Landmark policing decisions translated into plain English for the officers who live them.
Doctrine Channels
Start with a legal theme, then follow the cases that explain what it means in the field.
Focused explainers and case briefs connected to Evidence Procedure.
Focused explainers and case briefs connected to First Amendment Public Order.
Focused explainers and case briefs connected to Fourth Amendment.
Focused explainers and case briefs connected to Fourth Amendment Traffic Stops.
Focused explainers and case briefs connected to Miranda Interrogation.
Focused explainers and case briefs connected to Police Pursuit.
Focused explainers and case briefs connected to Police Pursuits.
Focused explainers and case briefs connected to Pursuits Vehicle Operations.
Video Library
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
For police officers, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz means that DUI checkpoints are not automatically unconstitutional just because officers lack individualized suspicion for each driver stopped. A checkpoint may be lawful if it is structured, limited, and aimed at roadway safety rather than general crime control.
Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland requires prosecutors to disclose material evidence favorable to the accused when it bears on guilt or punishment. The rule protects the fairness of criminal trials and applies regardless of whether the prosecution acted in good or bad faith.
Pearson v. Callahan
Pearson v. Callahan changed qualified immunity procedure. The Court held that judges are no longer required to decide the constitutional violation question before asking whether the law was clearly established.
Search Results
Miranda Interrogation
For officers and detectives, Davis v. United States creates an important distinction between a clear request for a lawyer and an uncertain comment about a lawyer. If a suspect says something direct like “I want a lawyer,” “I want an attorney,” or “I will not talk without a lawyer,” questioning must stop unless counsel is provided or the suspect later reinitiates communication under the applicable rules.
Miranda Interrogation
Fellers v. United States is an important reminder that Miranda and the Sixth Amendment are related but not identical. Miranda focuses on custodial interrogation.
Miranda Interrogation
Texas v. Cobb is important for officers and detectives because it confirms that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific. If a person has been charged and has counsel on one offense, that does not automatically prevent officers from questioning the person about a separate, uncharged offense.
Weekly Case Brief
One landmark policing case, explained and translated every week. Built for officers, students, and anyone who wants to understand how courts shape the street.