Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Leon

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jul 05, 1984

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

60 entries 9 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. Stone Vs. Powell US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  2. United States Vs. Calandra US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1974
  3. United States Vs. Payner US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1980
  4. United States Vs. Janis US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  5. Franks Vs. Delaware US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1978
  6. United States Vs. Ceccolini US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978
  7. Linkletter Vs. Walker US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1965
    Relied / Followed
  8. Oregon Vs. Hass US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1975
  9. United States Vs. Havens US Supreme Court · May 27, 1980
  10. U.S. 897 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Leon
    Search
  11. U.S. 897 (1984) United States v. Leon
    Search
  12. Alderman v. United
    Search
  13. the information provided by the informant was inadequate under both prongs of the two-part test established in Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  14. U. S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United
    Search
  15. test announced last Term in Illinois v. Gates
    Search
  16. Justices has sometimes implied that the exclusionary rule is a necessary corollary of the Fourth Amendment, Mapp v. Page
    Search
  17. Olmstead v. United
    Search
  18. U. S. 462 -463 (1928), or that the rule is required by the conjunction of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  19. Agnello v. United
    Search
  20. not detain us long. The Fifth Amendment theory has not withstood critical analysis or the test of time, see Andresen v. Maryland
    Search
  21. of the benefit conferred on such guilty defendants offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system. Stone v. Powell
    Search
  22. Stone v. Powell
    Search
  23. U.S. at 462 U. S. 255 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). In Stone v. Powell
    Search
  24. federal habeas relief on the ground that unlawfully obtained evidence had been introduced at his trial. Cf. Rose v. Mitchell
    Search
  25. than the criminal trial itself have been evaluated and rejected under the same analytic approach. In United States v. Calandra
    Search
  26. U.S. at 414 U. S. 348 . Similarly, in United States v. Janis
    Search
  27. the prosecution seeks to use the fruits of an illegal search or seizure against the victim of police misconduct. Rakas v. Illinois
    Search
  28. Brown v. United
    Search
  29. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  30. States, 371 U. S. 471 , 371 U. S. 491 -492 (1963). Cf. United States v. Payner
    Search
  31. and inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief may be used to impeach a defendant's direct testimony. Walder v. United
    Search
  32. States, 347 U. S. 62 (1954). See also Oregon v. Hass
    Search
  33. Harris v. New
    Search
  34. of the ends of the exclusionary rule led us to conclude in United States v. Havens
    Search
  35. inadmissible any evidence that came to light through a chain of causation that began with an illegal arrest. Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  36. witness' testimony may be admitted even when his identity was discovered in an unconstitutional search. United States v. Ceccolini
    Search
  37. considerations relating to the exclusionary rule and the constitutional principles it is designed to protect. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  38. Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  39. an assessment of the flagrancy of the police misconduct constitutes an important step in the calculus. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  40. a substantive criminal statute that subsequently Page 468 U. S. 912 is declared unconstitutional. Michigan v. DeFillippo
    Search
  41. unwilling to conclude that new Fourth Amendment principles are always to have only prospective effect, United States v. Johnson
    Search
  42. has been applied retroactively. See United States v. Peltier
    Search
  43. Desist v. United
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Leon
    Search
  45. Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  46. and Spinelli v. United
    Search
  47. of the Fourth Amendment, Mapp v. Page
    Search
  48. of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  49. Andresen v. Maryland
    Search
  50. In Stone v. Powell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial