Maynard v. Cartwright 486 U.S. 356 (1988) - prohibits vague statutory language such as "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" in capital-murder cases.

Michigan v. Harvey 494 U.S. 344 (1990) - reaffirms "prophylactic rule", that police-initiated conversations in absence of attorney may only be used to impeach conflicting testimony and cannot be used in the prosecutions case-in-chief.

Michigan v. Mosley 423 U.S. 96 (1975) - allows police to initiate another, sequential interrogation after suspect has invoked the right to remain silent as long as the right to cut off questioning is scrupulously honored.

Michigan v. Summers 452 U.S. 692 (1981) - police have the right to detain somebody while a search warrant is being executed.

Michigan State Police v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990) - police can establish (sobriety) checkpoints and systematically stop every x number of vehicles without reasonable suspicion.

Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973) - created Miller standard (prurient interest) for obscenity, overturning older standard (without redeeming social value).

Mincey v. Arizona 437 U.S. 385 (1978) - overturns state-level "murder scene exceptions" allowing warrantless searches at homicide scenes. Allows limited "victim or suspect" searches for anything in plain view.

Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) - results of a police interrogation are not admissible unless suspect is given Miranda warnings and there is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver (but see

North Carolina v. Butler and other cases).

Neil v. Biggers 409 U.S. 188 (1972) - established the five factors of eyewitness reliability (opportunity, attention, accuracy of prior description, certainty, and length of time);

showups do not violate due process if, based on totality of circumstances,

victim is able to make a reliable identification; together with Manson v. Brathwaite of 1977 established the Biggers-Brathwaite rule which means that even if police do something to jeopardize fairness or impartiality, a reliable eyewitness identification would still hold.

New York v. P.J. Video 475 U.S. 868 (1986) - obscenity case consolidating restrictions on exigency exceptions (Roaden v. Kentucky), requiring pre-trial adversary hearing (A Quantity of Books v. Kansas), requiring post-seizure obscenity hearing (Heller v. New York), and supporting affidavits (Lee Art Theatre v. Virginia).

North Carolina v. Butler 441 U.S. 369 (1979) - waiver of Miranda can be inferred from suspect's conduct and non-verbal body language.

O'Connor v. Ortega 480 U.S. 709 (1987) - a workplace privacy case establishing the "reasonableness under all circumstances" test: both inception and scope of an intrusion must be reasonable.

Oliver v. U.S. 466 U.S. (1984) - trespass case allowing police to enter and search unoccupied or undeveloped areas outside of a dwelling's "curtilage" without either a warrant or probable cause.

Patterson v. Illinois 487 U.S. 285 (1988) - a waiver of Miranda constitutes a waiver of the right to counsel as well as the privilege against self-incrimination.

Pennsylvania v. Finley 481 U.S. 551 (1987) - defendants have no right to appointed counsel when seeking post-conviction relief.

Pennsylvania v. Muniz 496 U.S. 582 (1990) - videotape evidence of a suspect, such as a stop for driving while intoxicated, may be obtained without Miranda warnings.

Powers v. Ohio 499 U.S. 400 (1991) - peremptory challenges to exclude jurors cannot be based on race, regardless of race of defendant.

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union 521 U.S. (1997) - attempts to restrict exposure of minors to obscene material on the Internet violates the 1st Amendment.

Rhode Island v. Innis 446 U.S. 291 (1980) - casual conversation between police officers and suspects constitutes a "dialogue" and requires no Miranda warnings.

Ristanino v. Ross 424 U.S. 589 (1976) - prospective jurors during voir dire may be questioned regarding their racial prejudices only if facts of case are likely to inflame pre-existing racial prejudices.

Rochin v. California 342 U.S. 165 (1952) - landmark stomach-pumping case establishing "balancing test" where rights of individual against shocking and offensive intrusions are balanced against state's interests

in fairly and accurately determining guilt or innocence.

整理者：JACKIE