Citation network
Maryland Vs. Wilson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 19, 1997
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. 408 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Maryland V. WilsonSearch
-
under the Fourth Amendment. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that the rule of Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop. Statements by the Court in Michigan v. LongSearch
-
emphasis added)), and by Justice Powell in Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we consider whether the rule of Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed, 106 Md. App. 24, 664 A. 2d 1 (1995), ruling that Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S., at 108109 (quoting Terry v. OhioSearch
-
U. S., at 109 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-PonceSearch
-
driver. Maryland, in turn, argues that we have already implicitly decided this question by our statement in Michigan v. LongSearch
-
id., at 1047-1048 (emphasis added), and by Justice Powell's statement in Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
that, because we have generally eschewed brightline rules in the Fourth Amendment context, see, e. g., Ohio v. RobinetteSearch
-
apprehension of such a crime is every bit as great as that of the driver. We think that our opinion in Michigan v. SummersSearch
-
opinion. It is so ordered. JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE KENNEDY joins, dissenting. In Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
by the rule the Court announces. Though the question is not before us, I am satisfied thatunder the rationale of Terry v. OhioSearch
-
therefore not before us, and I am not free to concur in the Court's judgment on this alternative ground. See Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
of obeying an arbitrary and sometimes demeaning command issued over a loud speaker. 3 See also New York v. ClassSearch
-
cf. Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
by an inadequately trained officer after a command was issued to exit the vehicle in Board of Comm'rs of Bryan Cty. v. BrownSearch
-
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. As we held in United States v. Brignoni-PonceSearch
-
all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. MississippiSearch
-
Cf. Ybarra v. IllinoisSearch
-
citing Sibron v. NewSearch
-
case Terry v. OhioSearch
-
intrusions on the liberty of passengers in automobiles. United States v. Brignoni-PonceSearch
-
U. S. 648 , 662-663 10 See, e. g., Amos v. UnitedSearch
-
Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 232 U. S. 383 , 393 (1914). 11 See, e. g., Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
us the separate question whether passengers, who, after all, are in the car by choice, 12 Dissenting in Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
to the police in effecting searches and seizures involving vehicles and their occupants. See, e. g., Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
is some objective indication that a violation has been committed, regardless of the officer's real motives. See Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus Maryland V. WilsonSearch
-
of Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
Ohio v. RobinetteSearch
-
Michigan v. SummersSearch
-
In Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
of Terry v. OhioSearch
-
See Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
Whren v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial