Citation network
BrendlIn Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 18, 2007
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Syllabus October Term, 2006 Brendlin V. CaliforniaSearch
-
s freedom of movement through means intentionally applied. Florida v. BostickSearch
-
Brower v. CountySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s actual submission. See, e.g., California v. HodariSearch
-
the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave. E.g., United States v. MendenhallSearch
-
does not normally (and did not here) distinguish between passenger and driver. United States v. Martinez-FuerteSearch
-
arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that could jeopardize his safety. See, e.g., Maryland v. WilsonSearch
-
P. 3d 845, vacated and remanded. Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Brendlin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Brendlin V. CaliforniaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-8120 Bruce Edward Brendlin, Petitioner V. CaliforniaSearch
-
s vehicle, cf. Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
terminates or restrains his freedom of movement, Florida v. BostickSearch
-
U. S. 429 , 434 (1991) (quoting Terry v. OhioSearch
-
cf. County of Sacramento v. LewisSearch
-
otherwise, there is at most an attempted seizure, so far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned. See California v. HodariSearch
-
occurs in response to authority, and when it does not. The test was devised by Justice Stewart in United States v. MendenhallSearch
-
see also United States v. DraytonSearch
-
see also Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
did we indicate any distinction between driver and passenger that would affect the Fourth Amendment analysis. Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
as being seized, id ., at 653. Justification for stopping a car was the issue again in Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
crime, arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that could jeopardize his safety. In Maryland v. WilsonSearch
-
cf. Pennsylvania v. MimmsSearch
-
Wilson , supra , at 414 (quoting Michigan v. SummersSearch
-
of all nine Federal Courts of Appeals, and nearly every state court, to have ruled on the question. See United States v. KimballSearch
-
United States v. RusherSearch
-
United States v. AmelingSearch
-
United States v. TwilleySearch
-
United States v. Eylicio-MontoyaSearch
-
State v. BowersSearch
-
State v. HaworthSearch
-
People v. BunchSearch
-
State v. EisSearch
-
State v. HodgesSearch
-
State v. CarterSearch
-
State v. HarrisSearch
-
s Fourth Amendment right. See, e.g. , Almeida-Sanchez v. UnitedSearch
-
s conduct. See, e.g ., United States v. Rodriguez-DiazSearch
-
People v. RothSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial