Arizona v. Grant. The United States Supreme Court severely narrowed the ability of officers to search a vehicle after a traffic stop. Officers must demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime if they don’t have a warrant.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. The United States Supreme Court found that the admission of certificates of state lab analysts, claiming the material seized was a controlled substance and the quantity, violated the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. In order to introduce the evidence the lab tech must be called as a witness.

Arizona v. Johnson. The United States Supreme Court held that in order for an officer to conduct a “stop and frisk” or pat-down search, two conditions need to be met: first, the stop must be lawful and second, the officer must reasonably suspect the person stopped is armed and dangerous.

Pearson v. Callahan. A case dealing with immunity from prosecution of officers conducting a search of a house. However, the United States Supreme Court found the officers who sent an informant into a house to purchase drugs had no immunity because they had no reason to believe their conduct was lawful when they searched the house. The officers had no warrant, no one consented to their entry and the consent to allow the informant (rather than an undercover officer) into the house did not extend to them.

People v. Diggins. The Illinois Supreme Court found that the center console of a vehicle is a “case” under the unlawful use of weapons statute. Therefore, a weapon in the console was cased and not illegal. This case may have implications regarding inventory searches and the searching of closed containers.