Citation network
Williams Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 05, 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
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
States - 401 U.S. 646 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 401 U.S. 646 (1971) Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
arrest was introduced into evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the intervening decision in Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Constitution does not require that pre- Chimel searches be measured by the new Chimel standards, Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join. The principal question in these cases is whether Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
a 10-year prison term. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
that our intervening decision in Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and (2) that the search was valid under pre- Chimel law evidenced by United States v. RabinowitzSearch
-
U. S. 56 (1950), and Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
the arrest was invalid. Both the arrest and the incident search were upheld at trial and on direct appeal, Elkanich v. UnitedSearch
-
Chimel is not retroactive and is not applicable to searches conducted prior to the decision in that case. Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 394 U. S. 244 (1969). In Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
U. S. 618 (1965), we declined to give complete retroactive effect to the exclusionary rule of Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
In these situations, the new doctrine raises no question about the guilt of defendants convicted in prior trials. Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
it from criminal trials to deter official invasions of individual privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), overruled Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928), and Goldman Page 401 U. S. 654 v. UnitedSearch
-
benefit of Chimel. We are also unmoved by the argument that, since the petitioners in cases like Mapp, Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
set aside. Surely this is the tail wagging the dog. The argument was fairly met and adequately disposed of in Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
While joining the plurality opinion, MR. JUSTICE STEWART would also affirm the judgment in No. 82, Elkanich v. UnitedSearch
-
See Harris v. NelsonSearch
-
Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 54 (concurring opinion). MR. JUSTICE BLACK, while adhering to his opinion in Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
U. S. 618 , 381 U. S. 640 (1965), concurs in the result on the ground that he believes that Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Together with No. 82, Elkanich v. UnitedSearch
-
Appeals correctly rejected Williams' claim that his arrest was a pretext to make an otherwise invalid search. Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Many of the cases are discussed in the majority and dissenting opinions in Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
rejecting the distinction between cases pending on direct review and those on collateral attack, the Court in Johnson v. NewSearch
-
Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
Arsenault v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 5 (1968) (giving retroactive effect to the right to counsel provided in White v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 2 (1968) (giving retroactive effect to the right to counsel provided in Mempa v. RhaySearch
-
U. S. 314 (1969) (giving retroactive effect to Barber v. PageSearch
-
U. S. 293 (1968) (giving retroactive effect to Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
with trustworthy results than does the exclusionary rule designed to enforce the Fourth Amendment. See Tehan v. ShottSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial