Citation network
Walter Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 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
-
Walter v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 447 U.S. 649 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Walter v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 447 U.S. 649 (1980) Walter v. UnitedSearch
-
and there were no exigent circumstances. Cf. Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
and now reverse. Page 447 U. S. 653 In his concurrence in Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Even in the much-criticized case of United States v. RabinowitzSearch
-
See Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
United Page 447 U. S. 655 States v. ChadwickSearch
-
were acquired by the FBI excuse the failure to obtain a search warrant. It has, of course, been settled since Burdeau v. McDowellSearch
-
wrongdoing does not deprive the government of the right to use evidence that it has acquired lawfully. See Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Payton v. NewSearch
-
violated that Amendment. We therefore conclude that the rationale of MR JUSTICE STEWART's concurrence in Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Together with No. 79-148, Sanders et al. v. UnitedSearch
-
Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
of our First Amendment (as well as the prohibitions of the Fourth and the Fifth) reflect the teachings of Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
U. S. 476 , 379 U. S. 484 -485. See also Roaden v. KentuckySearch
-
Marron v. UnitedSearch
-
is delivered to a carrier, there could then be no expectation that the contents would remain private, cf. Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
CA2 1949), rev'd, 339 U. S. 339 U.S. 56. Judge Hand's view was ultimately vindicated in Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Court's decision in Rabinowitz. See also MR. JUSTICE STEWART's opinion concurring in the result in Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
could be so complete that there would be no additional search by the FBI when it reexamines the materials. Cf. Burdeau v. McDowellSearch
-
scope is inconsistent with traditional Fourth Amendment principles. Nor does it follow from our recognition in Burdeau v. McDowellSearch
-
U. S. 465 (1921), and Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
As the Court noted in Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
luggage even Page 447 U. S. 662 if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband. Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
Neither Burdeau v. McDowellSearch
-
nor Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
U.S. at 256 U. S. 475 . Similarly, in Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
dissenting. The Court at least preserves the integrity of the rule specifically recognized long ago in Burdeau v. McDowellSearch
-
and placed some reliance on, the observations of Judge William H. Webster in his dissenting opinion in United States v. HaesSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Walter v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
of United States v. RabinowitzSearch
-
States v. ChadwickSearch
-
See Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
of Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Roaden v. KentuckySearch
-
Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cf. Burdeau v. McDowellSearch
-
and Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
United States v. HaesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial