Citation network
Mccray Vs. Illinois
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 20, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 300 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court McCray v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. 300 (1967) McCray v. IllinoisSearch
-
had acquired it in an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Jackson and Arnold, that there was probable cause to sustain the arrest and incidental search in this case. Draper v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 358 U. S. 307 . Unlike the situation in Beck v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 108 , 378 U. S. 114 . See United States v. VentrescaSearch
-
to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense. Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
Henry v. UnitedSearch
-
Beck Page 386 U. S. 305 v. OhioSearch
-
in judicially adopting the same basic evidentiary rule was instructively expressed by Chief Justice Weintraub in State v. BurnettSearch
-
to compel enforcement officer to respect the constitutional security of all of us under the Fourth Amendment. State v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to be accorded to the various common law evidentiary privileges in the trial of federal criminal cases. See Hawkins v. UnitedSearch
-
adjudication. In the exercise of this supervisory jurisdiction, the Court had occasion 10 years ago, in Roviaro v. UnitedSearch
-
need not disclose an informer's identity in applying for an arrest or search warrant. As was said in United States v. VentrescaSearch
-
Emphasis added.) See also Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Rugendorf v. UnitedSearch
-
in enforcement of the narcotics laws. Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
upon the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
the circumstances of the search did not disclose any conduct remotely akin to that condemned by this Court in Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of this community, I feel the officer should not be forced to reveal the name of the informant. And I also cite People vs. DurrSearch
-
People v. DurrSearch
-
People v. NettlesSearch
-
People v. ConnieSearch
-
People v. FreemanSearch
-
People v. MillerSearch
-
Ill.2d 527, 216 N.E.2d 793. Cf. People v. PittsSearch
-
People v. ParrenSearch
-
State v. CooksonSearch
-
Simmons v. StateSearch
-
People v. CoffeySearch
-
N.Y.2d 443, 191 N.E.2d 263. But see People v. MalinskySearch
-
N.Y.2d 86, 209 N.E.2d 694. Cf. Stelloh v. LibanSearch
-
Baker v. StateSearch
-
State v. BolesSearch
-
amicus brief, advising us that the validity of this provision is now before the Supreme Court of California. Martin v. SuperiorSearch
-
Court (LA 29078). The statute was enacted to modify that court's decision in Priestly v. SuperiorSearch
-
Court, 50 Cal.2d 812, 330 P.2d 39. See also Ford v. CitySearch
-
See Scher v. UnitedSearch
-
Some federal courts have applied the same rule of nondisclosure in both warrant and nonwarrant cases. Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. OneSearch
-
these two classes of cases, and have required the identification of informants in nonwarrant cases. United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
Cochran v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 291 F.2d 633 (C.A. 8th Cir.). Cf. Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
L.Rev. 840 (1965). In drawing this distinction, some of the federal courts have relied upon a dictum in Roviaro v. UnitedSearch
-
decision was based. Moreover, the precedent upon which this dictum was grounded furnishes only dubious support. Scher v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial