Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Florida Vs. White

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 17, 1999

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

72 entries 4 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. South Dakota Vs. Opperman US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
    Relied / Followed
  2. Wyoming Vs. Houghton US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1999
  3. Pennsylvania Vs. Labron US Supreme Court · Jul 01, 1996
  4. Arizona Vs. Hicks US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1987
    Relied / Followed
  5. U.S. 559 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Florida V. White
    Search
  6. the action was regarded as an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed. See, e. g., Carroll v. United
    Search
  7. a public area, the warrantless seizure is virtually indistinguishable from the seizure upheld in G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United
    Search
  8. a) (1997). 2 Nothing in the Act requires the police to obtain a warrant prior to seizing a vehicle. See State v. Pomerance
    Search
  9. justify a warrantless seizure. The court expressly rejected the holding of the Eleventh Circuit, see United States v. Valdes
    Search
  10. which is similar to Florida's. See United States v. Decker
    Search
  11. United States v. Pace
    Search
  12. United States v. One
    Search
  13. United States v. Kemp
    Search
  14. United States v. Bush
    Search
  15. F.2d 357 (CA3 1981). But see United States v. Dixon
    Search
  16. United States v. Lasanta
    Search
  17. inquire whether the action was regarded as an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed. See Wyoming v. Houghton
    Search
  18. Carroll v. United
    Search
  19. see also California v. Carney
    Search
  20. arrests in public places where an officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has occurred. See United States v. Watson
    Search
  21. Payton v. New
    Search
  22. at issue in this case. Indeed, the facts of this case are nearly indistinguishable from those in G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United
    Search
  23. in the interest of law enforcement, as legislatures are evincing increasing ingenuity in doing, cf., e. g., Bennis v. Michigan
    Search
  24. United States v. James
    Search
  25. dissenting in part) (expressing concern about the breadth of new forfeiture statutes). Moreover, G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United
    Search
  26. traditional enforcement of government revenue laws, id., at 351-352, and n. 18 (citing, e. g., Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken
    Search
  27. How. 272 (1856)), and the legality of seizing abandoned contraband in public view, 429 U. S., at 352 (citing Hester v. United
    Search
  28. Coolidge v. New
    Search
  29. and seizures as well as searches, Soldal v. Cook
    Search
  30. seizure under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. See 710 So. 2d, at 952 (discussing Department of Law Enforcement v. Real
    Search
  31. have no authority to determine the limits of state constitutional or statutory safeguards. 2 E. g., United States v. United
    Search
  32. Katz v. United
    Search
  33. Johnson v. United
    Search
  34. interest. Nevertheless, I would look to the warrant clause as a measure of reasonableness in such cases, United States v. United
    Search
  35. Harris v. United
    Search
  36. overruled in part by Chimel v. California
    Search
  37. see also Shadwick v. Tampa
    Search
  38. Wong Sun 3 See, e. g., Carroll v. United
    Search
  39. cf. United States v. James
    Search
  40. had the State relied on the plain-view doctrine, perhaps a warrantless seizure would have been defensible. See Horton v. California
    Search
  41. U. S. 321 , 327 (1987) (citing Payton v. New
    Search
  42. Austin v. United
    Search
  43. States, 509 U. S. 602 , 621 (1993) (quoting One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  44. involve a serious intrusion on the rights of innocent persons with no connection to the earlier offense. Cf. Bennis v. Michigan
    Search
  45. by a routine and predictable inventory search- 5 There is some force to the majority's reliance on United States v. Watson
    Search
  46. interjects the judgment of a neutral decisionmaker, one with no pecuniary interest in the matter, see Connally v. Georgia
    Search
  47. the property shifts to the individual. Knowing that a neutral party 6 The Court's reliance on G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United
    Search
  48. Syllabus Florida V. White
    Search
  49. G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United
    Search
  50. See State v. Pomerance
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial