Citation network
Pennsylvania Vs. Labron
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 01, 1996
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
-
U.S. 938 (1996) October Term, 1995 Per Curiam Pennsylvania V. LabronSearch
-
excuse failure to obtain a search warrant once probable cause to conduct the search is clear. See, e. g., California v. CarneySearch
-
state-law ground for the exception is not clear from the face of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinion. Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Together with No. 95-1738, Pennsylvania v. KilgoreSearch
-
Pa., at 100, 669 A. 2d, at 924, quoting Commonwealth v. WhiteSearch
-
sufficient to excuse failure to obtain a search warrant once probable cause to conduct the search is clear. California v. CarneySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
our cases on the automobile exception, see, e. g., 543 Pa., at 95, 669 A. 2d, at 921 (observing Commonwealth v. HolzerSearch
-
Pa. 93, 103, 389 A. 2d 101, 106 (1978), cited Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Pa., at 100, 669 A. 2d, at 924 (stating Commonwealth v. WhiteSearch
-
supra, rested in part upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's analysis of Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
Commonwealth v. WhiteSearch
-
Ante, at 941 (quoting Michigan v. LongSearch
-
to the warrant requirement by quoting several passages from our decision in Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), which first established the exception, and then quotes a passage from Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
the constitutional protections are applicable to searches and seizures of a person's car.' Commonwealth v. HolzerSearch
-
Pa. 93, 103, 389 A. 2d 101, 106 (1978) (citing Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
carrying out an immediate search without a warrant.''' 543 Pa. 86, 95, 669 A. 2d 917, 921 (1995) (quoting Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
here in light of both federal and state law. And although the court's analysis relied upon our decision in Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
evaluation it makes of its State Constitution, the Pennsylvania court also rejected our decision in New York v. BeltonSearch
-
have explicitly read White as establishing a state constitutional right, not a federal right. Commonwealth v. HaskinsSearch
-
a warrant, the police must still show the existence of both probable cause and exigent circumstances. Commonwealth v. WhiteSearch
-
see also Commonwealth v. YedinakSearch
-
had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of 4 Although the court's main opinion in Commonwealth v. WhiteSearch
-
this Court's understanding of when a state decision is based on adequate and independent state grounds. In Michigan v. LongSearch
-
review above, it seems to me that the Court's decision to take jurisdiction in Labron not only extends Michigan v. LongSearch
-
on federal law in these cases, therefore, is quite different from that which spurred the Court to conclude in Michigan v. LongSearch
-
this end, I find it particularly interesting that only two Pennsylvania courts have cited the decision in California v. CarneySearch
-
per curiam decision relies as modern support for its interpretation of federal constitutional law. See Commonwealth v. RosenfeltSearch
-
Commonwealth v. CamachoSearch
-
Court of Appeals erroneously applied the principles of Terry v. OhioSearch
-
with federal law than is true in these cases. See, e. g., Illinois v. RodriguezSearch
-
almost certainly remain the same on remand. In such a circumstance, the rationales supporting the rule of Michigan v. LongSearch
-
should simply be denied. On many prior occasions, I have noted the unfortunate effects of the rule of Michigan v. LongSearch
-
See, e. g., Harris v. ReedSearch
-
Delaware v. VanSearch
-
see also Arizona v. EvansSearch
-
the protections of its Constitution beyond those available under the Federal Constitution, see, e. g., Commonwealth v. EdmundsSearch
-
Commonwealth v. RosenfeltSearch
-
Per Curiam Pennsylvania V. LabronSearch
-
California v. CarneySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial