Citation network
Vale Vs. Louisiana
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 1970
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 30 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Vale v. LouisianaSearch
-
U.S. 30 (1970) Vale v. LouisianaSearch
-
as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 399 U. S. 33 -35. (a) Even if Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
La. at 1070, 215 So.2d at 816. We cannot agree. Last Term, in Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
upheld Page 399 U. S. 34 as incident to an arrest, that arrest must take place inside the house, cf. Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 269 U. S. 20 , 269 U. S. 32 , not somewhere outside -- whether two blocks away, James v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 36 , twenty feet away, Shipley v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
situations, Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
cause to conduct it. The burden rests on the State to show the existence of such an exceptional situation. Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
us discloses none. Page 399 U. S. 35 There is no suggestion that anyone consented to the search. Cf. Zap v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 624 , 328 U. S. 628 . The officers were not responding to an emergency. United States v. JeffersSearch
-
States, supra, at 335 U. S. 454 . They were not in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. Warden v. HaydenSearch
-
Chapman v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 10 , 333 U. S. 15 . The goods ultimately seized were not in the process of destruction. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
States, supra, at 335 U. S. 455 . Nor were they about to be removed from the jurisdiction. Chapman v. UnitedSearch
-
before us appears, to suppose that it was impracticable for them to obtain a search warrant as well. Cf. McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
Trupiano v. UnitedSearch
-
Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Louisiana courts committed constitutional error in admitting into evidence the fruits of the illegal search. Shipley v. CaliforniaSearch
-
James v. LouisianaSearch
-
without a warrant, are to be judged by whether they are reasonable, and, as I said, speaking for the Court in Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
common sense dictates that reasonableness varies with the circumstances of the search. See, e.g., Henry v. UnitedSearch
-
Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
Vale would not have been the action of reasonable police officers. As MR. JUSTICE WHITE said, dissenting in Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
incident to a lawful arrest is reasonable should still be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case. Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
that searches to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence have long been held reasonable by this Court. Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
may be, as it is here, quite distinct from whether or not the search was incident to a valid arrest. See United States v. JeffersSearch
-
It is thus unnecessary to determine whether the search was valid as incident to the arrest under either Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Vale v. LouisianaSearch
-
Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Zap v. UnitedSearch
-
Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cf. McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
Henry v. UnitedSearch
-
Court. Preston v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial