Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Wyoming Vs. Houghton

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 05, 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

52 entries 8 linked 44 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Johns US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1985
  2. Cardwell Vs. Lewis US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1974
  3. South Dakota Vs. Opperman US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  4. Terry Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  5. California Vs. Carney US Supreme Court · May 13, 1985
  6. Chandler Vs. Miller US Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1997
  7. Ybarra Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1979
  8. United States Vs. Padilla US Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1993
  9. U.S. 295 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Wyoming V. Houghton
    Search
  10. was regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under common law when the Amendment was framed, see, e. g., Wilson v. Arkansas
    Search
  11. as reasonable the warrantless search of a car that police had probable cause to believe contained contraband, Carroll v. United
    Search
  12. U. S. 132 , as well as the warrantless search of containers within the automobile, United States v. Ross
    Search
  13. possess a reduced expectation of privacy with regard to the property they transport in cars. See, e. g., Cardwell v. Lewis
    Search
  14. Re, 332 U. S. 581 , and Ybarra v. Illinois
    Search
  15. mobility creates the risk that evidence or contraband will be permanently lost while a warrant is obtained, California v. Carney
    Search
  16. may have an interest in concealing evidence of wrongdoing in a common enterprise with the driver, cf. Maryland v. Wilson
    Search
  17. able to hide contraband in a passenger's belongings as readily as in other containers in the car, see, e. g., Rawlings v. Kentucky
    Search
  18. action was regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under the common law when the Amendment was framed. See Wilson v. Arkansas
    Search
  19. California v. Hodari
    Search
  20. which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. See, e. g., Vernonia School Dist. J,7J v. Acton
    Search
  21. the present case that the police officers had probable cause to believe there were illegal drugs in the car. Carroll v. United
    Search
  22. had probable cause to believe that it contained goods subject to a duty. Id., at 150-153. See also United States v. Ross
    Search
  23. Boyd v. United
    Search
  24. applying broadly to all containers within a car, without qualification as to ownership. See, e. g., California v. Acevedo
    Search
  25. Zurcher v. Stanford
    Search
  26. U. S. 581 (1948), held that probable cause to search a car did not justify a body search of a passenger. And Ybarra v. Illinois
    Search
  27. creates a risk that the evidence or contraband will be permanently lost while a warrant is obtained. California v. Carney
    Search
  28. person are strip searches. 305 concealing the fruits or the evidence of their wrongdoing. Cf. Maryland v. Wilson
    Search
  29. the resulting uncertainty will destroy the workability of the bright-line rule set forth in United States v. Ross
    Search
  30. ante, at 303 (quoting Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  31. cf. Ybarra v. Illinois
    Search
  32. Sibron v. New
    Search
  33. makes a legal difference, for the Court has warned against trying to make that kind of distinction. United States v. Ross
    Search
  34. a new rule that is based on a distinction between property contained in clothing worn by 1 See, e. g., California v. Acevedo
    Search
  35. Carroll v. United
    Search
  36. apart from Di Re, the Court's rights-restrictive approach is not dictated by precedent. For example, in United States v. Ross
    Search
  37. emphasizing in- 311 Amendment required a warrant to search Houghton's purse, cf. Carroll v. United
    Search
  38. clarity of the Court's rule is attractive. But that virtue is insufficient justification for its adoption. Arizona v. Hicks
    Search
  39. Brown v. Texas
    Search
  40. see also United States v. Padilla
    Search
  41. Syllabus Wyoming V. Houghton
    Search
  42. Wilson v. Arkansas
    Search
  43. and Ybarra v. Illinois
    Search
  44. Maryland v. Wilson
    Search
  45. Rawlings v. Kentucky
    Search
  46. See Wilson v. Arkansas
    Search
  47. Vernonia School Dist. J,7J v. Acton
    Search
  48. California v. Acevedo
    Search
  49. Cf. Maryland v. Wilson
    Search
  50. Arizona v. Hicks
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial