Citation network
New York Vs. Belton
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 454 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court New York v. BeltonSearch
-
U.S. 454 (1981) New York v. BeltonSearch
-
within the meaning of Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and found that it contained marihuana. After giving the arrestees the warnings required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
his claim that the cocaine had been seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Lefkowitz v. NewsomeSearch
-
McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 335 U. S. 451 , 335 U. S. 456 . Specifically, the Court held in Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 763 . The Court's opinion in Chimel emphasized the principle that, as the Court had said in Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Quoted in Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 200 , 442 U. S. 213 -214. Page 453 U. S. 459 So it was that, in United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
the automobile after the arrestees are no longer in it. On the one hand, decisions in cases such as United States v. SandersSearch
-
and United States v. FrickSearch
-
have upheld such warrantless searches as incident to lawful arrests. On the other hand, in cases such as United States v. BensonSearch
-
F.2d 1336 (CA8 1980), and United States v. RigalesSearch
-
United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
neither a weapon nor evidence of the criminal conduct for which the suspect was arrested. However, in United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
U.S. at 414 U. S. 235 . The New York Court of Appeals relied upon United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
U. S. 1 , and Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
the constitutionality of searches of luggage incident to the arrest of its possessor. See, e.g., United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
The state court cases are in similar disarray. Compare, e.g., Hinkel v. AnchorageSearch
-
P.2d 1069 (Alaska 1980), with Ulesky v. StateSearch
-
The validity of the custodial arrest of Belton has not been questioned in this case. Cf. Gustafson v. FloridaSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concurring. Because it is apparent that a majority of the Court is unwilling to overrule Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
in its disposition of this case, ante at 453 U. S. 462 -463, n. 6, see Robbins v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Court. JUSTICE STEVENS concurring in the judgment. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Robbins v. CaliforniaSearch
-
this judgment should be reversed. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting. In Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of Fourth Amendment analysis that exceptions to the warrant requirement are to be narrowly construed. Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 392 U. S. 19 (1968), quoting Warden v. HaydenSearch
-
U. S. 294 , 387 U. S. 310 (1967) (Fortas, J., concurring). See Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
on the reasons supporting the exception, rather than on any bright-line rule of general application. See Sibron v. NewSearch
-
Preston v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 818 , 395 U. S. 819 (1969), quoting Stoner v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 483 , 376 U. S. 486 (1964). See United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
at that point, there is no possibility that the arrestee could reach weapons or contraband. See Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court New York v. BeltonSearch
-
of Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial