Citation network
Rawlings Vs. Kentucky
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1980
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. 98 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Rawlings v. KentuckySearch
-
U.S. 98 (1980) Rawlings v. KentuckySearch
-
concepts of property law do not control the ability to claim the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
Amendments by detaining petitioner and his companions in the house while they obtained a search warrant. Cf. Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
into Cox's purse. Id. at 350, citing Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
of the search of Cox's purse, the Supreme Court of Kentucky looked primarily to our then recent decision in Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
in the area searched. See Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
but also that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in that purse. See Page 448 U. S. 105 Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
testimony, petitioner had never sought or received access to her purse prior to that sudden bailment. Contrast Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 259 (1960). Nor did petitioner have any right to exclude other persons from access to Cox's purse. See Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
a reasonable inference that petitioner took normal precautions to maintain his privacy. Contrast United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
protections of the Fourth Amendment. See 439 U.S. at 439 U. S. 149 -150, n. 17. See also United States v. SalvucciSearch
-
admissions would not be necessary unless his statements were the result of his illegal detention. As we noted in Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
Id. at 422 U. S. 603 -604 (footnotes and citations omitted). See also Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
s belief about the scope of the warrant they obtained may well have been erroneous under our recent decision in Ybarra v. IllinoisSearch
-
level of conscious or flagrant misconduct requiring prophylactic exclusion of petitioner's statements. Contrast Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest, rather than vice versa. See Bailey v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BrownSearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. 113, 114, 463 F.2d 949, 950 (1972). See also Cupp v. MurphySearch
-
United States v. GormanSearch
-
to contest the legality of the search that uncovered the drugs. See Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960). Our decision today in United States v. SalvucciSearch
-
The reasonableness of seizures that are less intrusive than a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.' Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
Brown v. TexasSearch
-
separately to explain my somewhat different approach to the issues addressed in 448 U. S. In my view, Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
in the sense that both are to be addressed under the principles of Fourth Amendment analysis developed in Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
is an essential element of modern property rights. Kaiser Aetna v. UnitedSearch
-
as it must, that the search of the purse was unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see Ybarra v. IllinoisSearch
-
previous Fourth Amendment cases begins and ends -- as it must if it is to reach its desired conclusion -- with Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
searched, see Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
standing rule for persons charged with possessory offenses, which the Court overrules today, see United States v. SalvucciSearch
-
the Court has ignored Page 448 U. S. 116 a long tradition embodying the opposite view. United States v. JeffersSearch
-
Ibid. (emphasis supplied). Similarly, Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
id. at 362 U. S. 264 . Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 390 U. S. 391 (footnote omitted). See also Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
even though he is the owner of the seized property, was squarely rejected almost 30 years ago in United States v. JeffersSearch
-
violated turned on whether he had a property interest in the place searched or the items seized. Jones and Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Ante at 448 U. S. 105 . The Court also cites Katz v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial