Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Ramsey

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 06, 1977

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

72 entries 8 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Doe US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1984
  2. Terry Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  3. Stanford Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1965
  4. Helvering Vs. Reynolds US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  5. Greene Vs. Mcelroy US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1959
  6. Cotzhausen Vs. Nazro US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1883
  7. United States Vs. Biswell US Supreme Court · May 15, 1972
  8. United States Vs. Santana US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1976
  9. U.S. 606 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Ramsey
    Search
  10. U.S. 606 (1977) United States v. Ramsey
    Search
  11. imposed by the Fourth Amendment as a requirement for the issuance of warrants. See United States v. King
    Search
  12. Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  13. we are left simply with the question of whether the search, nevertheless violated the Constitution. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  14. which proposed the Fourth Amendment is, we think, manifest. This Court so concluded almost a century ago. In Boyd v. United
    Search
  15. within the meaning of that Amendment, has been faithfully adhered to by this Court. Carroll v. United
    Search
  16. Emphasis supplied.) More recently, we noted this longstanding history in United States v. Thirty-seven
    Search
  17. Finally, citing Carroll and Boyd, this Court stated in Almeida-Sanchez v. United
    Search
  18. of Berne, 19 Stat. 604, which prohibited the importation of letters which might contain dutiable items. Cotzhausen v. Nazro
    Search
  19. The contrary view of the Court of Appeals and respondents stems, we think, from an erroneous reading of Carroll v. United
    Search
  20. exception treated in United States v. Robinson
    Search
  21. U. S. 218 , 414 U. S. 224 (1973). We think that the language in Carroll v. United
    Search
  22. clear. The Carroll Court Page 431 U. S. 622 quoted verbatim the above-quoted language from Boyd v. United
    Search
  23. to take an expansive view of the border search exception or the authority of the Boarder Patrol. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  24. Almeida-Sanchez v. United
    Search
  25. United States v. Martnez-Fuerte
    Search
  26. United States v. Biswell
    Search
  27. class mail may be opened, pursuant to a border search, without probable cause and without a warrant. United States v. Milroy
    Search
  28. United States v. King
    Search
  29. United States v. Barclift
    Search
  30. United States v. Bolin
    Search
  31. United States v. Odland
    Search
  32. indicated that the opening of international letter-class mail should be governed by the same standards. United States v. Doe
    Search
  33. F.2d 982 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Rodriguez v. United
    Search
  34. United States v. Beckley
    Search
  35. F.2d 86 (CA6 1964), cert. denied sub nom. Stone v. United
    Search
  36. States, 380 U.S. 922 (1965). The First Circuit has reserved the question of letters. United States v. Emery
    Search
  37. to them. The Government, however, did not raise the issue below, and consequently we do not reach it. United States v. Santana
    Search
  38. the statute has long since been interpreted otherwise. Cotzhausen v. Nazro
    Search
  39. the question, recently addressed in other contexts, of the geographical limits to border searches. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  40. subjects such mail to customs inspection at a place other than the point of entry into this country. See United States v. King
    Search
  41. because of the particularly offensive manner in which it is carried out. Cf. Kremen v. United
    Search
  42. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  43. The opinion in Carroll v. United
    Search
  44. d). See also United States v. King
    Search
  45. were, whether the appropriate response would be to apply the full panoply of Fourth Amendment requirements. Cf. Roaden v. Kentucky
    Search
  46. U. S. 476 , 379 U. S. 485 (1965). In Wolff v. McDonnell
    Search
  47. NLRB v. Bell
    Search
  48. adequate for over a century, then these matters should be brought to the attention of Congress. Cf. H. K. Porter Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  49. U. S. 420 , 363 U. S. 430 . Cf. Ashwander v. Tennessee
    Search
  50. This was the procedure followed by the customs officials in Cotzhausen v. Nazro
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial