Citation network
United States Vs. United States Dist. Ct.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1972
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
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
States Dist. Ct. - 407 U.S. 297 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. UnitedSearch
-
States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297 (1972) United States v. UnitedSearch
-
III was drawn to meet the constitutional requirements for electronic surveillance enunciated by this Court in Berger v. NewSearch
-
York, 388 U. S. 41 (1967), and Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
the necessity of obtaining a warrant in the surveillance of crimes unrelated to the national security interest. Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Berger v. NewSearch
-
derives content and meaning Page 407 U. S. 310 through reference to the warrant clause. Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
become so disordered that all rights and liberties would be endangered. As Chief Justice Hughes reminded us in Cox v. NewSearch
-
the Fourth Amendment is directed, its broader spirit now shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance. Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire, 403 U.S. at 403 U. S. 481 . See also United States v. RabinowitzSearch
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Leach v. ThreeSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
review by a neutral and detached magistrate is the time-tested means of effectuating Fourth Amendment rights. Beck v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 96 (1964). It is true that there have been some exceptions to the warrant requirement. Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
interest to be enforced and the nature of citizen rights deserving protection. As the Court said in Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
was unlawful, because conducted without prior judicial approval, the courts below correctly held that Alderman v. UnitedSearch
-
This view has not been accepted. In Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
impermissible in domestic security cases, may be constitutional where foreign powers are involved, see United States v. SmithSearch
-
Justice, Electronic Surveillance 120, 121 (Approved Draft 1971, and Feb.19-71 Supp. 11). See also United States v. ClaySearch
-
caller who uses or telephones into a tapped line can become a flagged number in the Government's data bank. See Laird v. TatumSearch
-
hazards of police intrusions which did not receive prior sanction by independent magistrates. For example, in Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
and Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 752 , entire homes were ransacked pursuant to warrantless searches. Indeed, in Kremen v. UnitedSearch
-
to an arrest of its occupant and were taken to San Francisco for study by FBI agents. In a similar case, Von Cleef v. NewSearch
-
Id. at 395 U. S. 815 . In Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 251 U. S. 390 , 251 U. S. 391 . In Stanford v. TexasSearch
-
use of general warrants and the writs of assistance that led to the ratification of the Fourth Amendment. In Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Id. at 1063. In a related and similar proceeding, Huckle v. MoneySearch
-
Wilkes v. WoodSearch
-
How.St.Tr. 1153, 98 Eng.Rep. 489 (1763). As early as Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 116 U. S. 616 , 116 U. S. 626 , and as recently as Stanford v. TexasSearch
-
and Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Ariz.L.Rev. 457, 460 476 (1969). As illustrated by a flood of cases before us this Term, e.g., Laird v. TatumSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. UnitedSearch
-
and Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Cox v. NewSearch
-
Beck v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial