Citation network
Cardwell Vs. Lewis
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 17, 1974
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
- Relied / Followed
- Distinguished
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 583 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Cardwell v. LewisSearch
-
U.S. 583 (1974) Cardwell v. LewisSearch
-
Page 417 U. S. 584 (a) The primary object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy. Warden v. HaydenSearch
-
b) Generally, less stringent warrant requirements are applied to vehicles than to homes or offices, Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
a) The vehicle was seized from a public place, where access was not meaningfully restricted. Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
of the Court of Appeals, since respondent does not contend that he was denied that opportunity. See Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
first-degree murder of Paul Radcliffe. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. LewisSearch
-
Ohio St.2d 125, 258 N.E.2d 445 (1970). This Court denied review. Lewis v. OhioSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to search and seize is dependent upon the assertion of a superior government interest in property, see, e.g., Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 309 (1921), were explicitly rejected as controlling Fourth Amendment considerations in Warden v. HaydenSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 357 U. S. 493 , 357 U. S. 498 (1958). See also Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 410 U. S. 14 -15 (1973). At least since Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Generally, less stringent Page 417 U. S. 590 warrant requirements have been applied to vehicles. In Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
Almeida-Sanchez v. UnitedSearch
-
scrutiny. It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view. See People v. CaseSearch
-
Air Pollution Variance Board v. WesternSearch
-
provided reason to believe that the car was used in the commission of the crime for which Lewis was arrested. Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the seizure itself was not unreasonable. Respondent asserts that this case is indistinguishable from Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
the defendant's driveway, the seizure of that automobile required an entry upon private property. Here, as in Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
Coolidge plurality opinion distinguished Chambers, 403 U.S. at 403 U. S. 463 n. 20. See also Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
Husty v. UnitedSearch
-
Scher v. UnitedSearch
-
Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
U. S. 216 (1968). Cases decided since Chambers and that now might be added to the list include Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 433 (1973). See also Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 376 U. S. 364 , 376 U. S. 367 (1964). See also Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 , 403 U. S. 454 -455. See also Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
the subject of the seizure was an automobile. It is true, of course, that a line of decisions, beginning with Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Carroll, supra, at 267 U. S. 153 . See also Almeida-Sanchez v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cardwell v. LewisSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
See Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
State v. LewisSearch
-
Lewis v. OhioSearch
-
Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
In Chambers v. MaroneySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial