Citation network
illinois Vs. Caballes
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 24, 2005
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Supreme Court of the United States Illinois V. CaballesSearch
-
opinion, in which Souter, J., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., took no part in the decision of the case. Illinois v. CaballesSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Illinois V. CaballesSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-923 Illinois, Petitioner V. RoySearch
-
Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution. United States v. JacobsenSearch
-
that use of the dog and the subsequent discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure. People v. CoxSearch
-
Id., at 122 (punctuation omitted). In United States v. PlaceSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see also Indianapolis v. EdmondSearch
-
the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect the growth of marijuana in a home constituted an unlawful search. Kyllo v. UnitedSearch
-
this opinion. It is so ordered. The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case. Illinois v. CaballesSearch
-
Souter, J., Dissenting Illinois V. CaballesSearch
-
accordingly affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and I respectfully dissent. In United States v. PlaceSearch
-
of the dogs themselves, or even the pervasive contamination of currency by cocaine. See, e.g. , United States v. KennedySearch
-
United States v. ScarboroughSearch
-
United States v. LimaresSearch
-
Laime v. StateSearch
-
without revealing contraband, just as a thermal-imaging device might do, as described in Kyllo v. UnitedSearch
-
of enforcing criminal laws does not, without more, justify suspicionless Fourth Amendment intrusions. See Indianapolis v. EdmondSearch
-
See Brief for Respondent 31. There is no occasion to consider authority incident to arrest, however, see Knowles v. IowaSearch
-
the Fourth Amendment consequences of stopping for a traffic citation are settled law. In Berkemer v. McCartySearch
-
we held that the analogue of the common traffic stop was the limited detention for investigation authorized by Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Amendment and its fruits should be suppressed. Nothing in the case relied upon by the Court, United States v. JacobsenSearch
-
demonstrates that investigation into a matter beyond the subject of the traffic stop here offends the rule in Terry v. OhioSearch
-
justification for sui generis status is that a dog sniff is a particularly nonintrusive procedure. United States v. PlaceSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
some degree of privacy. While plain view may be enhanced somewhat by technology, see, e.g., Dow Chemical Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 227 (1986) (allowing for aerial surveillance of an industrial complex), there are limits. As Kyllo v. UnitedSearch
-
that surround the home, closed car trunks are accorded some level of privacy protection. See, e.g., New York v. BeltonSearch
-
unreasonable sniff searches for destructive or deadly material if suicide bombs are a societal risk. Illinois v. CaballesSearch
-
Ginsburg, J., Dissenting Illinois V. CaballesSearch
-
drug evidence should have been suppressed. Id., at 506, 802 N. E. 2d, at 202. Adhering to its decision in People v. CoxSearch
-
Ill. 2d 462, 782 N. E. 2d 275 (2002), the court employed a two-part test taken from Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting People v. BrownleeSearch
-
s judgment and hold that the drug sniff violated the Fourth Amendment. In Terry v. OhioSearch
-
it also encompasses the manner in which the seizure is conducted. See, e.g., Hiibel v. SixthSearch
-
U. S. 113 , 117 (1998) (quoting Berkemer v. McCartySearch
-
U. S., at 20. A drug-detection dog is an intimidating animal. Cf. United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
cf. Indianapolis v. EdmondSearch
-
control on the ground that the action is well calculated to apprehend the guilty. See, e.g., United States v. KaroSearch
-
see also Minnesota v. CarterSearch
-
dog-accompanied drug sweeps of parked cars along sidewalks and in parking lots. Compare, e.g., United States v. LudwigSearch
-
a canine drug sniff of a parked car in a motel parking lot conducted without particular suspicion), with United States v. QuinnSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial