Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Robbins Vs. California

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jul 01, 1981

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

65 entries 4 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Arkansas Vs. Sanders US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1979
  2. Chambers Vs. Maroney US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1970
  3. South Dakota Vs. Opperman US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
    Relied / Followed
  4. United States Vs. Chadwick US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1977
  5. U.S. 420 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Robbins v. California
    Search
  6. U.S. 420 (1981) Robbins v. California
    Search
  7. is constitutionally protected to the same extent as are closed pieces of luggage found anywhere else. United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  8. vacated the Court of Appeal's judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  9. a neutral magistrate a warrant that satisfies the terms of the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Katz v. United
    Search
  10. Agnello v. United
    Search
  11. Katz v. United
    Search
  12. See Colorado v. Bannister
    Search
  13. U. S. 1 . In Carroll Page 453 U. S. 424 v. United
    Search
  14. container found inside an automobile. Each time, the Court has refused to accept the suggestion. In United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  15. the Court has sometimes approved warrantless searches in which the automobile's mobility was irrelevant. See Cady v. Dombrowski
    Search
  16. and contents travel in plain view, and that automobiles are necessarily highly regulated by government. United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  17. pieces of luggage are hidden from view, and luggage is not generally subject to state regulation. In Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  18. pieces of sturdy luggage, like suitcases, and flimsier containers, like cardboard boxes. Compare, e.g., United States v. Benson
    Search
  19. United States v. Miller
    Search
  20. United States v. Presler
    Search
  21. United States v. Meier
    Search
  22. United States v. Johnson
    Search
  23. United States v. Stevie
    Search
  24. F.2d 1175 (CA8 1978), with United States v. Mannino
    Search
  25. United States v. Goshorn
    Search
  26. United States v. Gooch
    Search
  27. United State v. Mackey
    Search
  28. United States v. Neumann
    Search
  29. task might be accomplished. What one person may put into a suitcase, another may put into a paper bag. United States v. Ross
    Search
  30. In particular, it is not argued that the opening of the packages was incident to a lawful custodial arrest. Cf. Chimel v. California
    Search
  31. U. S. 752 . See Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  32. in the judgment. The Court's judgment is justified, though not compelled, by the Court's opinion in Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  33. to simple mechanical rules so that the constable has a fighting chance not to blunder. This case and New York v. Belton
    Search
  34. situation of an encounter between an arresting officer and a suspect apprehended on the public highway. While Chimel v. California
    Search
  35. automobile enjoy only a limited expectation of privacy in the interior of the automobile itself. See Almeida-Sanchez v. United
    Search
  36. This limited interest is diminished further when the occupants are placed under custodial arrest. Cf. United States v. Robinson
    Search
  37. Sanders, 442 U.S. at 442 U. S. 764 . See, e. United States v. Mannino
    Search
  38. United States v. Mackey
    Search
  39. must undertake to determine whether a search violates the Fourth Amendment rights of a complaining party. See Rakas v. Illinois
    Search
  40. Katz v. United
    Search
  41. upon simple mischance. A prudent officer will err on the side of respecting ambiguous assertions of privacy, see Rakas v. Illinois
    Search
  42. officer in the field when the public consequently must suffer from the suppression of probative evidence, cf. Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  43. warrant required for postal inspectors to open sealed packages sent through mail). See also United States v. Van
    Search
  44. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting. I must dissent for the reasons stated in my respective writings in United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  45. U. S. 1 , 433 U. S. 17 (1977), and Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Robbins v. California
    Search
  47. of Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  48. In United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  49. See Cady v. Dombrowski
    Search
  50. In Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial