Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Ventresca

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 01, 1965

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

61 entries 5 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Stanford Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1965
  2. Beck Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1964
  3. United States Vs. Rabinowitz US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1950
  4. United States Vs. Kaplan US Supreme Court · May 02, 1938
  5. United States Vs. Lefkowitz US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
  6. U.S. 102 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  7. U.S. 102 (1965) United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  8. that any informant involved, whose identity need not be disclosed, was credible or his information reliable. Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  9. warrant. In discussing the Fourth Amendment policy against unnecessary invasions of privacy, we stated in Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  10. Page 380 U. S. 106 over the hurried action of offices . . . who may happen to make arrests.' United States v. Lefkowitz
    Search
  11. U.S. at 378 U. S. 110 -111. In Jones v. United
    Search
  12. a doubtful or marginal case, a search under a warrant may be sustainable where without one it would fall. In Johnson v. United
    Search
  13. States, 333 U. S. 10 , and Chapman v. United
    Search
  14. Johnson v. United
    Search
  15. Locke v. United
    Search
  16. may rest upon evidence which is not legally competent in a criminal trial. Draper v. United
    Search
  17. States, 358 U. S. 307 , 358 U. S. 311 . Page 380 U. S. 108 As the Court stated in Brinegar v. United
    Search
  18. Jones v. United
    Search
  19. Page 380 U. S. 109 upon which that belief is based. See Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  20. or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants. Jones v. United
    Search
  21. Court is alert to invalidate unconstitutional searches and seizures whether with or without a warrant. See Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  22. Preston v. United
    Search
  23. Carroll v. United
    Search
  24. in which search is incident to a lawful arrest. This latter exception is itself a limited one. We stated in Preston v. United
    Search
  25. search of the person of the accused for weapons or for the fruits of or implements used to commit the crime. Weeks v. United
    Search
  26. Agnello v. United
    Search
  27. right to search and seize without a search warrant extends to things under the accused's immediate control, Carroll v. United
    Search
  28. S. 158 , and, to an extent depending on the circumstances of the case, to the place where he is arrested, Agnello v. United
    Search
  29. Marron v. United
    Search
  30. Monnette v. United
    Search
  31. States, 299 F.2d 847, 850 (C.A.5th Cir.). Cf. Chapman v. United
    Search
  32. Steeber v. United
    Search
  33. Rugendorf v. United
    Search
  34. Chin Kay v. United
    Search
  35. United States v. McCormick
    Search
  36. Weise v. United
    Search
  37. is in the keeping of the magistrate. Giordenello v. United
    Search
  38. he says does not necessarily go either. He too is bound by the Constitution. His discretion is reviewable. Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  39. but the magistrate must, of course, know something of the basis of that belief. Nathanson v. United
    Search
  40. A discussion of the legal principles governing the sufficiency of this affidavit must, unhappily, begin with Draper v. United
    Search
  41. that description getting off, and arrested him. The Court held that there was probable cause for the arrest. In Jones v. United
    Search
  42. ante, p. 380 U. S. 111 . But I would make Taylor v. United
    Search
  43. In Johnson v. United
    Search
  44. of probable cause, and is in sharp contrast to the amorphous one upon which today's decision rests. In Jones v. United
    Search
  45. Court forgot, as it forgets again today, that the duty of the magistrate is not delegable to the police. Nathanson v. United
    Search
  46. F.2d at 870. And see Masiello v. United
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  48. Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  49. In Jones v. United
    Search
  50. and Chapman v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial