Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Maryland Vs. Macon

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 17, 1985

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

62 entries 6 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Roaden Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1973
  2. United States Vs. Jacobsen US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1984
  3. United States Vs. Crews US Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1980
  4. Stanford Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1965
    Relied / Followed
  5. Frisbie Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1952
  6. United States Vs. Leon US Supreme Court · Jul 05, 1984
  7. U.S. 463 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Maryland v. Macon
    Search
  8. U.S. 463 (1985) Maryland v. Macon
    Search
  9. a seizure, regardless of whether the funds used to make the purchase are later retrieved as evidence. See, e.g., Baird v. State
    Search
  10. Wood v. State
    Search
  11. People v. Ridens
    Search
  12. State v. Welke
    Search
  13. State v. Perry
    Search
  14. State v. Dornblaser
    Search
  15. Cherokee News & Arcade, Inc. v. State
    Search
  16. P.2d 624 (Okla.Crim.App.1974). But see State v. Fyama
    Search
  17. however, the evidence is not traceable to any Fourth Amendment violation, exclusion is unwarranted. See United States v. Crews
    Search
  18. imposes special constraints on searches for and seizures of presumptively protected material, Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New
    Search
  19. in such circumstances. Stanford v. Texas
    Search
  20. rules applicable to searches for and seizures of allegedly obscene films, books, and papers. See, e.g., Roaden v. Kentucky
    Search
  21. Marcus v. Search
    Search
  22. some prior cases have involved seizures that followed bona fide undercover purchases. See, e.g., Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New
    Search
  23. rules designed to safeguard First Amendment freedoms do not Page 472 U. S. 469 apply. Cf. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New
    Search
  24. of privacy in areas of the store where the public was invited to enter and to transact business. Cf. United States v. Knotts
    Search
  25. transact business with the store, is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Cf. United States v. Jacobsen
    Search
  26. expectation of privacy, and hence did not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See Katz v. United
    Search
  27. in the property seized. United States v. Jacobsen
    Search
  28. any possessory interest he may have had in the magazines to the purchaser upon the receipt of the funds. Cf. Lewis v. United
    Search
  29. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New
    Search
  30. in these circumstances, Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New
    Search
  31. is analogous to purchases of other unlawful substances previously found not to violate the Fourth Amendment. See Lewis v. United
    Search
  32. Scott v. United
    Search
  33. overbroad, and therefore facially invalid in its entirety. See my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton
    Search
  34. Id. at 367 U. S. 729 . See also Stanford v. Texas
    Search
  35. and detached magistrate has issued a warrant particularly describing the things to be seized, Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New
    Search
  36. Roaden v. Kentucky
    Search
  37. Heller v. New
    Search
  38. Lee Art Theatre v. Virginia
    Search
  39. Johnson v. United
    Search
  40. governing obscenity determinations exacerbates the risk of overzealous use of the power to search and seize. Marcus v. Search
    Search
  41. books, magazines, or films. An officer in the field faces the same daunting task of applying the standards of Miller v. California
    Search
  42. books and magazines that do not conform to the majority's dictates of taste. See, e.g., Penthouse International, Ltd. v. McAuliffe
    Search
  43. State v. Furayama
    Search
  44. on distribution by the simple expedient of a warrantless seizure of the seller of such materials. In Roaden v. Kentucky
    Search
  45. itself will not suffice to prevent the introduction of evidence lawfully obtained prior to the arrest, United States v. Crews
    Search
  46. Frisbie v. Collins
    Search
  47. stake, mechanical application of these precedents is inappropriate. No logical imperative requires the rule of Frisbie v. Collins
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Maryland v. Macon
    Search
  49. Baird v. State
    Search
  50. State v. Fyama
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial