Citation network
South Dakota Vs. Opperman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 06, 1976
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 364 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
U.S. 364 (1976) South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
expectation of privacy in one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office, Cardwell v. LewisSearch
-
and thus within the reach of the Fourth Amendment, Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
of automobiles have been upheld in circumstances in which a search of a home or office would not. Cardwell v. LewisSearch
-
such exigency that, as a practical necessity, rigorous enforcement of the warrant requirement is impossible. Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
searches where no immediate danger was presented that the car would be removed from the jurisdiction. Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
brought into frequent contact with automobiles. Most of this contact is distinctly noncriminal in nature. Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody, United States v. MitchellSearch
-
the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, United States v. KeleharSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and the protection of the police from potential danger, Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 61 -62. The practice has been viewed as essential to respond to incidents of theft or vandalism. See Cabbler v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Warrix v. StateSearch
-
the Page 428 U. S. 371 intrusion is constitutionally permissible. See, e.g., City of St. Paul v. MylesSearch
-
State v. TullySearch
-
People v. TrustySearch
-
People v. SullivanSearch
-
Cabbler v. CommonwealthSearch
-
State v. WallenSearch
-
State v. CriscolaSearch
-
State v. MontagueSearch
-
People v. ClarkSearch
-
State v. AchterSearch
-
Bennett v. StateSearch
-
People v. WillisSearch
-
State v. AllSearch
-
Godbee v. StateSearch
-
Even the seminal state decision relied on by the South Dakota Supreme Court in reaching the contrary result, Mozzetti v. SuperiorSearch
-
United States v. GravittSearch
-
cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1135 (1974) (emphasis in original). Page 428 U. S. 372 See also Cabbler v. SuperintendentSearch
-
Barker v. JohnsonSearch
-
United States v. MitchellSearch
-
United States v. LipscombSearch
-
United States v. PenningtonSearch
-
Cotton v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 371 F.2d 385 (CA9 1967). Accord, Lowe v. HopperSearch
-
United States v. SpitalieriSearch
-
United States v. SmithSearch
-
of the glove compartment, since it is a customary place for documents of ownership and registration, United States v. PenningtonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
of the Fourth Amendment, Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. KeleharSearch
-
See Cabbler v. CommonwealthSearch
-
City of St. Paul v. MylesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial