Ohio v. Clark, No. 13-1352, ___ U.S. ___ (June 18, 2015).

Three-year-old’s report of abuse to his preschool teachers was not testimonial hearsay, and therefore did not violate Confrontation Clause when admitted at trial. Neither the child—nor the teachers, despite their mandatory reporting obligations—had the “primary purpose” to create substitute for trial testimony or assist in prosecuting defendant, but rather to respond to ongoing child-abuse emergency by identifying and ending the threat to the child.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Elonis v. United States, No. 13-983, 575 U.S. ___ (June 1, 2015).

Federal crime of transmitting threats in interstate or foreign commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), requires some heightened awareness that the communication will be perceived as threatening; mere negligence on that point is insufficient.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13-9972, __ U.S. __ (April 21, 2015).

Fourth Amendment does not allow police to extend duration of a traffic stop, even for a “de minimis” time period, for reasons unrelated the matter for which the stop was made.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Fernandez v. California, No. 12-7822, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 25, 2014).

When one occupant had consented to officers’ home entry and the other had refused consent, after officers arrested the objecting occupant and then returned an hour later and again obtained the first occupant’s consent, the officers’ entry was legal.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246, __ U.S.__ (June 17, 2013).

Plurality opinion concludes that, if an individual not in custody is voluntarily answering police questions and refuses or fails to answer an incriminating question, he must expressly invoke his privilege against self-incrimination when the question is asked in order to object at trial that the state’s characterizing his silence as evidence of guilt violates the privilege; opinion does not resolve whether at trial the state can use the silence as evidence of guilt if the defendant properly invokes the Fifth Amendment during the questioning.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion