Citation network
Coolidge Vs. New Hampshire
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 21, 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
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire - 403 U.S. 443 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
made before the car was taken to the police station, and the special exceptions for automobile searches in Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
States, 267 U. S. 132 , and Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
U. S. 42 , are clearly inapplicable. Cf. Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
the issuance of the warrant were so conclusory as to violate relevant constitutional standards. Cf. Giordenello v. UnitedSearch
-
the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is that of Mr. Justice Jackson, writing for the Court in Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. United States v. LefkowitzSearch
-
Giordenello v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, at 357 U. S. 486 . Wong Sun v. PageSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Mancusi v. DeForteSearch
-
noncompliance with the warrant procedure an irrelevance, Page 403 U. S. 451 it is enough to cite Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the States under the Fourteenth. This position was premised on a passage from the opinion of this Court in Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
rather, it echoed the sentiment of Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
and Fourteenth Amendments -- a premise fully developed and articulated long before this Court's decisions in Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
supra, and Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 643 . As Mr. Justice Frankfurter put it in Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Justice Bradley's admonition in his opinion for the Court almost a century ago in Boyd Page 403 U. S. 454 v. UnitedSearch
-
is met. Whiteley v. WardenSearch
-
in 1964, we assess the State's argument Page 403 U. S. 456 in terms of the law as it existed before Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
exception to the warrant requirement, but did so only prospectively. Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
law, the State's position is untenable. The leading case in the area before Chimel was United States v. RabinowitzSearch
-
U. S. 30 , 399 U. S. 33 , quoting from Shipley v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 818 , 395 U. S. 819 , quoting from Stoner v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 483 , 376 U. S. 486 . (Emphasis in Shipley. ) Cf. Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
James v. LouisianaSearch
-
that the police might have searched the Pontiac in the driveway when they arrested Coolidge in the house, Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 376 U. S. 367 . Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U. S. 216 . Cf. Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
theory put forward by the State to justify a warrantless seizure and search of the Pontiac car is that, under Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
search of an automobile whenever they have probable cause to do so, and, under our decision last Term in Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
U. S. 462 And surely there is nothing in this case to invoke the meaning and purpose of the rule of Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Rather, this case is controlled by Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
on Coolidge's property because it was in plain view. Supposing the seizure to be thus lawful, the case of Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial