Citation network
illinois Vs. Andreas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 05, 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
-
U.S. 765 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. AndreasSearch
-
U.S. 765 (1983) Illinois v. AndreasSearch
-
trial, the trial court granted respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana found in the table, relying on Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
U. S. 753 (1979), and United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
United States v. BulgierSearch
-
F.2d 472, 476 (CA7), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843 (1980). See also McConnell v. StateSearch
-
subject to the Warrant Clause. See Walter v. UnitedSearch
-
Amendment justification and who has probable cause to suspect that the item is connected with criminal activity. Texas v. BrownSearch
-
contents of the container is insufficient to create a protected interest in the privacy of the container. See Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
First, the standard should be workable for application by rank-and-file, trained police officers. See New York v. BeltonSearch
-
changed. Third, the standard should be objective, not dependent on the belief of individual police officers. See Terry v. OhioSearch
-
inspect packages they accept for shipment, based on their duty to refrain from carrying contraband. See United States v. PrybaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
prevents systematic inspection of all or even a large percentage of the cargo in their care, see, e.g., McConnell v. StateSearch
-
United States Government has the undoubted right to inspect all incoming goods at a port of entry, see United States v. RamseySearch
-
the private search by the carrier into a government search subject to the Fourth Amendment. E.g., United States v. EdwardsSearch
-
authorities are cooperating in an investigation, as here, the knowledge of one is presumed shared by all. See Whiteley v. WardenSearch
-
U. S. 798 , 456 U. S. 825 (1982), quoting Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 385 , 437 U. S. 390 (1978), in turn quoting Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
by the Fourth Amendment is the right to keep certain information beyond official scrutiny. See United States v. KnottsSearch
-
emphasis added). As Justice Brandeis put the matter in his dissent in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Alderman v. UnitedSearch
-
Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
as Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
In Lo-Ji Page 463 U. S. 777 Sales, Inc. v. NewSearch
-
its store open to them, petitioner had no legitimate expectation of privacy against governmental intrusion, see Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
to enter, it consents to wholesale searches and seizures that do not conform to Fourth Amendment guarantees. See Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 442 U. S. 329 . Cf. Walter v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 649 , 447 U. S. 660 -662 (1980) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). Similarly, in Michigan v. TylerSearch
-
legality of subsequent independent warrantless searches, let alone render them nonsearches. Cf. G. M. Leasing Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
We recognized in Payton v. NewSearch
-
premises to which access is not otherwise available for the seizing officer.' Ibid., quoting G. M. Leasing Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Texas v. BrownSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 392 U. S. 20 (1968). See United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
very least, a warrantless search was necessary to preserve the safety of law enforcement officers, see, e.g., Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
supra, (search incident to arrest), or to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence, see, e.g., Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
interest made it appropriate to allow a search based on something less than probable cause, see, e.g., Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
G. M. Leasing Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. AndreasSearch
-
Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
and United States v. ChadwickSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial