Citation network
Chambers Vs. Maroney
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
-
U.S. 42 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
U.S. 42 (1970) Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify a warrantless search of a house or office. Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 376 U. S. 364 , 376 U. S. 367 (1964). Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a warrantless search, the Court has long distinguished between an automobile and a home or office. In Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
and seizure at issue before it, the Court affirmed the convictions. Carroll was followed and applied in Husty v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 282 U. S. 694 (1931), and Scher v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 305 U. S. 251 (1938). It was reaffirmed and followed in Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
supra, cited both Brinegar and Carroll with approval, 376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 366 -367. In Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
The same consequences may not follow where there is unforeseeable cause to search a house. Compare Vale v. LouisianaSearch
-
doubt. Having ourselves studied this record, we are not prepared to differ with the two courts below. See Harrington v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Since Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
by state prisoners alleging that unconstitutionally seized evidence was admitted at their trials. See, e.g., Mancusi v. DeForteSearch
-
was available to vindicate Fourth Amendment rights. Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
Nothing said last term in Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
sufficient ground for a collateral attack upon an otherwise valid criminal conviction, state or federal. See Harris v. NelsonSearch
-
Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
on a mere assessment of particular missteps or omissions of counsel, whether or not caused by negligence, cf. McMann v. RichardsonSearch
-
with the objective of determining whether petitioner was deprived of rudimentary legal assistance. See Williams v. BetoSearch
-
that he has failed after the fact to show that, with adequate assistance, he would have prevailed at trial. Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
White v. MarylandSearch
-
E.g., Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
because the exigency giving rise to this exception extends only that far, the search may go no further. Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Trupiano v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 334 U. S. 699 , 334 U. S. 705 , 708 (1948). Similarly, we held in Terry v. OhioSearch
-
in privacy that is protected by the Fourth Amendment even where the circumstances justify a temporary seizure. Terry v. OhioSearch
-
E.g., Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Indeed, I believe this conclusion is implicit in the opinion of the unanimous Court in Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
Wood v. CrouseSearch
-
therefore, the retroactivity of Chimel is not drawn into question in this case. See Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
Court's decisions upholding a warrantless vehicle search on its authority, involved a search for contraband. Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
Scher v. UnitedSearch
-
Husty v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 581 , 332 U. S. 584 -586 (1948). Although subsequent dicta have omitted this limitation, see Dyke v. TaylorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial