Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

O'Connor Vs. Ortega

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 31, 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

64 entries 7 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Jacobsen US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1984
  2. United States Vs. Place US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1983
  3. Mancusi Vs. Deforte US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1968
  4. Connick Vs. Myers US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1983
  5. illinois Vs. Lafayette US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1983
  6. Harlow Vs. Fitzgerald US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1982
  7. United States Vs. Kahan US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1974
  8. U.S. 709 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court O'Connor v. Ortega
    Search
  9. U.S. 709 (1987) O'Connor v. Ortega
    Search
  10. judgment, the District Court granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment. The District Court, relying on Chenkin v. Bellevue
    Search
  11. Amendment, have been applied to the conduct of governmental officials in various civil activities. New Jersey v. T.L
    Search
  12. that the Fourth Amendment governs the conduct of school officials, see ibid., building inspectors, see Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  13. U. S. 528 (1967), and Occupational Safety and Health Page 480 U. S. 715 Act inspectors, see Marshall v. Barlow's
    Search
  14. U.S. at 469 U. S. 335 (quoting Marshall v. Barlow's
    Search
  15. Inc., supra, at 436 U. S. 312 -313 and Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  16. Oliver v. United
    Search
  17. has recognized that employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusions by police. See Mancusi v. DeForte
    Search
  18. States, supra, at 466 U. S. 178 , n. 8. Thus, in Mancusi v. DeForte
    Search
  19. offices may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable. Cf. Katz v. United
    Search
  20. of Appeals that Dr. Ortega had a reasonable expectation of privacy at least in his desk and file cabinets. See Gillard v. Schmidt
    Search
  21. United States v. Speights
    Search
  22. United States v. Blok
    Search
  23. New Jersey v. T.L
    Search
  24. Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  25. U.S. at 392 U. S. 370 (quoting Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  26. U.S. at 469 U. S. 351 (concurring in judgment). In Marshall v. Barlow's
    Search
  27. U.S. at 436 U. S. 316 . In New Jersey v. T.L
    Search
  28. an employer Page 480 U. S. 721 satisfies the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement. See United States v. Nasser
    Search
  29. United States v. Collins
    Search
  30. Others have suggested the use of a standard other than probable cause. See United States v. Bunkers
    Search
  31. The only cases to imply that a warrant should be required involve searches that are not work-related, see Gillard v. Schmidt
    Search
  32. supra, at 829, n. 1, or searches for evidence of criminal misconduct, see United States v. Kahan
    Search
  33. issue. For the most part, we have required that a search be based upon probable cause, but as we noted in New Jersey v. T.L
    Search
  34. U.S. at 469 U. S. 340 (quoting Almeida-Sanchez v. United
    Search
  35. that reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an inspection are satisfied. See Marshall v. Barlow's
    Search
  36. meaning for a routine inventory conducted by public employers for the purpose of securing state property. See Colorado v. Bertine
    Search
  37. first, one must consider 'whether the . . . action was justified at its inception,' Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  38. individualized suspicion is an essential element of the standard of reasonableness that we adopt today. See New Jersey v. T.L
    Search
  39. Chenkin v. Bellevue
    Search
  40. See Davis v. Scherer
    Search
  41. it suggested how police officers are to gather the facts necessary for this refined inquiry. As we observed in Oliver v. United
    Search
  42. the police, even though employer and coworkers are not excluded. I think we decided as much many years ago. In Mancusi v. DeForte
    Search
  43. Ante at 480 U. S. 717 . The identity of the searcher (police v. employer
    Search
  44. Amendment covers private dwellings -- intrusion for the purpose of extinguishing a fire is reasonable. Cf. Michigan v. Tyler
    Search
  45. Katz v. United
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court O'Connor v. Ortega
    Search
  47. Chenkin v. Bellevue
    Search
  48. Marshall v. Barlow's
    Search
  49. and Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  50. See Mancusi v. DeForte
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial