Citation network
Soldal Vs. Cook County
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 05, 1992
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
-
Soldal v. CookSearch
-
County - 506 U.S. 56 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Soldal Et Ux. V. CookSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
seizures, rather than being scrupulously subjected to Fourth Amendment inquiry, Arizona v. HicksSearch
-
its meaning has taken place. See, e. g., Jacobsen, supra, at 120-125. Also contrary to that court's view, Graham v. ConnorSearch
-
standard it should be evaluated. Rather, each constitutional provision is examined in turn. See, e. g., Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
People v. EvansSearch
-
for deprivation of property without due process of law was unlikely to succeed. Id., at 1075-1076. See Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
in this instance, their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment freedom from unreasonable seizures by the State. See Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
II The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 365 U. S. 505 , 511 (1961). See also Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
Payton v. NewSearch
-
mindful that the Amendment does not protect possessory interests in all kinds of property. See, e. g., Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
Texas v. BrownSearch
-
view adopted by the Court of Appeals and advocated by respondents. Instead, adhering to the teachings of United States v. PlaceSearch
-
but rather were afforded Fourth Amendment protection. Respondents rely principally on precedents such as Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSearch
-
U. S. 294 (1967), and Cardwell v. LewisSearch
-
rights are not the sole measure of Fourth Amendment violations. The Warden opinion thus observed, citing Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960), and Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
specific support for confining the protection of the Fourth Amendment to privacy interests in our decision in Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
of the items in question, such seizures can be justified only if they meet the probable-cause standard, Arizona v. HicksSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
see also United States v. PlaceSearch
-
what is evident from our precedents-that the Amendment's protection applies in the civil context as well. See O'Connor v. OrtegaSearch
-
Marshall v. Barlow'sSearch
-
Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
of searches. The police search in order to seize, and it is the search 11 It is true that Murray's Lessee v. HobokenSearch
-
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSearch
-
arguably only meant that the warrant requirement did not apply, as was suggested in G. M. Leasing Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
in the civil context. 12 This was the view expressed by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Specht v. JensenSearch
-
Fourth Amendment standards are satisfied-for example, if the items are evidence of a crime or contraband. Cf. Payton v. NewSearch
-
F. 2d, at 1080. Relying on our decision in Graham v. ConnorSearch
-
character. Rather, we examine each constitutional provision in turn. See, e. g., Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
L. 0., supra, at 341. Assuming, for example, that the officers were acting pursuant to a court order, as in Specht v. JensenSearch
-
F.2d 1516 (CAlO 1987), or Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
as often would be the case, a showing of unreasonableness on these facts would be a laborious task indeed. Cf. Simms v. SlacumSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial