Citation network
California Vs. Acevedo
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 30, 1991
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. 565 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court California v. AcevedoSearch
-
U.S. 565 (1991) California v. AcevedoSearch
-
the car, itself, otherwise contained contraband, the court concluded that the case was controlled by United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
container without a warrant where they have probable cause to believe that it holds contraband or evidence. Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
a search of closed containers found inside the car when there is probable cause to search the vehicle, United States v. RossSearch
-
of a closed container located in a moving vehicle when there is probable cause to search only the container, Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
S. 566 than they otherwise would in order to establish the probable cause Ross requires. Cf. United States v. JohnsSearch
-
guideline and, thus, has confused courts and police officers and impeded effective law enforcement. United States v. PlaceSearch
-
District, concluded that the marijuana found in the paper bag in the car's trunk should have been suppressed. People v. AcevedoSearch
-
probable cause was directed specifically at the bag, the court held that the case was controlled by United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1977), rather than by United States v. RossSearch
-
and the need for a warrant to search for contraband concealed in a movable vessel. See Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 267 U. S. 132 , 267 U. S. 151 (1925). See also Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Amendment. See id. at 267 U. S. 158 -159. The Court refined the exigency requirement in Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
on a public roadway, they may conduct either an immediate or a delayed search of the vehicle. In United States v. RossSearch
-
had announced this separate rule, unique to luggage and other closed packages, bags, and containers, in United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
are usually available when the police seize luggage. Id. at 433 U. S. 13 , n. 7. In Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
the owner's expectation of privacy in his personal items. Id. at 442 U. S. 764 -765. Cf. California v. CarneySearch
-
establish the general probable cause required by Ross. Such a situation is not far-fetched. In United States v. JohnsSearch
-
without a warrant, despite the Chadwick-Sanders rule, as a search incident to a lawful arrest. In New York v. BeltonSearch
-
does not compel separate treatment for an automobile search that extends only to a container within the vehicle. v. TheSearch
-
U. S. 146 , 498 U. S. 151 (1990) quoting Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
the automobile exception. See post at 500 U. S. 594 . The first case cited by the dissent, United States v. PlaceSearch
-
nothing to do with the automobile exception, and is inapposite. Nor does JUSTICE STEVENS's citation to Oklahoma v. CastleberrySearch
-
jurisprudence has confused the courts. Most important, with the exception of Johns, supra, and Texas v. BrownSearch
-
Id. at 442 U. S. 771 . See also Robbins v. CaliforniaSearch
-
when it has bred confusion or been a derelict or led to anomalous results. See, e.g., Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySearch
-
U. S. 385 , 437 U. S. 390 (1978), quoting Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
point in a cross-petition to the Supreme Court of California. We therefore do not consider the issue here. See Lytle v. HouseholdSearch
-
regarding warrants is by way of limitation upon their issuance, rather than requirement of their use. See Wakely v. HartSearch
-
Huckle v. MoneySearch
-
K.B.1763). If, however, the officer acted pursuant to a proper warrant, he would be absolutely immune. See Bell v. ClappSearch
-
continuing) explosion in Fourth Amendment litigation that followed our announcement of the exclusionary rule in Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
looking to reasonableness alone. (The opinions preferring a warrant involved searches of structures.) Compare Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 331 U. S. 145 (1947) with Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Trupiano v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 334 U. S. 699 (1948) with United States v. RabinowitzSearch
-
U. S. 56 (1950). See generally Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Mich.L.Rev. 1468, 1473-1474 (1985) (footnotes omitted). Since then, we have added at least two more. California v. CarneySearch
-
as merely the continuation of an inconsistent jurisprudence that has been with us for years. Cases like United States v. ChadwickSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial