Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Couch Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 09, 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

70 entries 6 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  2. Miranda Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1966
  3. Burdeau Vs. Mcdowell US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1921
  4. Gardner Vs. Broderick US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  5. Counselman Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1892
  6. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  7. Couch v. United
    Search
  8. States - 409 U.S. 322 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Couch v. United
    Search
  9. States, 409 U.S. 322 (1973) Couch v. United
    Search
  10. In Donaldson v. United
    Search
  11. against compulsory self-incrimination has often been stated by this Court, and need not be elaborated. Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  12. part of the State to resort to the expedient of compelling incriminating evidence from one's own mouth. United States v. White
    Search
  13. Ullmann v. United
    Search
  14. States, 350 U. S. 422 , 350 U. S. 428 (1956). Page 409 U. S. 328 In Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  15. Johnson v. United
    Search
  16. Holt v. United
    Search
  17. is involved. Schmerber v. California
    Search
  18. of law enforcement and tax investigation. Page 409 U. S. 330 III Petitioner's reliance on Boyd v. United
    Search
  19. Hill v. Philpott
    Search
  20. United States v. Judson
    Search
  21. United States v. White
    Search
  22. Page 409 U. S. 332 In Perlman v. United
    Search
  23. privilege exists under federal law, and no state-created privilege has been recognized in federal cases, Falsone v. United
    Search
  24. Gariepy v. United
    Search
  25. Himmelfarb v. United
    Search
  26. Olender v. United
    Search
  27. or Fifth Amendment purposes, an expectation of protected privacy or confidentiality. v. The
    Search
  28. Lillian v. Couch
    Search
  29. of the parties became fixed when the summons was served, and the transfer did not alter them. See United States v. Zakutansky
    Search
  30. United States v. Lyon
    Search
  31. United States v. Cohen
    Search
  32. in the instant case. It is true, as petitioner argues, that the case turns somewhat on a discussion of governmental v. private
    Search
  33. Id. at 256 U. S. 476 . In Johnson v. United
    Search
  34. Schwimmer v. United
    Search
  35. a grand jury proceeding against a corporation where the attorney had stored his office files. See also United States v. Guterma
    Search
  36. See n 6, supra. The summons satisfied the requirements in United States v. Powell
    Search
  37. as explained above, the necessary expectation of privacy to launch a valid Fourth Amendment claim does not exist. Katz v. United
    Search
  38. records over to a third person for custodial safekeeping rather than disclosure of the information, United States v. Guterma
    Search
  39. F.2d 344 (CA2 1959), cf. Schwimmer v. United
    Search
  40. to one who turns records over to a third person at the inducement of the Government, Stuart v. United
    Search
  41. Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  42. Comm'n, 378 U. S. 52 , 378 U. S. 55 (1964), quoting United States v. Grunewald
    Search
  43. tool of the ever-widening governmental invasion and oversight of our private lives. As I urged in dissent in Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  44. cannot be pigeonholed within one amendment or the other, thereby foreclosing consideration of related policies. Boyd v. United
    Search
  45. in Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  46. We confirmed in Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  47. Page 409 U. S. 341 I defined what I believe to be the boundaries of this right to privacy in Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  48. more discussion than to note that we have not tolerated such penalties in the past. Cf. Uniformed Sanitation Men v. Commissioner
    Search
  49. not places, under the Fourth Amendment, Katz v. United
    Search
  50. States, 389 U. S. 347 , 389 U. S. 353 . And, as already noted, Boyd v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial