Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

illinois Vs. Rodriguez

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 21, 1990

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

69 entries 11 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Colorado Vs. Spring US Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1987
  2. Johnson Vs. Zerbst US Supreme Court · May 23, 1938
  3. Terry Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  4. United States Vs. Matlock US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1974
  5. United States Vs. Lefkowitz US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
  6. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  7. Chimel Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1969
  8. Michigan Vs. Tyler US Supreme Court · May 31, 1978
  9. Schneckloth Vs. Bustamonte US Supreme Court · May 29, 1973
  10. United States Vs. Chadwick US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1977
  11. Frazier Vs. Cupp US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1969
  12. U.S. 177 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. Rodriguez
    Search
  13. U.S. 177 (1990) Illinois v. Rodriguez
    Search
  14. over respondent's apartment, as is required under United States v. Matlock
    Search
  15. its decision rests on an adequate and independent state ground, it is subject to review by this Court. See Michigan v. Long
    Search
  16. entry without further inquiry is unlawful unless authority actually exists. But if so, the search is valid. Stoner v. California
    Search
  17. U. S. 189 . Page 497 U. S. 179 Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. In United States v. Matlock
    Search
  18. the warrantless entry of a person's home, whether to make an arrest or to search for specific objects. Payton v. New
    Search
  19. Johnson v. United
    Search
  20. in which voluntary consent has been obtained, either from the individual whose property is searched, see Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  21. U. S. 218 (1973), or from a third party who possesses common authority over the premises, see United States v. Matlock
    Search
  22. is clearly based on state law that is both adequate and independent, we will not review the decision. Michigan v. Long
    Search
  23. error with respect to those factual judgments that law enforcement officials are expected to make. In Maryland v. Garrison
    Search
  24. requires factual accuracy. A warrant is not needed, for example, where the search is incident to an arrest. In Hill v. California
    Search
  25. that they always be correct, but that they always be reasonable. Page 497 U. S. 186 As we put it in Brinegar v. United
    Search
  26. reasonably (though erroneously) believe they are in pursuit of a violent felon who is about to escape. See Archibald v. Mosel
    Search
  27. Page 497 U. S. 187 Stoner v. California
    Search
  28. is Chapman v. United
    Search
  29. which is all that the Constitution forbids. See Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  30. voluntarily limit his expectation of privacy by allowing others to exercise authority over his possessions. Cf. Katz v. United
    Search
  31. individual's reasonable expectation of privacy and, to that extent, limits his Fourth Amendment protections. Cf. Rakas v. Illinois
    Search
  32. The baseline for the reasonableness of a search or seizure in the home is the presence of a warrant. Skinner v. Railway
    Search
  33. Payton v. New
    Search
  34. law enforcement goals. Mincey v. Arizona
    Search
  35. United States v. United
    Search
  36. Coolidge v. New
    Search
  37. Those exceptions must be crafted in light of the warrant requirement's purposes. As this Court stated in McDonald v. United
    Search
  38. Mincey, supra, 437 U.S. at 437 U. S. 393 (citing United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  39. Silverman v. United
    Search
  40. the Constitution demands that the warrant procedure be observed. Johnson v. United
    Search
  41. In United States v. Matlock
    Search
  42. Frazier v. Cupp
    Search
  43. warrantless intrusion into his home as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This conclusion flows directly from Stoner v. California
    Search
  44. searches are generally reasonable. The cases the majority cites thus provide no support for its holding. In Brinegar v. United
    Search
  45. Page 497 U. S. 197 The majority's reliance on Maryland v. Garrison
    Search
  46. The same analysis applies to Hill v. California
    Search
  47. Id. at 401 U. S. 802 (brackets in original) (quoting People v. Hill
    Search
  48. Given that the Court decided Hill before the extension of the warrant requirement to arrests in the home, Payton v. New
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. Rodriguez
    Search
  50. Court. See Michigan v. Long
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial