Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Michigan Vs. Long

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jul 06, 1983

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

80 entries 11 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. Abie State Bank Vs. Bryan US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1931
  2. Department of Motor Vehicles Vs. Rios US Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1973
    Distinguished
  3. Michigan Vs. Tyler US Supreme Court · May 31, 1978
  4. Pennsylvania Vs. Mimms US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1977
    Relied / Followed
  5. Fox Film Corp. Vs. Muller US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1935
  6. South Dakota Vs. Opperman US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  7. New York Vs. Belton US Supreme Court · Jul 01, 1981
  8. Delaware Vs. Prouse US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1979
  9. South Dakota Vs. Neville US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1983
  10. Durley Vs. Mayo US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1956
  11. County of Los Angeles Vs. Davis US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1979
  12. U.S. 1032 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Michigan v. Long
    Search
  13. U.S. 1032 (1983) Michigan v. Long
    Search
  14. of Appeals affirmed, holding that the search of the passenger compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  15. U. S. 1 , and that the search of the trunk was valid as an inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  16. opinion, post, p. 463 U. S. 1065 . JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  17. search under Terry, supra, and that the search of the trunk was valid as an inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  18. taken the strict view that, if the ground of decision was at all unclear, we would dismiss the case. See, e.g., Lynch v. New
    Search
  19. U. S. 52 (1934). In other instances, we have vacated, Page 463 U. S. 1039 see, e.g., Minnesota v. National
    Search
  20. Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 (1940), or continued a case, see, e.g., Herb v. Pitcairn
    Search
  21. U. S. 117 (1945), in order to obtain clarification about the nature of a state court decision. See also California v. Krivda
    Search
  22. to guide their application of state law or to provide the actual basis for the decision that was reached. See Texas v. Brown
    Search
  23. U. S. 730 , 460 U. S. 732 -733, n. 1 (1983) (plurality opinion). Cf. South Dakota v. Neville
    Search
  24. U. S. 553 , 459 U. S. 569 (1983) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). In Oregon v. Kennedy
    Search
  25. because of the delay and decrease in efficiency of judicial Page 463 U. S. 1040 administration, see Dixon v. Duffy
    Search
  26. burdens on state courts to demonstrate the presence or absence of our jurisdiction. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome
    Search
  27. jurisdiction to review a case that is alleged to rest on adequate and independent state grounds, see Abie State Bank v. Bryan
    Search
  28. he Court of Appeals erroneously applied the principles of Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  29. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard
    Search
  30. U.S. at 392 U. S. 21 (quoting Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  31. detentions involving suspects in vehicles are especially fraught with danger to police officers. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms
    Search
  32. Id. at 434 U. S. 110 . In Adams v. Williams
    Search
  33. access to weapons, even though they may not themselves be armed. In the Term following Terry, we decided Chimel v. California
    Search
  34. Ibid. In New York v. Belton
    Search
  35. U.S. at 453 U. S. 460 (footnote omitted). See also Michigan v. Summers
    Search
  36. to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. Coolidge v. New
    Search
  37. Texas v. Brown
    Search
  38. suspect in Long's position break away from police control and retrieve a weapon from his automobile. See United State v. Rainone
    Search
  39. he will be permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will then have access to any weapons inside. United States v. Powless
    Search
  40. of Appeals upheld the search of the trunk as a valid inventory search under this Court's decision in South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  41. because it was not passed upon by the Michigan Supreme Court, whose decision we review in this case. See Cardinale v. Louisiana
    Search
  42. trunk search was permissible under Opperman, supra, or other decisions of this Court. See, e.g., United States v. Ross
    Search
  43. Long for speeding or for driving while intoxicated, they could have searched the passenger compartment under New York v. Belton
    Search
  44. U. S. 454 (1981), and the trunk under United States v. Ross
    Search
  45. Chief Justice Coleman dissented, arguing that Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  46. that there was an available state ground for decision on which the state court could properly have relied. Beecher v. Alabama
    Search
  47. treat a normally adequate state ground as independent, and there will be no question about our jurisdiction. Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  48. U. S. 648 , 440 U. S. 653 (1979) (quoting Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard
    Search
  49. Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562 , 433 U. S. 568 (1977)). See also South Dakota v. Neville
    Search
  50. Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial