Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Welsh Vs. Wisconsin

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 15, 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

73 entries 6 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  2. Schmerber Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1966
  3. Michigan Vs. Tyler US Supreme Court · May 31, 1978
    Relied / Followed
  4. Tate Vs. Short US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1971
  5. United States Vs. Santana US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1976
  6. South Dakota Vs. Neville US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1983
  7. U.S. 740 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Welsh v. Wisconsin
    Search
  8. U.S. 740 (1984) Welsh v. Wisconsin
    Search
  9. J., joined, post, p. 466 U. S. 756 . JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. Payton v. New
    Search
  10. U. S. 744 to submit to the appropriate testing or risk a revocation of operating privileges. Cf. South Dakota v. Neville
    Search
  11. consistently provided that a valid arrest is a necessary prerequisite to the imposition of a breath test. See Scales v. State
    Search
  12. a) (Supp.1983-1984). See State v. Albright
    Search
  13. license for 60 days. On appeal, the suspension order was vacated by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. See State v. Welsh
    Search
  14. United States v. United
    Search
  15. Fourth Amendment on agents of the government who seek to enter the home for purposes of search or arrest. See Johnson v. United
    Search
  16. Payton v. New
    Search
  17. York, 445 U.S. at 445 U. S. 586 . See Coolidge v. New
    Search
  18. Michigan v. Clifford
    Search
  19. Steagald v. United
    Search
  20. McDonald v. United
    Search
  21. Johnson v. United
    Search
  22. Boyd v. United
    Search
  23. U. S. 630 (1886). Consistently with these long-recognized principles, the Court decided in Payton v. New
    Search
  24. searches or arrests. Indeed, the Court has recognized only a few such emergency conditions, see, e.g., United States v. Santana
    Search
  25. that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries. See Payton v. New
    Search
  26. probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate. This is not a novel idea. Writing in concurrence in McDonald v. United
    Search
  27. that the gravity of the underlying offense was a principal factor Page 466 U. S. 752 to be weighed. Dorman v. United
    Search
  28. exigencies, independent of the gravity of the offense, existed at the time of the arrest. Compare United States v. Campbell
    Search
  29. CA2 1978) (allowing warrantless home arrest for armed robbery when exigent circumstances existed), with Commonwealth v. Williams
    Search
  30. addressing the issue, most have refused to permit warrantless home arrests for nonfelonious crimes. See, e.g., State v. Gertin
    Search
  31. People v. Strelow
    Search
  32. Mich.App. 182, 190-193, 292 N.W.2d 517, 521-522 (1980). See also People v. Sanders
    Search
  33. State v. Bennett
    Search
  34. N.W.2d 5 (S.D.1980) (distribution of controlled substances not a grave offense for these purposes). But cf. State v. Penas
    Search
  35. State v. Niedermeyer
    Search
  36. exigent circumstances, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals remanded for full consideration of the consent issue. See State v. Welsh
    Search
  37. for a nonjailable traffic offense that constituted only a civil violation under the applicable state law. See Beck v. Ohio
    Search
  38. or semi-incapacitated because of alcohol or drug ingestion. I have spoken in these Reports to this point before. Perez v. Campbell
    Search
  39. U. S. 395 , 401 U. S. 401 (1971) (concurring opinion). See also South Dakota v. Neville
    Search
  40. occurred in the officer's presence to justify a warrantless arrest is not grounded in the Fourth Amendment, see Street v. Surdyka
    Search
  41. the officers who arrested him had violated the Federal Constitution. 108 Wis.2d 319, 321 N.W.2d 245 (1982). See Scales v. State
    Search
  42. Black v. Cutter
    Search
  43. over cases in which the States have provided remedies for violations of federally defined obligations. E.g., Moore v. Chesapeake
    Search
  44. In any event, I believe that the state court properly construed the Fourth Amendment. It follows from Payton v. New
    Search
  45. offense are always impermissible. If anything, the Court's prior decisions support the opposite conclusion. See Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  46. States, 335 U. S. 451 , 335 U. S. 454 -455 (1948). See also State v. Pena
    Search
  47. crimes. The Court relies heavily on Justice Jackson's Page 466 U. S. 761 concurring opinion in McDonald v. United
    Search
  48. Nevertheless, this Court has long recognized the compelling state interest in highway safety, South Dakota v. Neville
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Welsh v. Wisconsin
    Search
  50. of the Court. Payton v. New
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial