Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

illinois Vs. Lafayette

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 20, 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

41 entries 8 linked 33 unlinked
Show
  1. Delaware Vs. Prouse US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1979
  2. Chimel Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1969
  3. United States Vs. Rabinowitz US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1950
  4. South Dakota Vs. Opperman US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  5. United States Vs. Chadwick US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1977
  6. United States Vs. Edwards US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1974
  7. United States Vs. Martinez-fuerte US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  8. New York Vs. Belton US Supreme Court · Jul 01, 1981
  9. U.S. 640 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. Lafayette
    Search
  10. U.S. 640 (1983) Illinois v. Lafayette
    Search
  11. was held at which the State argued that the search of the shoulder bag was a valid inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  12. not a valid inventory of respondent's belongings. It purported to distinguish Page 462 U. S. 643 South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  13. that the inventory search constitutes a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement. See South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  14. supra. The Illinois court and respondent rely on United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  15. U. S. 1 (1977), and Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  16. We have held that, immediately upon arrest, an officer may lawfully search the person of an arrestee, United States v. Robinson
    Search
  17. he may also search the area within the arrestee's immediate control, Chimel v. California
    Search
  18. U. S. 752 (1969). We explained the basis for this doctrine in United States v. Robinson
    Search
  19. a prisoner's clothes before confining him, although that step would be rare. This was made clear in United States v. Edwards
    Search
  20. to protect against such risks arises independently of a particular officer's subjective concerns. See United States v. Robinson
    Search
  21. s shoulder bag prior to his incarceration. Our prior cases amply support this conclusion. In South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  22. means. In Cady v. Dombrowski
    Search
  23. Id. at 413 U. S. 447 . See also United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
    Search
  24. in deciding which containers or items may be searched and which must be sealed as a unit. Only recently, in New York v. Belton
    Search
  25. Id. at 453 U. S. 458 , quoting Dunaway v. New
    Search
  26. York, 442 U. S. 200 , 442 U. S. 213 -214 (1979). See also United States v. Ross
    Search
  27. See also United States v. Edwards
    Search
  28. U. S. 800 (1974). In that case, we addressed Cooper v. California
    Search
  29. to arrest must be justified by a need to remove weapons or prevent the destruction of evidence. See United States v. Robinson
    Search
  30. such a concern could not have justified the further step of searching the bag following its seizure. Cf. United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  31. U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. Lafayette
    Search
  32. See South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  33. and Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  34. United States v. Robinson
    Search
  35. See United States v. Robinson
    Search
  36. In South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  37. In Cady v. Dombrowski
    Search
  38. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  39. Cooper v. California
    Search
  40. Cf. United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  41. United States v. Ross
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial