Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cady Vs. Dombrowski

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 21, 1973

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

65 entries 4 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Chambers Vs. Maroney US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1970
  2. Cooper Vs. California US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1967
  3. Wolf Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
    Distinguished
  4. District of Columbia Vs. Little US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1950
  5. U.S. 433 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Cady v. Dombrowski
    Search
  6. U.S. 433 (1973) Cady v. Dombrowski
    Search
  7. was standard police procedure to protect the public from a weapon's possibly falling into improper hands. Preston v. United
    Search
  8. Harris v. United
    Search
  9. first-degree murder of Herbert McKinney and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was upheld on appeal, State v. Dombrowski
    Search
  10. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that one of the searches was unconstitutional under Preston v. United
    Search
  11. State v. Dombrowski
    Search
  12. Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  13. Court, 387 U. S. 523 , 387 U. S. 528 -529 (1967). See Coolidge v. New
    Search
  14. U. S. 42 , 399 U. S. 52 (1970). See Carroll v. Page
    Search
  15. U. S. 440 United States, 267 U. S. 132 , 267 U. S. 153 -154 (1925). In Cooper v. California
    Search
  16. suggest that this branch of the law is something less than a seamless web. Since this Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  17. U. S. 643 (1961), which overruled Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  18. involves the detection or investigation of crimes unrelated to the operation of a vehicle. Cases such as Carroll v. United
    Search
  19. States, supra, and Brinegar v. United
    Search
  20. searches of automobiles by federal officers was concerned, was the vagrant and mobile nature of the former, Carroll v. United
    Search
  21. Brinegar v. United
    Search
  22. Coolidge v. New
    Search
  23. s being removed Page 413 U. S. 442 or evidence in it destroyed were remote, if not nonexistent. See Harris v. United
    Search
  24. States, 390 U. S. 234 (1968) (District of Columbia police), Cooper v. California
    Search
  25. of evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime, or contraband. Cf. United States v. Biswell
    Search
  26. The Court of Appeals relied, and respondent now relies, primarily on Preston v. United
    Search
  27. for the proposition that the search challenged there could not be justified as one incident to an arrest. See Chambers v. Maroney
    Search
  28. that the instant case is controlled by principles Page 413 U. S. 445 that may be extrapolated from Harris v. United
    Search
  29. States, supra, and Cooper v. California
    Search
  30. Thunderbird was not parked adjacent Page 413 U. S. 447 to the dwelling place of the owner, as in Coolidge v. New
    Search
  31. means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable. Cf. Chambers v. Maroney
    Search
  32. in those cases where a warrant is not required. Very little that has been said in our previous decisions, see Cooper v. California
    Search
  33. Harris v. United
    Search
  34. Chambers v. Maroney
    Search
  35. valid because the entire car had been validly seized as evidence and impounded pursuant to a valid warrant, cf. Harris v. United
    Search
  36. search of the back seat of this car, located as it was in an open field, required a search warrant at all. See Hester v. United
    Search
  37. of privacy, with the specific intent of discovering evidence of a crime, constitutes a search. Compare Haerr v. United
    Search
  38. States, 240 F.2d 533 (CA5 1957), with District of Columbia v. Little
    Search
  39. U.S.App.D.C. 242, 178 F.2d 13 (1949), aff'd on other grounds, 339 U. S. 1 (1950). But see Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  40. petitioner relies on our decision in Harris v. United
    Search
  41. Fourth Amendment unless within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Almeida-Sanchez v. United
    Search
  42. Katz v. United
    Search
  43. the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Carroll v. United
    Search
  44. States, 267 U. S. 132 , 267 U. S. 153 (1925). See also Coolidge v. New
    Search
  45. Dyke v. Taylor
    Search
  46. is simply irrelevant. Coolidge v. New
    Search
  47. Carroll v. United
    Search
  48. Another established exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a valid arrest. Chimel v. California
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Cady v. Dombrowski
    Search
  50. Preston v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial