Citation network
Florida Vs. Riley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 23, 1989
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 445 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Florida v. RileySearch
-
U.S. 445 (1989) Florida v. RileySearch
-
at an altitude of 400 feet to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye. California v. CiraoloSearch
-
the trial court's suppression order. We agree with the State's submission that our decision in California v. CiraoloSearch
-
Id. at 213, quoting Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
we have jurisdiction. Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Harlan, J., concurring). I write separately, however, to clarify the standard I believe follows from California v. CiraoloSearch
-
Ciraolo, supra, at 476 U. S. 212 (quoting Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment even took place. Cf. Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
on privacy and personal security. I The opinion for a plurality of the Court reads almost as if Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
In California v. CiraoloSearch
-
Fourth Amendment is all about. Nowhere is this better stated than in JUSTICE WHITE's opinion for the Court in Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
Marshall v. Barlow'sSearch
-
Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
in which it is unclear whether the prosecution is a product of an unconstitutional, warrantless search, cf. Bumper v. NorthSearch
-
public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. E.g., United States v. KnottsSearch
-
In Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
Nester v. UnitedSearch
-
does not violate the Fourth Amendment). In Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
law of a wiretap that yielded the disputed evidence was deemed irrelevant to its admissibility. And of course Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
or not the disputed evidence had been procured by means of a trespass was irrelevant. Recently, in Dow Chemical Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. DavisSearch
-
Cf. California v. GreenwoodSearch
-
United States v. WhiteSearch
-
The issue in Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
feet -- in other words, for any aerial surveillance case not governed by the Court's decision in California v. CiraoloSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Florida v. RileySearch
-
California v. CiraoloSearch
-
Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
Marshall v. Barlow'sSearch
-
Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Bumper v. NorthSearch
-
E.g., United States v. KnottsSearch
-
Nester v. UnitedSearch
-
the Fourth Amendment). In Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
Dow Chemical Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WhiteSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial