Citation network
Lopez Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 27, 1963
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Lopez v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 373 U.S. 427 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Lopez v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963) Lopez v. UnitedSearch
-
meaning, purpose, and application, are problems that have sharply divided this Court on past occasions. See Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
Masciale v. UnitedSearch
-
Moore v. UnitedSearch
-
Martinez v. UnitedSearch
-
In support of this theory, he relies on Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 255 U. S. 298 , and Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
rationale buttresses Page 373 U. S. 438 the conclusion that the evidence was properly admitted. See On Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
of petitioner's office simply because his apparent willingness to accept a bribe was not real. Compare Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
violate the privacy of the office by seizing something surreptitiously without petitioner's knowledge. Compare Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
agents to overhear conversations which would have been beyond the reach of the human ear. See, e.g., Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
Goldman v. UnitedSearch
-
planted by an unlawful physical invasion of a constitutionally Page 373 U. S. 439 protected area. Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
s assent, and it neither saw nor heard more than the agent himself. The case is thus quite similar to Rathbun v. UnitedSearch
-
of procedure -- compels the formulation of a rule excluding its introduction in a federal court. See, e.g., McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
Mallory v. UnitedSearch
-
be decided by the court and never submitted to the jury, and we are not now presented with that question. See Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, the majority opinion may be interpreted as reaffirming sub silentio the result in On Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
and appeals to friendship to induce admissions or confessions under not totally dissimilar circumstances. Leyra v. DenoSearch
-
Spano v. NewSearch
-
Chin Poy as a hostile witness. The prosecution may have an interest in concealing his identity or whereabouts. Roviaro v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. On Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
the petitioner is entitled to the presence of counsel at every stage in the proceedings after arraignment. People v. MeyerSearch
-
Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
been involved, cross-examination of the government informer has invariably been critical to the defense. See Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
the use of evidence in the federal courts is clearly within the power of this Court. As the Court stated in McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
exercise of its supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts, see Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
See Upshaw v. UnitedSearch
-
Mr. Justice Brennan, With Whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Goldberg Join, Dissenting. in on Lee V. UnitedSearch
-
in the law of evidence, and it has been held that Minifon recordings are independent third-party evidence. Monroe v. UnitedSearch
-
communicates his secret thoughts verbally to another, that is no license for the police to record the words. Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
have made. In a free society, people ought not to have to watch their every word so carefully. Nothing in Rathbun v. UnitedSearch
-
History and the text of the Constitution point the true path to the answer. In the celebrated case of Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
right to extract evidence from people. Thus viewed, the Fourth Amendment is complementary to the Fifth. Feldman v. UnitedSearch
-
a comprehensive right of personal liberty in the face of governmental intrusion. And so this Court held in Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
The principles laid down in this opinion ( Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
permitting government officials to open letters in the mail would violate the Fourth Amendment. See also Hoover v. McChesneySearch
-
U. S. 657 . So also, the Court's insistence that the Fourth Amendment is to be liberally construed, e.g., Byars v. UnitedSearch
-
Grau v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lopez v. UnitedSearch
-
See Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial