Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Berger Vs. New York

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 12, 1967

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

67 entries 4 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Wolf Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  2. Stanford Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1965
  3. Ker Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1963
  4. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  5. Berger v. New
    Search
  6. York - 388 U.S. 41 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Berger v. New
    Search
  7. York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967) Berger v. New
    Search
  8. Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  9. Almost a century thereafter, this Court took specific and lengthy notice of Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  10. Boyd v. United
    Search
  11. federal statutes not affording one, the Court in 1914 formulated and pronounced the federal exclusionary rule in Weeks v. United
    Search
  12. At 116 U. S. 391 -392. IV The Court was faced with its first wiretap case in 1928, Olmstead v. United
    Search
  13. case reached the Court in 1942 in Goldman v. United
    Search
  14. Fourth Amendment because there was no physical trespass in connection with the relevant interception. And in On Lee v. United
    Search
  15. the former's laundry and electronically recorded, was not condemned by the Fourth Amendment. Thereafter in Silverman v. United
    Search
  16. At 365 U. S. 512 . In Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  17. obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion. It follows from our holding in Silverman v. United
    Search
  18. At 371 U. S. 485 . And in Lopez v. United
    Search
  19. Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  20. U. S. 476 , 379 U. S. 481 (1965). This right has most recently received enunciation in Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  21. Amendment's requirement that a neutral and detached authority be interposed between the police and the public, Johnson v. United
    Search
  22. themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed. Carroll v. United
    Search
  23. Husty v. United
    Search
  24. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  25. This is indicated by People v. Grossman
    Search
  26. Misc.2d 557, 257 N.Y.S.2d 266, reversed on other grounds, 27 App.Div.2d 572, 276 N.Y.S.2d 168. Also see People v. Beshany
    Search
  27. By its very nature, eavesdropping involves an intrusion on privacy that is broad in scope. As was said in Osborn v. United
    Search
  28. the evidence of the recording of the conversations seized pursuant to the order on constitutional grounds, Weeks v. United
    Search
  29. States, supra, or in the exercise of supervisory power, McNabb v. United
    Search
  30. Sgro v. United
    Search
  31. permits general searches by electronic devices, the truly offensive character of which was first condemned in Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  32. Marron v. United
    Search
  33. See Supplemental Memorandum, Schipani v. United
    Search
  34. States, No. 504, October Term, 1966, 385 U. S. 372 . See also Black v. United
    Search
  35. O'Brien v. United
    Search
  36. Hoffa v. United
    Search
  37. Markis v. United
    Search
  38. Moretti v. United
    Search
  39. been no failure of law enforcement in that field. As THE CHIEF JUSTICE said in concurring in the result in Lopez v. United
    Search
  40. Lopez v. United
    Search
  41. has in the past, under specific conditions and circumstances, sustained the use of eavesdropping devices. See Goldman v. United
    Search
  42. On Lee v. United
    Search
  43. States, supra, and Osborn v. United
    Search
  44. DOUGLAS, J., dissenting in Warden, Page 388 U. S. 64 Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
    Search
  45. This contention is disposed of in Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
    Search
  46. DOUGLAS, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court because, at long last, it overrules sub silentio Olmstead v. United
    Search
  47. which, as I have maintained on other occasions ( Osborn v. United
    Search
  48. what nicety and precision a warrant may be drawn, a proposition that I developed in detail in my dissent in Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Berger v. New
    Search
  50. of Entick v. Carrington
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial