Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

New York Vs. Class

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 25, 1986

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

70 entries 12 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Maryland Vs. Macon US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1985
  2. Cardwell Vs. Lewis US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1974
  3. South Dakota Vs. Opperman US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  4. California Vs. Carney US Supreme Court · May 13, 1985
  5. Terry Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  6. United States Vs. Karo US Supreme Court · Jul 03, 1984
  7. United States Vs. Place US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1983
  8. Nix Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1984
  9. Pennsylvania Vs. Mimms US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1977
  10. Cady Vs. Dombrowski US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1973
  11. Delaware Vs. Prouse US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1979
  12. New York Vs. Belton US Supreme Court · Jul 01, 1981
  13. U.S. 106 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court New York v. Class
    Search
  14. U.S. 106 (1986) New York v. Class
    Search
  15. only in direct conjunction with the United States Constitution. 63 N.Y.2d at 493, 472 N.E.2d at 1010. Cf. Michigan v. Long
    Search
  16. that it rests on state grounds. Page 475 U. S. 110 Michigan v. Long
    Search
  17. supra, at 463 U. S. 1042 , 463 U. S. 1044 . Accordingly, our holding in Michigan v. Long
    Search
  18. U.S. at 463 U. S. 1040 -1041. See also California v. Carney
    Search
  19. that, when statutory construction can resolve a case, courts should not decide constitutional issues. See Ashwander v. TVA
    Search
  20. Peters v. New
    Search
  21. S4.6) (1984) (emphasis added). In Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  22. A citizen does not surrender all the protections of the Fourth Amendment by entering an automobile. See Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  23. Almeida-Sanchez v. United
    Search
  24. Katz v. United
    Search
  25. States, 389 U. S. 347 , 389 U. S. 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring). See Oliver v. United
    Search
  26. U. S. 364 , 428 U. S. 368 (1976). See also Cady v. Dombrowski
    Search
  27. diminished. This is especially true in the case of a driver who has committed a traffic violation. See Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  28. See Cardwell v. Lewis
    Search
  29. access to an area do not generate a reasonable expectation of privacy where none would otherwise exist. See Oliver v. United
    Search
  30. N.Y.2d at 495, 472 N.E.2d at 1011. Cf. Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  31. vehicle even though they lack any particularized reason for believing the driver possesses a weapon. Pennsylvania v. Mimms
    Search
  32. to a dangerous weapon and the benefit of the partial concealment provided by the car's exterior. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms
    Search
  33. Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  34. test generally means that searches must be conducted pursuant to a warrant backed by probable cause. See United States v. Ventresca
    Search
  35. police officers to justify warrantless searches based only on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  36. Adams v. Williams
    Search
  37. U. S. 143 (1972). Such searches are permissible despite their substantial intrusiveness. See Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  38. justify the intrusion if the balance is to tip in favor of the legality of the governmental intrusion. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms
    Search
  39. the seized individual in the commission of a traffic offense before requesting that he exit his vehicle. In Michigan v. Summers
    Search
  40. to search the house that the person seized was leaving when they came upon him. While the facts in Pennsylvania v. Mimms
    Search
  41. and Michigan v. Summers
    Search
  42. U. S. 703 (1983), the conclusion that the search here was permissible follows. As we recognized in Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  43. issue of the intrusiveness of the government's action, United States v. Place
    Search
  44. the car away, to have impounded the car, and to have later conducted an inventory search thereof. Cf. South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  45. McKinney 1981), and could then have searched the passenger compartment at the time of arrest, cf. New York v. Belton
    Search
  46. U. S. 454 (1981), or arrested respondent and searched the car after impounding it pursuant to the arrest, see Cady v. Dombrowski
    Search
  47. vehicle for a traffic infraction, the officer is entitled to inspect license and registration documents. See Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  48. from the officer's efforts to observe this VIN once respondent's vehicle lawfully was stopped. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Mimms
    Search
  49. obstructing the VIN. In the absence of compliance with such a request, an arrest would have been lawful. Cf. People v. Ellis
    Search
  50. the decision of the New York Court of Appeals does not rest on an adequate and independent state ground, see Michigan v. Long
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial