Citation network
California Vs. Rooney
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1987
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. 307 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court California v. RooneySearch
-
U.S. 307 (1987) California v. RooneySearch
-
of Appeal examined the other evidence offered in support of the warrant under the standards set forth in Illinois v. GatesSearch
-
Black v. CutterSearch
-
See also Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
People v. KrivdaSearch
-
A. Well, Your Honor, I think what we really want would be to . . . overrule People v. KrivdaSearch
-
the law-of-the-case doctrine provides no justification for our granting review at this stage. See Barclay v. FloridaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The California rule regarding trash searches is derived from the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. KrivdaSearch
-
In so ruling, the Court of Appeal relied on a holding of the California Supreme Court to this effect. People v. TerrySearch
-
See New York v. QuarlesSearch
-
California v. StewartSearch
-
decided with Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Michigan v. CliffordSearch
-
the premise that property interests control the right of officials to search and seize has been discredited. Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
retained a subjective expectation of privacy in his trash bag that society accepts as objectively reasonable. O'Connor v. OrtegaSearch
-
Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
Smith v. AlaskaSearch
-
parties, the trash collectors, whom he had no reasonable expectation would not cooperate with the police. In Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
that police will investigate when they have information suggesting that an investigation will be useful. In Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
however, did not give petitioner a legitimate expectation of privacy in the telephone numbers he dialed. In California v. CiraoloSearch
-
a third party, the designated trash collector, who, for all the owner knows, will cooperate with the police. Cf. Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
Hoffa v. UnitedSearch
-
is sanitation and economic protection of the authorized trash collector, rather than privacy. See United States v. VahalikSearch
-
the Fourth Amendment does not protect trash placed for collection outside a residence and its curtilage. United States v. DelaSearch
-
United States v. O'BryantSearch
-
United States v. MichaelsSearch
-
United States v. KramerSearch
-
United States v. TerrySearch
-
F.2d 299, 308-309 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. ReicherterSearch
-
United States v. VahalikSearch
-
United States v. CrowellSearch
-
Magda v. BensonSearch
-
United States v. MustoneSearch
-
trash can outside the curtilage of a house could be searched without a warrant, but not without probable cause. People v. KrivdaSearch
-
Brief for Petitioner 2. It points to Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court California v. RooneySearch
-
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
See Barclay v. FloridaSearch
-
People v. TerrySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial