Landmark Cases or Case Studies on Law Enforcement from the Practice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America

doi: 10.32577/mr.2024.ksz.7

Copyright (c) 2025 Fantoly Zsanett

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The study examines some of the most consequential case decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America regarding law enforcement, which proved to be of decisive importance in terms of the later development of law enforcement in the USA. The process of the development of fundamental rights is mainly presented and outlined from the point of view of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution; furthermore, the study analyzes the relevant problems of legal interpretive, which can serve as useful interpretative guidelines during the police investigations.

Keywords:

law enforcement fundamental rights americal criminal procedure coercive measures rule of law

How to Cite

Fantoly, Z. (2025). Landmark Cases or Case Studies on Law Enforcement from the Practice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Hungarian Law Enforcement, 24(6), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.32577/mr.2024.ksz.7

References

BAKONYI Mária: A gyanúsított kihallgatása a büntető eljárásjogi alapelvek tükrében. In ZSÉGER Barbara (szerk.): Válogatás a 2016-ban és 2017-ben tartott tudományos rendezvények előadásaiból. Budapest: Magyar Kriminológiai Társaság, 189–201. Online: https://www.kriminologia.hu/files/kiadvany/2019/13_bakonyim.pdf

BARRETT, John Q. (2006): Terry v. Ohio: The Fourth Amendment Reasonableness of Police Stops and Frisks Based on Less Than Probable Cause. In STEIKER, Carol S.: Criminal Procedure Stories. New York: Foundation Press, 295-315

CLARK, Tom C. (1977): Some Notes on the Continuing Life of the Fourth Amendment. American Journal of Criminal Law, 5(3), 275–282.

GÁCSI Anett Erzsébet (2015): A jogellenesen megszerzett bizonyítékok értékelése a büntetőeljárásban. PhD-értekezés. Szegedi Tudományegyetem. Online: https://doi.org/10.14232/phd.2738

JUNGI Eszter (2011): A „Miranda figyelmeztetés”, avagy a hallgatás joga a magyar büntetőeljárásban. Jog – Állam – Politika, 3(1), 49–60. Online: https://dfk-online.sze.hu/images/J%C3%81P/2011/1/Jungi.pdf

KAMISAR, Yale (2006): Mapp v. Ohio: The First Shot Fired in the Warren Court’s Criminal Procedure ’Revolution’. In STEIKER, Carol S.: Criminal Procedure Stories. New York: Foundation Press, 45–99.

KELLY, Martin (2021): Miranda v. Arizona. ThoughtCo.com, 2021. január 24. Online: https://www.thoughtco.com/miranda-v-arizona-104966

NAGY Ferenc (2004): A magyar büntetőjog általános része. Budapest: Korona Kiadó.

SCHULHOFER, Stephen (2006): Miranda v. Arizona A Modest But Important Legacy. In STEIKER, Carol S.: Criminal Procedure Stories. New York: Foundation Press, 159–179.

SZIKINGER István (1990): Miranda-ügy. Belügyi Szemle, 28(3), 111–119.

TÓTH Mihály (2003): A „magyar Miranda” első néhány éve. In TÓTH Mihály (szerk.): Büntető eljárásjogi olvasókönyv. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 216–220.

WEISSELBERG, Charles – BIBAS, Stephanos (2010): The Right to Remain Silent. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 159, 69–93. Online: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=penn_law_review_online

Jogi források

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/207/

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/428/

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/1/

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/

Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/1032/

Miranda v. Arizona, 385 U.S. 436 (1966). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/412/218/

Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/360/315/

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/465/

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/

U.S. v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/727/

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/806/

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949). Online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/25/

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.