Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Chimel Vs. California

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 23, 1969

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

74 entries 4 linked 70 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Jeffers US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1951
  2. United States Vs. Rabinowitz US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1950
  3. Stanford Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1965
  4. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  5. U.S. 752 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Chimel v. California
    Search
  6. U.S. 752 (1969) Chimel v. California
    Search
  7. reach, and (2) more extensive searches. Pp. 395 U. S. 765 -766. Page 395 U. S. 753 (d) United Ste v. Rabinowitz
    Search
  8. U. S. 56 , and Harris v. United
    Search
  9. search incident to a lawful arrest seems first to have been articulated by the Court in 1914 as dictum in Weeks v. United
    Search
  10. Eleven years later, the case of Carroll v. United
    Search
  11. arrest is valid. Without explanation, however, the principle emerged in expanded form a few months later in Agnello v. United
    Search
  12. was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect an escape from custody, is not to be doubted. See Carroll v. United
    Search
  13. Weeks v. United
    Search
  14. U.S. at 269 U. S. 30 . And in Marron v. United
    Search
  15. opinion did not mean all that it seemed to say became evident, however, a few years later in Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  16. States, 282 U. S. 344 , and United States v. Lefkowitz
    Search
  17. Plainly the case before us is essentially different from Marron v. United
    Search
  18. The limiting views expressed in Go-Bart and Lefkowitz were thrown to the winds, however, in Harris v. United
    Search
  19. Id. at 331 U. S. 151 . Only a year after Harris, however, the pendulum swung again. In Trupiano v. United
    Search
  20. came United States v. Rabinowitz
    Search
  21. plays a crucial part. As the Court put it in McDonald v. United
    Search
  22. U. S. 48 , 342 U. S. 51 . Only last Term, in Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  23. Id. at 392 U. S. 29 . But in a companion case, Sibron v. New
    Search
  24. mandated by the Fourth Amendment requires no less. This is the principle that underlay our decision in Preston v. United
    Search
  25. The same basic principle was reflected in our opinion last Term in Sibron. That opinion dealt with Peters v. New
    Search
  26. the possibility of such police tactics, the general point so forcefully made by Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Kirschenblatt
    Search
  27. Cal.Rptr. at 715-716, n. 1, and the State does not challenge its insufficiency under the principles of Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  28. U. S. 108 , and Spinelli v. United
    Search
  29. McDonald v. United
    Search
  30. have applied the abstract doctrine of that case to various factual situations with divergent results. Compare Ker v. California
    Search
  31. Abel v. United
    Search
  32. States, 362 U. S. 217 , and Draper v. United
    Search
  33. States, 358 U. S. 307 , with Kremen v. United
    Search
  34. States, 353 U. S. 346 (per curiam). Cf. Chapman v. United
    Search
  35. Jones v. United
    Search
  36. Boyd v. United
    Search
  37. Davis v. United
    Search
  38. Harris v. United
    Search
  39. Davis v. Mississippi
    Search
  40. Katz v. United
    Search
  41. Preston v. United
    Search
  42. See Katz v. United
    Search
  43. Carroll v. United
    Search
  44. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  45. Some courts have carried the Rabinowitz approach to just such lengths. See, e.g., Clifton v. United
    Search
  46. United States v. Jackson
    Search
  47. search of room upheld). But see James v. Louisiana
    Search
  48. Cf. Dyke v. Taylor
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Chimel v. California
    Search
  50. United Ste v. Rabinowitz
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial