Citation network
Delaware Vs. Prouse
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 27, 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. 648 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
U.S. 648 (1979) Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents, cf. United States v. Brignoni-PonceSearch
-
on an independent and adequate state ground, and that we therefore have no jurisdiction in this case. Fox Film Corp. v. MullerSearch
-
uncertain that we should remand for clarification as to the ground upon which the judgment rested. California v. KrivdaSearch
-
Zacchini v. Scripps-HowardSearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. MayfieldSearch
-
Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. United States v. Martinez-FuerteSearch
-
Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Marshall v. Barlow'sSearch
-
Inc., 436 U. S. 307 , 436 U. S. 312 (1978), quoting Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
that either the automobile or its occupants are subject to seizure under the applicable criminal laws. In United State v. Brignoni-PonceSearch
-
U. S. 881 , the Court analogized the roving patrol stop to the on-the-street encounter addressed in Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Ibid. The constitutionality of stops by Border Patrol agents was again before the Court in United States v. Martinez-FuerteSearch
-
Id. at 894-895, quoted in United States v. Martinez-FuerteSearch
-
U.S. at 428 U. S. 558 . Page 440 U. S. 658 V ButSearch
-
insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent. Almeida-Sanchez v. UnitedSearch
-
of abuse of discretion, United States v. Martinez-FuerteSearch
-
because the automobile is subject to state regulation resulting in numerous instances of police-citizen contact, Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
regulatory restrictions is presumptively concurrent with participation in the regulated enterprise. See United States v. BiswellSearch
-
Colonnade Catering Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
he entered an automobile, the security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment would be seriously circumscribed. As Terry v. OhioSearch
-
sidewalks. Nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. See Adams v. WilliamsSearch
-
United States v. MontgomerySearch
-
People v. IngleSearch
-
State v. OchoaSearch
-
Commonwealth v. SwanerSearch
-
United States v. NicholasSearch
-
F.2d 622 (CA8 1971). See also United States v. CuppsSearch
-
State v. HolmberSearch
-
State v. AllenSearch
-
Palmore v. UnitedSearch
-
Leonard v. StateSearch
-
Myricks v. UnitedSearch
-
A.2d at 1362, citing State v. MooreSearch
-
Del. 356, 187 A.2d 807 (1963). Moore was decided less than two years after Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
We have found only one case decided after State v. MooreSearch
-
but also state statutory requirements for issuance of a search warrant. Rossitto v. StateSearch
-
Amendment and simultaneously concludes that the search or seizure is contrary to that provision. See, e.g., Young v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
California v. KrivdaSearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. MayfieldSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial