I gave you the citation exactly as it is referenced. Try Google, it comes right up. Also review the related US v Watts.
Those cases deal with the use, in sentencing AFTER conviction, of charges for which the defendant was acquitted. Acquittal means not proven it does not mean lack of evidence. A convicted defendant loses many “rights” such as allowing a police officer to search without warrant. You are a classic example of what I mean; i.e. you know nothing of law and yet believe you are competent to determine what is or is not constitutional.