Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Aguilar Vs. Texas

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 15, 1964

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

53 entries 3 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Lefkowitz US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
  2. McgraIn Vs. Daugherty US Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1927
  3. United States Vs. Ramirez US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1998
    Relied / Followed
  4. U.S. 108 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  5. U.S. 108 (1964) Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  6. of reasonableness for obtaining a search warrant is the same under the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments. Ker v. California
    Search
  7. that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was creditable or his information reliable. Giordenello v. United
    Search
  8. We granted a writ of certiorari to consider the important constitutional questions involved. 375 U.S. 812. In Ker v. California
    Search
  9. Johnson v. United
    Search
  10. Jones v. United
    Search
  11. function, and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police. Page 378 U. S. 112 In Nathanson v. United
    Search
  12. Id. at 290 U. S. 47 . (Emphasis added.) The Court in Giordenello v. United
    Search
  13. instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.' Johnson v. United
    Search
  14. may be based on hearsay information, and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, Jones v. United
    Search
  15. circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, see Rugendorf v. United
    Search
  16. Giordenello v. United
    Search
  17. a warrant, the reviewing court may consider only information brought to the magistrate's attention. Giordenello v. United
    Search
  18. was found not guilty by the jury. His codefendants were found guilty, and their convictions affirmed on appeal. Garcia v. United
    Search
  19. in Giordenello derived, therefore, from the Fourth Amendment, and not from our supervisory power. Compare Jencks v. United
    Search
  20. States, 353 U. S. 657 . Accordingly, under Ker v. California
    Search
  21. Such an affidavit was sustained by this Court in Jones v. United
    Search
  22. Id. at 362 U. S. 267 -268, n. 2. Compare, e.g., Hernandez v. People
    Search
  23. P.2d at 999. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. But for Ker v. California
    Search
  24. CLARK in the present case ( post, p. 378 U. S. 118 , note 1), the standards laid down in Giordenello v. United
    Search
  25. and sets aside the conviction on the basis of two cases, neither of which is controlling. First is Nathanson v. United
    Search
  26. supplied.) Nathanson is, therefore, not apposite. The second case the Court relies on is Giordenello v. United
    Search
  27. As we said in Ker v. California
    Search
  28. within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as that Amendment was interpreted by this Court in Draper v. United
    Search
  29. entirely in error. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  30. At 358 U. S. 311 . In the following year, this was reaffirmed in Jones v. United
    Search
  31. Page 378 U. S. 120 Furthermore, in the case of Rugendorf v. United
    Search
  32. Furthermore, the Courts of Appeals have often approved affidavits similar to the one here. See, e.g., United States v. Eisner
    Search
  33. Evans v. United
    Search
  34. and United States v. Meeks
    Search
  35. as Chief Justice Marshall said in Locke v. United
    Search
  36. States, 7 Cranch 339, 11 U. S. 348 (1813). As Chief Justice Taft said in Carroll v. United
    Search
  37. an offense has been or is being committed. And as Mr. Justice Rutledge so well stated in Brinegar v. United
    Search
  38. U.S. Supreme Court Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  39. the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments. Ker v. California
    Search
  40. In Ker v. California
    Search
  41. In Nathanson v. United
    Search
  42. Rugendorf v. United
    Search
  43. Garcia v. United
    Search
  44. Compare Jencks v. United
    Search
  45. Ker v. California
    Search
  46. Hernandez v. People
    Search
  47. Nathanson v. United
    Search
  48. Draper v. United
    Search
  49. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  50. of Rugendorf v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial