Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

ins Vs. Lopez-mendoza

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

69 entries 13 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Bugajewitz Vs. Adams US Supreme Court · May 12, 1913
  2. Galvan Vs. Press US Supreme Court · May 24, 1954
  3. Carlson Vs. Landon US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1952
  4. Frisbie Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1952
  5. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1965
  6. United States Vs. Janis US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
    Relied / Followed
  7. United States Vs. Leon US Supreme Court · Jul 05, 1984
  8. United States Vs. Calandra US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1974
  9. ins Vs. Delgado US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1984
  10. Sure-tan, Inc. Vs. Nlrb US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1984
  11. Stone Vs. Powell US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  12. United States Vs. Cores US Supreme Court · May 19, 1958
  13. United States Vs. Bruno US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1946
  14. U.S. 1032 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court INS v. Lopez-Mendoza
    Search
  15. U.S. 1032 (1984) INS v. Lopez-Mendoza
    Search
  16. arrest be excluded from evidence at his deportation hearing. Under the balancing test applied in United States v. Janis
    Search
  17. Fong Yue Ting v. United
    Search
  18. does not render an otherwise voluntary statement by the respondent inadmissible in a deportation case. Navia-Duran v. INS
    Search
  19. Avila-Gallegos v. INS
    Search
  20. Chavez-Raya v. INS
    Search
  21. F.2d 397, 399-401 (CA7 1975). See also Abel v. United
    Search
  22. Bilokumsky v. Tod
    Search
  23. is conceded that an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation occurred. See Gerstein Page 468 U. S. 1040 v. Pugh
    Search
  24. rule applies in forfeiture proceedings directed against contraband or forfeitable property. See, e.g., United States v. Eighty-Eight
    Search
  25. United States v. One
    Search
  26. the link between the Page 468 U. S. 1041 evidence and the unlawful conduct is not too attenuated. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  27. In United States v. Janis
    Search
  28. Id. at 428 U. S. 446 , quoting United States v. Calandra
    Search
  29. Avila-Gallegos v. INS
    Search
  30. are often arrested at one time, and conditions are understandably chaotic. See Brief for Petitioner in INS v. Delgado
    Search
  31. challenging the validity of INS practices when standing requirements for bringing such an action can be met. Cf. INS v. Delgado
    Search
  32. of this type, the Court has firmly indicated that the exclusionary rule does not extend this far. See United States v. Jeffers
    Search
  33. Trupiano v. United
    Search
  34. Mendoza or Sandoval-Sanchez. Moreover, no challenge is raised here to the INS's own internal regulations. Cf. INS v. Delgado
    Search
  35. developed good reason to believe that Fourth Amendment violations by INS officers were widespread. Cf. United States v. Leon
    Search
  36. Cf. Rochin v. California
    Search
  37. In United States v. Wong
    Search
  38. in a civil deportation proceeding. In Ex parte Jackson, 263 F. 110 (Mont.), appeal dism'd sub nom. Andrews v. Jackson
    Search
  39. pamphlets used against the habeas petitioner in a deportation proceeding had been unlawfully seized. Wong Chung Che v. INS
    Search
  40. Similarly, in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB
    Search
  41. I fully agree with JUSTICE WHITE that, under the analysis developed by the Court in such cases as United States v. Janis
    Search
  42. U. S. 433 (1976), and United States v. Calandra
    Search
  43. in civil deportation proceedings. However, for the reasons set forth today in my dissenting opinion in United States v. Leon
    Search
  44. deterring the unwanted conduct outweighs the societal costs imposed by exclusion of relevant evidence. United States v. Janis
    Search
  45. refused to extend the exclusionary rule to proceedings other than the criminal trial itself. For example, in Stone v. Powell
    Search
  46. and fair opportunity to litigate it in state court. Similarly, in United Page 468 U. S. 1053 States v. Calandra
    Search
  47. And in United States v. Janis
    Search
  48. may lead the agency to adopt policies and procedures that conform to Fourth Amendment standards. See, e.g., Dunaway v. New
    Search
  49. the burdens associated with application of the exclusionary rule must take that fact into account. In United States v. Leon
    Search
  50. U. S. 1057 place at the time of entry and that the statute does not describe a continuing offense. Gonzales v. City
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial