Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Harris

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 28, 1971

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

48 entries 2 linked 46 unlinked
Show
  1. Whiteley Vs. Warden US Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1971
  2. United States Vs. Ventresca US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1965
    Relied / Followed
  3. U.S. 573 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Harris
    Search
  4. U.S. 573 (1971) United States v. Harris
    Search
  5. go to another nearby outbuilding to obtain whiskey for other persons. The Court of Appeals relied on Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  6. in stressing that affiant had never alleged that the informant was truthful, but only prudent, and on Spinelli v. United
    Search
  7. The affidavit in this case, based on a tip similar to the one held sufficient in Jones v. United
    Search
  8. the informant's reliability and trustworthiness. 412 F.2d 796, 797 (1969). The Court of Appeals relied on Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  9. Having found the informant's tip inadequate under Aguilar, the Court of Appeals, relying on Spinelli v. United
    Search
  10. s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, we would do well to heed the sound admonition of United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  11. from which the magistrate could find probable cause. Nathanson v. United
    Search
  12. U. S. 114 n. 4. Significantly, the Court in Aguilar cited with approval the affidavit upheld in Jones v. United
    Search
  13. of information is necessary to support a belief that an unidentified informant's information is truthful, Jones v. United
    Search
  14. to the affiant as a gambler. 393 U.S. at 393 U. S. 414 . For this proposition, the Court relied on Nathanson v. United
    Search
  15. not hold it irrelevant when supported by other information. This reading of Nathanson is confirmed by Brinegar v. United
    Search
  16. It may be that this informant's out-of-court declarations would not be admissible at respondent's trial under Donnelly v. United
    Search
  17. States, 228 U. S. 243 (1913), or under Bruton v. United
    Search
  18. cause for believing the occurrence of a crime and the secreting of evidence in specific premises. See Brinegar v. United
    Search
  19. The police themselves almost certainly knew his name, the truth of the affidavit is not in issue, and McCray v. Illinois
    Search
  20. BLACK, concurring. While I join the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE which distinguishes this case from Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  21. U. S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United
    Search
  22. and the judgment of the Court, but I add a personal comment in order to make very clear my posture as to Spinelli v. United
    Search
  23. opinion. I was a member of the 6-2 majority of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Spinelli v. United
    Search
  24. Draper v. United
    Search
  25. and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting. This case presents the question of how our decisions in Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  26. person generally and that he has based his particular conclusions in the matter at hand on reliable data, Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  27. Spinelli v. United
    Search
  28. has fulfilled his constitutional duty to render an independent determination that probable cause exists. Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  29. States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969). Cf. Giordenello v. United
    Search
  30. Nathanson v. United
    Search
  31. Berger v. New
    Search
  32. it is often criticized, is that declarations against penal interest do not fall within this exception. Donnelly v. United
    Search
  33. III of this opinion. A narrower view of Nathanson is said to be confirmed by reading Brinegar v. United
    Search
  34. Id. at 338 U. S. 170 . While it is true that Jones v. United
    Search
  35. requires that such conclusions be drawn, from the underlying facts and circumstances, by the magistrate, not the agent. v. The
    Search
  36. truth and (b) the affidavit apart from the tip is sufficiently informative to establish probable cause. See Spinelli v. United
    Search
  37. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Harris
    Search
  38. Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  39. Jones v. United
    Search
  40. of United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  41. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  42. Donnelly v. United
    Search
  43. Bruton v. United
    Search
  44. See Brinegar v. United
    Search
  45. and McCray v. Illinois
    Search
  46. and Spinelli v. United
    Search
  47. Cf. Giordenello v. United
    Search
  48. See Spinelli v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial