Citation network
California Vs. Carney
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 13, 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
-
U.S. 386 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court California v. CarneySearch
-
U.S. 386 (1985) California v. CarneySearch
-
issue in this case. This exception to the warrant requirement was first set forth by the Court 60 years ago in Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
consistently recognized ready mobility as one of the principal bases of the automobile exception. See, e.g., Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Page 471 U. S. 391 Cardwell v. LewisSearch
-
U.S. at 399 U. S. 51 . More recently, in United States v. RossSearch
-
resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justified application of the vehicular exception. See, e.g., Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
for example, we held in Cardwell v. LewisSearch
-
privacy warrant application of the exception. We have applied the exception in the context of a locked car trunk, Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
package in a car trunk, Ross, supra, a closed compartment under the dashboard, Chambers Page 471 U. S. 392 v. MaroneySearch
-
of a vehicle's upholstery, Carroll, supra, or sealed packages inside a covered pickup truck, United States v. JohnsSearch
-
is in plain view, but from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways. Cady v. DombrowskSearch
-
supra, at 413 U. S. 440 -441. As we explained in South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
home lends itself easily to use as an instrument of illicit drug traffic and other illegal activity. In United States v. RossSearch
-
the State as well as the Federal Constitution. Respondent's argument is clearly foreclosed by our opinion in Michigan v. LongSearch
-
courts have not hesitated to apply the vehicle exception to vehicles other than automobiles. See, e.g., United States v. RollinsSearch
-
it at the crossroads between the privacy interests that generally forbid warrantless invasions of the home, Payton v. NewSearch
-
interests that support the exception for warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause, United States v. RossSearch
-
STEVENS, J., dissenting). As an unusually perceptive study of this Court's docket stated with reference to California v. RamosSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 753 , 442 U. S. 758 (1979). In United States v. RossSearch
-
stated in Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
of the place to be searched is not a sufficient justification for abandoning the warrant requirement. In United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
expectations of privacy associated with these temporary abodes should command the respect of this Court. Stoner v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Payton v. NewSearch
-
E.g., United States v. JohnsSearch
-
ante p. 146. Cf. Florida v. RodriguezSearch
-
State v. CaponiSearch
-
from state court suppression orders that are explicitly based on independent state grounds. See, e.g., Jamison v. StateSearch
-
State v. BurkholderSearch
-
People v. CorrSearch
-
State v. VonSearch
-
Watt v. WesternSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court California v. CarneySearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cardwell v. LewisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial