Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Spinelli Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 27, 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

60 entries 4 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Aguilar Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
    Relied / Followed
  2. Wolf Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  3. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  4. United States Vs. Ventresca US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1965
  5. Spinelli v. United
    Search
  6. States - 393 U.S. 410 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Spinelli v. United
    Search
  7. States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) Spinelli v. United
    Search
  8. Viewing the information in the affidavit in its totality, the Court of Appeals deemed the principles of Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  9. to enable the Commissioner to know that he was relying on more than casual rumor or general reputation. Cf. Draper v. United
    Search
  10. and dissenting en banc opinions reflect a most conscientious effort to apply the principles we announced in Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  11. unilluminating assertion of suspicion that is entitled to no weight in appraising the magistrate's decision. Nathanson v. United
    Search
  12. magistrate is obligated to render a judgment based upon a common sense reading of the entire affidavit. United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  13. Johnson v. United
    Search
  14. if the informant came by the information indirectly, he did not explain why his sources were reliable. Cf. Jaben v. United
    Search
  15. an accusation based merely on an individual's general reputation. The detail provided by the informant in Draper v. United
    Search
  16. a situation in which the premises contain an unusual number of telephones or abnormal activity is observed, cf. McCray v. Illinois
    Search
  17. the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause, Beck v. Ohio
    Search
  18. cause are tested by much less rigorous standards than those governing the admissibility of evidence at trial, McCray v. Illinois
    Search
  19. are not to be confined by niggardly limitations or by restrictions on the use of their common sense, United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  20. and that their determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts, Jones v. United
    Search
  21. the search commenced. Since petitioner would plainly have standing if he had been arrested inside the apartment, Jones v. United
    Search
  22. probable cause established, the showing made was much more substantial than the one made here. Thus, in United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  23. Again, in McCray v. Illinois
    Search
  24. him to be an experienced, intelligent officer who has been reliable in the past. This much was settled in Nathanson v. United
    Search
  25. sought. The unsupported assertion or belief of the officer does not satisfy the requirement of probable cause. Jones v. United
    Search
  26. Grau v. United
    Search
  27. Byars v. United
    Search
  28. the magistrate, not the Page 393 U. S. 424 officer, who is to judge the existence of probable cause. Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  29. Giordenello v. United
    Search
  30. has often furnished reliable information in the past. This attests to the honesty of the informant, but Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  31. the facts, there is probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. So too, in the special circumstances of Draper v. United
    Search
  32. produce an equally divided Court. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting. In my view, this Court's decision in Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  33. from the principles of our former cases. Less than four years ago, we reaffirmed these principles in United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  34. Husty v. United
    Search
  35. away at the ever narrowing area of effective police operation. I believe the holdings in Aguilar, and Rugendorf v. United
    Search
  36. in this case took a sensible view of the Fourth Amendment, and I would wholeheartedly affirm its decision. Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  37. U. S. 643 , decided in 1961, held for the first time that the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule of Weeks v. United
    Search
  38. liberty and dignity of citizens against arbitrary state power. As Justice Jackson (dissenting) stated in Brinegar v. United
    Search
  39. magistrate's judgment in the preservation of a proper balance between individual freedom and state power. See Trupiano v. United
    Search
  40. as to show his use of that apartment and to indicate that he frequented the apartment on a regular basis. Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  41. U. S. 25 , 338 U. S. 28 (1949). See United States v. Rabinowitz
    Search
  42. See Johnson v. United
    Search
  43. See Jones v. United
    Search
  44. Jones v. United
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court Spinelli v. United
    Search
  46. of Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  47. Cf. Draper v. United
    Search
  48. Nathanson v. United
    Search
  49. Cf. Jaben v. United
    Search
  50. Draper v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial