Citation network
illinois Vs. Mcarthur
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 20, 2001
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
-
U.S. 326 (2001) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Illinois V. McarthurSearch
-
ordinary case, personal property seizures are unreasonable unless accomplished pursuant to a warrant, United States v. PlaceSearch
-
law enforcement needs, diminished expectations of privacy, minimal intrusions, and the like, see, e. g., Pennsylvania v. LabronSearch
-
here involve a plausible claim of specially pressing or urgent law enforcement need. Cf., e. g., United States v. PlaceSearch
-
at 701. Moreover, the restraint at issue was tailored to that need, being limited in time and scope, cf. Terry v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 1, 29-30, and avoiding significant intrusion into the home itself, cf. Payton v. NewSearch
-
privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns to determine if the intrusion here was reasonable. Cf. Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
The conclusion that the restriction was lawful finds significant support in this Court's case law. See, e. g., Segura v. UnitedSearch
-
to prevent the loss of evidence while the police diligently obtained a warrant in a reasonable period. But cf. Welsh v. WisconsinSearch
-
and that Welsh v. WisconsinSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
is one of reasonableness. See Texas v. BrownSearch
-
issued by a neutral magistrate after finding probable cause. United States v. PlaceSearch
-
general, or individual, circumstances may render a warrantless search or seizure reasonable. See, e. g., Pennsylvania v. LabronSearch
-
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. SitzSearch
-
Cf., e. g., United States v. PlaceSearch
-
Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. HaydenSearch
-
of evidence). Moreover, the restraint at issue was tailored to that need, being limited in time and scope, cf. Terry v. OhioSearch
-
supra, at 29-30, and avoiding significant intrusion into the home itself, cf. Payton v. NewSearch
-
is warrantless entry and search of home) (quoting United States v. UnitedSearch
-
the privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns to determine if the intrusion was reasonable. Cf. Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
United States v. BrignoniPonceSearch
-
at issue. And they thought, with good reason, that her report to them reflected that opportunity. Cf. Massachusetts v. UptonSearch
-
a warrant. Fourth, the police imposed the restraint for a limited period of time, namely, two hours. Cf. Terry v. OhioSearch
-
necessary for the police, acting with diligence, to obtain the warrant. Compare United 333 States v. PlaceSearch
-
based on nature of interference with person's travels and lack of diligence of police), with United States v. VanSearch
-
B Our conclusion that the restriction was lawful finds significant support in this Court's case law. In Segura v. UnitedSearch
-
and seized the drugs pursuant to the validly issued warrant. See id., at 799, 814-815 (citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the apartment from the outside, restricting entry into the apartment while waiting for the warrant. Compare Segura v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
temporary restraints where needed to preserve evidence until police could obtain a warrant. See, e. g., United States v. PlaceSearch
-
United States v. VanSearch
-
Leeuwen, supra, at 253 (reasonable suspicion justifies detaining package delivered for mailing). Cf. Richards v. WisconsinSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
the loss of evidence while the police diligently obtained a warrant in a reasonable period of time. But cf. Welsh v. WisconsinSearch
-
and hence subject to arrest without a warrant permitting entry of the home. United States v. SantanaSearch
-
McArthur points to a case (and we believe it is the only case) that he believes offers direct support, namely, Welsh v. WisconsinSearch
-
intrusive than police entry into the home itself in order to make a warrantless arrest or conduct a search. Cf. Payton v. NewSearch
-
risk that undergirds the accepted exigent circumstances exception to the general warrant requirement. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
have justified the police in entering McArthur's trailer promptly to make a lawful, warrantless search. United States v. SantanaSearch
-
is the immediate risk, and the limit of reasonable response by the police is set by the scope of the risk. See Terry v. OhioSearch
-
a warrant has a stronger claim to justification on later, judicial review than a search without one. See United States v. VentrescaSearch
-
to limit an individual's possessory interest in his or her home pending the arrival of a search warrant. Cf. Segura v. UnitedSearch
-
the most serious constitutional protection.3 Following their analysis and the reasoning in our decision in Welsh v. WisconsinSearch
-
for the sanctity of the home has long animated this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. See, e. g., Wilson v. LayneSearch
-
Syllabus Illinois V. McarthurSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial