Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Oliver Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 17, 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

66 entries 5 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. New York Vs. Belton US Supreme Court · Jul 01, 1981
  2. Robbins Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jul 01, 1981
    Relied / Followed
  3. Rakas Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1978
  4. United States Vs. Chadwick US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1977
  5. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  6. Oliver v. United
    Search
  7. States - 466 U.S. 170 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Oliver v. United
    Search
  8. States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) Oliver v. United
    Search
  9. a pretrial hearing, the District Court suppressed evidence of the discovery of the marihuana field, applying Katz v. United
    Search
  10. Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Katz had not impaired the vitality of the open fields doctrine of Hester v. United
    Search
  11. Hester v. United
    Search
  12. proscribed by the Amendment. Pp. 466 U. S. 176 -177. (b) Since Katz v. United
    Search
  13. doctrine, first enunciated by this Court in Hester v. United
    Search
  14. Page 466 U. S. 176 II The rule announced in Hester v. United
    Search
  15. We conclude, as did the Court in deciding Hester v. United
    Search
  16. consistent with the understanding of the right to privacy expressed in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Since Katz v. United
    Search
  17. Id. at 389 U. S. 361 . See also Smith v. Maryland
    Search
  18. under the Fourth Amendment that a place should be free of government intrusion not authorized by warrant. See Rakas v. Illinois
    Search
  19. Court has given weight to such factors as the intention of the Framers of the Fourth Amendment, e.g., United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  20. U. S. 1 , 433 U. S. 7 -8 (1977), the uses to which the individual has put a location, e.g., Jones v. United
    Search
  21. understanding that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion, e.g., Payton v. New
    Search
  22. expectations of privacy, and is therefore a search proscribed by the Amendment. In this light, the rule of Hester v. United
    Search
  23. out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home. See also Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western
    Search
  24. Payton v. New
    Search
  25. See also Silverman v. United
    Search
  26. United States v. United
    Search
  27. Boyd v. United
    Search
  28. reasonably may expect that an area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private. See, e.g., United States v. Van
    Search
  29. United States v. Williams
    Search
  30. Care v. United
    Search
  31. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  32. United States v. Robinson
    Search
  33. danger that constitutional Page 466 U. S. 182 rights will be arbitrarily and inequitably enforced. Cf. Smith v. Goguen
    Search
  34. Katz, 389 U.S. at 389 U. S. 353 (quoting Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  35. analysis developed in subsequent decisions of this Court. We therefore affirm Oliver v. United
    Search
  36. Maine v. Thornton
    Search
  37. Together with No. 82-1273, Maine v. Thornton
    Search
  38. F.2d at 372. To that extent, the dissent considered that Katz v. United
    Search
  39. the Maine Supreme Judicial Court did not articulate an independent state ground with the clarity required by Michigan v. Long
    Search
  40. of the confusion the open fields doctrine has generated among the state and federal courts. Compare, e.g., State v. Byers
    Search
  41. State v. Brady
    Search
  42. So.2d 1093 (Fla.1981) (same), with United States v. Lace
    Search
  43. United States v. Freie
    Search
  44. United States v. Brown
    Search
  45. Atwell v. United
    Search
  46. explicit language of the Fourth Amendment as delineating the scope of its affirmative protections. See, e.g., Robbins v. California
    Search
  47. Alderman v. United
    Search
  48. to be limited to personal, rather than real, property. See generally Doe v. Dring
    Search
  49. privacy, is also based upon societal expectations that have deep roots in the history of the Amendment. See Marshall v. Barlow's
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Oliver v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial