car without a warrant, for bootleg liquor.65 The Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Taft, explained that the mobility of cars justified allowing police to search them without needing a warrant because the "vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought."66

Chambers, the Supreme Court invoked the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment and said "automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office" if officers have probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that they are entitled to seize.

it ruled that people have a lower expectation of privacy with motor vehicles, and that cars are regulated by the government. In Cady v. Dombrowski

First, it has narrowed the scope of rights that people have when dealing with the police. If there is no constitutional limit to police power, and politically imposed limits are absent, then police can do whatever they want. Overall, the Court has interpreted protections against unreasonable searches and arrests narrowly, compelled self-incrimination, and accepted faulty identification procedures.

The Court has held that when police conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle, they may search all containers within it that might contain evidence of a crime or contraband.76 They may search even containers belonging to passengers who are not suspected of criminal activity.

Only during the Warren Court era, from 1953 to 1969, did the Court, for the first time, significantly expand the rights of criminal suspects and attempt to provide protection against illegal searches and arrests, coerced confessions, and suggestive police identification procedures. In addition, the Court greatly expanded the two remedies

Utah v. Strieff was one of many cases during the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts—from 1986 to the present—that empowered and encouraged police to violate the Constitution.

Neither the text of the Constitution nor the Framers' intent supports these rulings. Instead, we must regard the Court's decisions as a consistent choice, throughout American history, to favor the interests of law enforcement over the rights of individuals and to ignore the enormous racism that has infected policing since the nation's first days.

For suspects undergoing police interrogation, the rulings provide very little protection from coercion, so long as the officers don't use physical force.

The purpose of the stop had obviously been to look for drugs, but the police had had no reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause, to justify a stop for that kind of crime. They had stopped the car for a minor traffic violation patently as an excuse to search for drugs.

The actual motivation of the officers is irrelevant.18 As long as an officer has probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, that a traffic law has been violated, he or she may stop the vehicle.

In Atwater v. Lago Vista in 2001, the Court held that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrested a mother, and took her to the stationhouse for booking, for not having her children in seat belts

In other words, a person who has been harmed by an illegal government action cannot sue for an injunction to halt the practice unless the individual can demonstrate that he or she is personally likely to suffer that specific injury again.

Once police pull the car over, they can order the driver and the passenger out of the car.19 They can then search the passenger area of the car, including all containers within it.20 This is to protect the officers, the Court explained, to ensure that the car contains no weapon that an individual might reach for.

the Court has reaffirmed that the officers' subjective motivation is irrelevant in evaluating whether a stop or an arrest is lawful under the Fourth Amendment. As long as the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion for making a stop, even if it had nothing to do with the real reason for the stop, he or she has not violated the Fourth Amendment.

is, even a person who has been seriously injured by an unconstitutional police practice cannot sue to enjoin its use unless the individual can show that he or she is likely to be subjected to it again.

person represented by counsel has the right to have that attorney present at a post-indictment identification.