Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Florida Vs. Royer

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 23, 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

68 entries 6 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Schneckloth Vs. Bustamonte US Supreme Court · May 29, 1973
  2. Terry Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  3. United States Vs. Mendenhall US Supreme Court · May 27, 1980
  4. United States Vs. Burns US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1870
  5. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  6. United States Vs. Brignoni-ponce US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1975
    Relied / Followed
  7. U.S. 491 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Florida v. Royer
    Search
  8. U.S. 491 (1983) Florida v. Royer
    Search
  9. his consent to search was obtained, the involuntary detention had exceeded the limited restraint permitted by Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  10. that the involuntary detention had exceeded the limited restraint permitted by Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  11. The nomenclature used to describe Royer's confinement, the court found, was unimportant, because, under Dunaway v. New
    Search
  12. given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New
    Search
  13. Bumper v. North
    Search
  14. Johnson v. United
    Search
  15. Amos v. United
    Search
  16. to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. See Dunaway v. New
    Search
  17. without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification. United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  18. indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all, and may go on his way. Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  19. and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  20. clear that not all seizures of the person must be justified by probable cause to arrest for a crime. Prior to Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  21. to a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment was invalid unless justified by probable cause. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  22. or is about to commit a crime. In that case, a stop and a frisk for weapons were found unexceptionable. Adams v. Williams
    Search
  23. in a nearby vehicle was carrying narcotics and a gun. Although not expressly authorized in Terry, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  24. U. S. 499 involved is the suppression of illegal transactions in drugs or of any other serious crime. Michigan v. Summers
    Search
  25. effects. Nor may the police seek to verify their suspicions by means that approach the conditions of arrest. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  26. interrogation, even though the interrogation is investigative. Id. at 442 U. S. 211 -212. Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  27. U. S. 590 (1975), and Davis v. Mississippi
    Search
  28. concerns for the safety of the officer and to prevent the destruction of evidence by the arrestee. E.g., Chimel v. California
    Search
  29. to the person of the arrestee and the area immediately within his control. Id. at 395 U. S. 762 . Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  30. U.S. at 392 U. S. 19 , quoting Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  31. reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time. See, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  32. Adams v. Williams
    Search
  33. given, if they are the product of the illegal detention and not the result of an independent act of free will. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  34. Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  35. at 422 U. S. 601 -602. In this respect, those cases reiterated one of the principal holdings of Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  36. s consent, if voluntary, would have been effective to legalize the search of his two suitcases. Cf. United States v. Watson
    Search
  37. of the encounter had evaporated, and we cannot fault the Florida District Court of Appeal for concluding that Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  38. detention, such as from an airport concourse to a more Page 460 U. S. 505 private area. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Mimms
    Search
  39. s custody by proving probable cause, and hence removing any barrier to relying on Royer's consent to search. Peters v. New
    Search
  40. York, decided with Sibron v. New
    Search
  41. name and carrying two heavy American Tourister bags may be arrested and held to answer for a serious felony charge. v. Because
    Search
  42. the stop authorized by Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  43. Our decision here is consistent with the Court's judgment in United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  44. is necessary to justify this kind of a warrantless search, if indeed it is a search. See, e.g., United States v. Sullivan
    Search
  45. United States v. Beale
    Search
  46. United States v. Goldstein
    Search
  47. F.2d 356, 361 (CA5), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962 (1981). See United States v. Viera
    Search
  48. to September 30, 1981, are binding precedent on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City
    Search
  49. prolonged detention of either Royer or his luggage which may involve other Fourth Amendment concerns. In United State v. Beale
    Search
  50. case similar in its general setting to that before us in United States v. Mendenhall
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial