Citation network
Texas Vs. Brown
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 19, 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. 730 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Texas v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. 730 (1983) Texas v. BrownSearch
-
doctrine justified the seizure, the court concluded that, under Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Payton v. NewSearch
-
S.W.2d at 200, quoting Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
S.W.2d at 200 (emphasis supplied), quoting DeLao v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of diverse situations we have recognized flexible, common-sense exceptions to this requirement. See, e.g., Warden v. HaydenSearch
-
U. S. 752 (1969), United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
U. S. 218 (1973), and New York v. BeltonSearch
-
Almeida-Sanchez v. UnitedSearch
-
Zap v. UnitedSearch
-
intrusions less severe than full-scale searches or seizures without the necessity of a warrant. See, e.g., Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
of Criminal Appeals based its conclusion primarily on the plurality portion of the opinion of this Court in Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
majority of this Court. On the contrary, the plurality's formulation was sharply criticized at the time, see Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
At least from an analytical perspective, this description may be somewhat inaccurate. We recognized in Payton v. NewSearch
-
Ibid., quoting G. M. Leasing Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
the owner's remaining interests in the object are merely those of possession and ownership, see Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
in a particular place, police officers perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately. See Marron v. UnitedSearch
-
Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
S.W.2d at 200, and we agree. Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
of Brown's car trenched upon no right secured to the latter by the Fourth Amendment. The Court said in United States v. LeeSearch
-
what would be entirely visible to him as a private citizen. There is no legitimate expectation of privacy, Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
doctrine. In Colorado v. BannisterSearch
-
that certain items are contraband or evidence of a crime. Indeed, Colorado v. BannisterSearch
-
supra, was merely an application of the rule, set forth in Payton v. NewSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required. Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 338 U. S. 160 , 338 U. S. 176 (1949). Moreover, our observation in United States v. CortezSearch
-
rested on an independent and adequate state ground, and therefore that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Fox Film Corp. v. MullerSearch
-
Appeals rests squarely on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971), and on Texas cases interpreting that decision, e.g., Howard v. StateSearch
-
DeLao v. StateSearch
-
Duncan v. StateSearch
-
and Nicholas v. StateSearch
-
in a summary of Brown's contentions at the outset of the lower court's opinion. Brown relies principally on Howard v. StateSearch
-
supra, and Duncan v. StateSearch
-
translucent medicine jar from an automobile. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the claim, relying on Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
S.W.2d at 602. The court also relied on Thomas v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial