Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Terry Vs. Ohio

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 10, 1968

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

59 entries 4 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Mapp Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  2. Beck Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1964
  3. Stacey Vs. Emery US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  4. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  5. U.S. 1 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  6. U.S. 1 (1968) Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  7. adjudged them guilty, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed. State v. Terry
    Search
  8. violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  9. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford
    Search
  10. Katz v. United
    Search
  11. Elkins v. United
    Search
  12. petitioner was entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as he walked down the street in Cleveland. Beck v. Ohio
    Search
  13. Rios v. United
    Search
  14. Henry v. United
    Search
  15. Carroll v. United
    Search
  16. Johnson v. United
    Search
  17. of the Fourth Amendment has been recognized as a principal mode of discouraging lawless police conduct. See Weeks v. United
    Search
  18. U. S. 383 , 232 U. S. 391 -393 (1914). Thus, its major thrust is a deterrent one, see Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  19. Elkins Page 392 U. S. 13 v. United
    Search
  20. reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United
    Search
  21. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. Page
    Search
  22. the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  23. Preston v. United
    Search
  24. Agnello v. United
    Search
  25. practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, see, e.g., Katz v. United
    Search
  26. Chapman v. United
    Search
  27. failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances, see, e.g., Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  28. Preston v. United
    Search
  29. Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  30. Cf. Carroll v. United
    Search
  31. more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e.g., Beck v. Ohio
    Search
  32. in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, Preston v. United
    Search
  33. however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  34. aspect of the analysis of the reasonableness of particular types of conduct under the Fourth Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  35. man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio
    Search
  36. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  37. specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  38. Page 392 U. S. 29 scope of governmental action as by imposing preconditions upon its initiation. Compare Katz v. United
    Search
  39. United States v. Poller
    Search
  40. Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  41. of a seizure and search which were not reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation. Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  42. These limitations will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases. See Sibron v. New
    Search
  43. arrest, is not justified by any need to prevent the disappearance or destruction of evidence of crime. See Preston v. United
    Search
  44. in the judgment and the opinion except where the opinion quotes from and relies upon this Court's opinion in Katz v. United
    Search
  45. States and the concurring opinion in Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  47. State v. Terry
    Search
  48. the Fourteenth. Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  49. Cleveland. Beck v. Ohio
    Search
  50. See Weeks v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial