Citation network
Maryland Vs. Garrison
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 24, 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. 79 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Maryland v. GarrisonSearch
-
U.S. 79 (1987) Maryland v. GarrisonSearch
-
that the decision rests upon adequate and independent state grounds, see Michigan v. LongSearch
-
validity of the warrant and the other concerning the reasonableness of the manner in which it was executed. See Dalia v. UnitedSearch
-
In Hill v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Page 480 U. S. 89 Cf. Steele v. UnitedSearch
-
See Andresen v. MarylandSearch
-
Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Marron v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Cf United States v. JacobsenSearch
-
Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
emphasis added). See Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
response to the colonists' objection to searches of homes under general warrants or without warrants. See Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
of course is extended to the equivalent of the traditional single-family house, such as an apartment. See, e.g., Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
thus has continued to occupy its special role in Fourth Amendment analysis in the post- Katz era. See Payton v. NewSearch
-
quoting United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Steagald v. UnitedSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Steele v. UnitedSearch
-
to describe the targeted unit with enough specificity to prevent a search of all the units. See, e.g., United States v. HigginsSearch
-
United States v. VottellerSearch
-
criteria to determine whether a warrant has identified a unit with sufficient particularity. See, e.g., United States v. BedfordSearch
-
Haynes v. StateSearch
-
no reason to believe that McWebb's residence did not cover the entire third floor. The majority relies upon Hill v. CaliforniaSearch
-
whether Hill carries the precedential weight that the majority would ascribe to it. Decided after Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
respect to one whom probable cause has not singled out, and who is the victim of the officers' error. See Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
Ybarra v. IllinoisSearch
-
that McWebb was already in custody, it was proper for the officers to administer to him warnings pursuant to Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
they might have been justified in detaining him temporarily as an occupant of McWebb's apartment. See Michigan v. SummersSearch
-
a search warrant and conceivably could have impounded respondent's apartment while seeking the warrant. See Segura v. UnitedSearch
-
could not have discovered its multiple-occupancy character despite reasonable efforts. See, e.g., United States v. DavisSearch
-
directed to other utility companies, the building's owner, or the telephone company. See, e.g., United States v. DavisSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Maryland v. GarrisonSearch
-
See Dalia v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Steele v. UnitedSearch
-
See Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
See Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Payton v. NewSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Steagald v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HigginsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial