Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Mendenhall

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 27, 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

63 entries 5 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Terry Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  2. United States Vs. Brignoni-ponce US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1975
  3. United States Vs. Martinez-fuerte US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  4. Schneckloth Vs. Bustamonte US Supreme Court · May 29, 1973
  5. Delaware Vs. Prouse US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1979
  6. U.S. 544 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  7. U.S. 544 (1980) United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  8. from high school, and was a Negro accosted by white officers, while not irrelevant, were not decisive. Cf. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  9. and asking to see her ticket and identification was a permissible investigative stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  10. U. S. 1 , and United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  11. the court concludes that this case is indistinguishable from United States v McCaleb
    Search
  12. Katz v. United
    Search
  13. and thus was excepted from the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  14. including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. Mississippi
    Search
  15. person and an encounter that intrudes upon no constitutionally protected interest is illustrated by the facts of Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  16. Ibid. Similarly, the Court in Sibron v. New
    Search
  17. York, 392 U. S. 40 , a case decided the same day as Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  18. escape prosecution, and many crimes would go unsolved. In short, the security of all would be diminished. Haynes v. Washington
    Search
  19. use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. See Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  20. Dunaway v. Page
    Search
  21. was it enough to establish a seizure that the person asking the questions was a law enforcement official. See Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  22. inquiry, for the voluntariness of her responses does not depend upon her having been so informed. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  23. statement was self-protective, but rather whether it was made voluntarily. The Court's decision last Term in Brown v. Texas
    Search
  24. s decisions involving investigatory stops of automobiles do not point in any different direction. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  25. the former amounts to a seizure tells very little about the constitutional status of the latter. See also Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  26. quoting Sibron v. New
    Search
  27. the record, the Court of Appeals was mistaken in substituting for that finding its view of the evidence. See Jackson v. United
    Search
  28. of duress or coercion, express or implied, is to be determined by the totality of all the circumstances, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  29. and is a matter which the Government has the burden of proving. Id. at 412 U. S. 222 , citing Bumper v. North
    Search
  30. unusually threatened by the officers, who were white males. While these factors were not irrelevant, see Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  31. citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  32. the Court ordinarily does not consider matters neither raised before nor decided by the courts below, see Adickes v. Kress
    Search
  33. Co., 398 U. S. 144 , 398 U. S. 147 , n. 2, it has done so in exceptional circumstances. See Youakim v. Miller
    Search
  34. Duignan v. United
    Search
  35. by the questions presented in the petition for certiorari. This Court's Rule 23(1)(c). See Procunier v. Navarette
    Search
  36. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University
    Search
  37. legal characterization of the facts appearing in the record is a matter for this Court to determine. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  38. Bumper v. North
    Search
  39. office, where a body search conducted by a female police officer revealed two plastic bags of heroin. II Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  40. the objective facts upon which the law enforcement officer relied in light of his knowledge and expertise. See Brown v. Texas
    Search
  41. Miami, or New York), agents pay particular attention to passengers who arrive from those places. See United States v. Van
    Search
  42. Brown v. Texas
    Search
  43. and the behavior of a suspect who appears to be evading police contact. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  44. Ante at 446 U. S. 553 , quoting Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  45. For example, in Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  47. Cf. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  48. of Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  49. and United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  50. United States v. McCaleb
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial