Citation network
Arizona Vs. Evans
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 01, 1995
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States at October Term, 1994 Syllabus Arizona V. EvansSearch
-
This Court has jurisdiction to review the State Supreme Court's decision. Under Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served. The same framework that this Court used in United States v. LeonSearch
-
violated the Fourth Amendment. Brieffor Petitioner 10. We decline to review that determination. Cf. United States v. LeonSearch
-
In the alternative, respondent asks that we remand to the Arizona Supreme Court for clarification. In Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Ibid. JUSTICE GINSBURG would overrule Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Post, at 33 (quoting Harris v. ReedSearch
-
see also Illinois v. RodriguezSearch
-
Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
achieve the desired result and burdened the state courts with additional work. Ibid. We believe that Michigan v. LongSearch
-
laboratories, in the sense that Justice Brandeis used that term in his dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSearch
-
bound to-interpret the United States Constitution. In doing so, they are not free from the final authority of this v. ThompsonSearch
-
Post, at 32 (citing statistics). 9 Court. This principle was enunciated in Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
Wheat. 264 (1821), and presumably JUSTICE GINSBURG does not quarrel with it.4 In Minnesota v. NationalSearch
-
Id., at 557. We therefore adhere to the standard adopted in Michigan v. LongSearch
-
determine whether a state-court judgment is based upon an adequate and independent state ground. See Abie State Bank v. BryanSearch
-
no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands. See United States v. LeonSearch
-
ibid. (quoting United States v. CalandraSearch
-
see also United States v. HavensSearch
-
means of deterring misconduct on the part of judicial officers who are responsible for issuing warrants. See Illinois v. KrullSearch
-
supra, at 919-920 (quoting Stone, supra, at 539-540 (White, J., dissenting)). See also Massachusetts v. SheppardSearch
-
Leon, supra, at 922. Respondent relies on United States v. HensleySearch
-
In Hensley, the Court determined that evidence uncovered as a result of a stop pursuant to Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Calandra, supra, at 348. 13 Respondent also argues that Whiteley v. WardenSearch
-
the evidence secured as an incident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U. S., at 568-569. Subsequent case law has rejected this reflexive application of the exclusionary rule. Cf. Illinois v. KrullSearch
-
adjuncts to the law enforcement team engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime, see Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
said the same with respect to other information sources police use, informants being an obvious example. In Illinois v. GatesSearch
-
Id., at 233, citing United States v. SellersSearch
-
why the Court unwisely departed from settled law when it interpreted its own jurisdiction so expansively in Michigan v. LongSearch
-
The Amendment is a constraint on the power of the sovereign, not merely on some of its agents. See Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
motivating it to train all of 19 its personnel to avoid future violations. See Stewart, The Road to Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
rule, the Arizona Supreme Court's decision is correct on the merits. The majority's reliance on United States v. LeonSearch
-
by a presumptively valid warrant issued by a California Superior Court Judge. In 1 See Stewart, The Road to Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Amendment has been violated. Indeed, the majority twice quotes the same statement from the Court's opinion in Illinois v. GatesSearch
-
of this Court as Justices Holmes, Brandeis, Harlan, and Stewart have expressed the opposite view. See, e. g., Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial