Citation network
Arkansas Vs. Sanders
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 1979
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
-
U.S. 753 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
U.S. 753 (1979) Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
before searching luggage taken from an automobile properly stopped and searched for contraband. Cf. United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
from the warrant requirement, as set forth in Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Court of Arkansas to resolve some apparent misunderstanding as to the application of our decision in United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
obtained through an unlawful search of the suitcase. 262 Ark. 595, 559 S.W.2d 704 (1977). Relying upon United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
supra, and Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
without a warrant, even though it had been loaded into the trunk of an automobile parked at a curb. United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
circumstances, is not a substitute for the judicial warrant required under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
States District Court, supra. As the Court said in Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 14 (1948), we minimize the risk of unreasonable assertions of executive authority. See McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
in the application of the general rule that a valid warrant is a prerequisite for a search. See United States v. Martinez-FuerteSearch
-
of loss or destruction of evidence, outweigh the reasons for prior recourse to a neutral magistrate. See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 48 , 342 U. S. 51 (1951). See Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the reach of each exception to that which is necessary to accommodate the identified needs of society. See Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
highway because they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. See United States v. Martinez-FuerteSearch
-
Texas v. WhiteSearch
-
U. S. 67 , 423 U. S. 68 (1975). As the Court said in Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
the inherent mobility of automobiles often makes it impracticable to obtain a warrant. See, e.g., United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property. See Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
Almeida-Sanchez v. UnitedSearch
-
the vehicle, searching it on the spot, and seizing the suitcase they suspected contained contraband. See Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
Rather, the decisions to date have involved searches of some integral part of the automobile. See, e.g., South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
Compare United States v. FinneganSearch
-
F.2d 637, 641-642 (CA9 1977), with United States v. StevieSearch
-
The Fourth Amendment has been made fully applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
Cf. United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
and Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
See McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. Martinez-FuerteSearch
-
See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
See Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial