Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Place

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

61 entries 6 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Chadwick US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1977
  2. Michigan Vs. Summers US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1981
  3. United States Vs. Cortez US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1981
  4. United States Vs. Brignoni-ponce US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1975
  5. United States Vs. Mendenhall US Supreme Court · May 27, 1980
  6. Kolender Vs. Lawson US Supreme Court · May 02, 1983
  7. U.S. 696 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Place
    Search
  8. U.S. 696 (1983) United States v. Place
    Search
  9. the prolonged seizure of respondent's luggage exceeded the limits of the type of investigative stop permitted by Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  10. The District Court denied the motion. Page 462 U. S. 700 Applying the standard of Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  11. Marron v. United
    Search
  12. circumstances demand it or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present. See, e.g., Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  13. Coolidge v. New
    Search
  14. Payton v. New
    Search
  15. Page 462 U. S. 702 warrant may be obtained outweighs the interest in possession. See also G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United
    Search
  16. quickly confirm or dispel the authorities' suspicion. Specifically, we are asked to apply the principles of Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  17. That implicit proposition was embraced openly in Adams v. Williams
    Search
  18. s tip that the suspect was carrying Page 462 U. S. 703 narcotics and a concealed weapon. See also Michigan v. Summers
    Search
  19. in seizing the luggage briefly to pursue further investigation is substantial. We agree. As observed in United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  20. U.S. at 392 U. S. 22 . Similarly, in Michigan v. Summers
    Search
  21. U.S. at 452 U. S. 702 -703. Cf. Florida v. Royer
    Search
  22. it to the sniff test -- no matter how brief -- could not be justified on less than probable cause. See Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  23. Adams v. Williams
    Search
  24. of seizures longer than the momentary ones involved in Terry, Adams, and Brignoni-Ponce, see Michigan v. Summers
    Search
  25. for the prolonged 90-minute period involved here and cannot do so on the facts presented by this case. See Dunaway v. New
    Search
  26. Respondent Place cross-petitioned in this Court on the issue of reasonable suspicion, and we denied certiorari. Place v. United
    Search
  27. the search. Id. at 442 U. S. 766 . That holding was not affected by our recent decision in United States v. Ross
    Search
  28. U. S. 544 , 446 U. S. 561 -562 (1980). See Florida v. Royer
    Search
  29. One need only compare the facts of this case with those in United States v. Van
    Search
  30. Cf. Florida v. Royer
    Search
  31. stop of respondent under Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  32. Street v. New
    Search
  33. the exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement created by Terry and its progeny. See Florida v. Royer
    Search
  34. Id. at 392 U. S. 21 , quoting Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  35. U.S. at 392 U. S. 30 . In Adams v. Williams
    Search
  36. Ibid. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  37. U.S. at 422 U. S. 881 -882. See also Page 462 U. S. 714 Ybarra v. Illinois
    Search
  38. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  39. the police with a commission to employ whatever investigative techniques they deem appropriate. As I stated in Florida v. Royer
    Search
  40. U.S. at 460 U. S. 510 (concurring in result), quoting Dunaway v. New
    Search
  41. respects, the Court's opinion in this case can be seen as the logical successor of the plurality opinion in Florida v. Royer
    Search
  42. as well as people from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this regard, JUSTICE STEVENS pointed out in Texas v. Brown
    Search
  43. Fourth Amendment interest. For this reason, seizures of property must be based on probable cause. See Colorado v. Bannister
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Place
    Search
  45. Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  46. of Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  47. Marron v. United
    Search
  48. Arkansas v. Sanders
    Search
  49. G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United
    Search
  50. See Terry v. Ohio
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial