Citation network
Virginia Vs. Moore
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 23, 2008
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, 2007 Virginia V. MooreSearch
-
Atwater v. LagoSearch
-
calculus when a State chooses to protect privacy beyond the level required by the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
incident to constitutionally permissible arrests in order to ensure their safety and safeguard evidence. United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
officers issuing citations do not face the same danger, and thus do not have the same authority to search, Knowles v. IowaSearch
-
Thomas, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Virginia v. MooreSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Virginia V. MooreSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-1082 Virginia, Petitioner V. DavidSearch
-
and common law of the founding era to determine the norms that the Fourth Amendment was meant to preserve. See Wyoming v. HoughtonSearch
-
Wilson v. ArkansasSearch
-
to prohibit the general warrants and writs of assistance that English judges had employed against the colonists, Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Payton v. NewSearch
-
state officers, since the Fourth Amendment was a restriction only upon federal power, see Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. MayorSearch
-
see also, e.g., Devenpeck v. AlfordSearch
-
Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
the Fourth Amendment requires. We have treated additional protections exclusively as matters of state law. In Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
rules, police could search a lawfully seized vehicle as a matter of federal constitutional law. In California v. GreenwoodSearch
-
not alter the content of the Fourth Amendment. We have applied the same principle in the seizure context. Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
Later decisions did not expand the rule of Di Re. Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
under circumstances identical in relevant respects to those in that case. See 333 U. S., at 12, 15, n. 5. And Michigan v. DeFillippoSearch
-
violation of its statutes. See 45 Va. App., at 161, 609 S. E. 2d, at 82 (Annunziata, J., dissenting) (citing Janis v. CommonwealthSearch
-
might vary if federal officers were not subject to the same statutory constraints as state officers. In Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
citing People v. ChiaglesSearch
-
People v. DeForeSearch
-
Officers issuing citations do not face the same danger, and we therefore held in Knowles v. IowaSearch
-
excluded evidence obtained through unconstitutional methods in order to deter constitutional violations. See Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
there. Ibid. Moore does not contend that this delay violated the Fourth Amendment. Footnote 2 Atwater v. LagoSearch
-
s enactment saw as reasonable. Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
s Constitution. See Brock v. StimsonSearch
-
Phillips v. FaddenSearch
-
see also Tubbs v. TukeySearch
-
violation of state common law concerning arrest but not asserting violation of state constitution). Virginia v. MooreSearch
-
Ginsburg, J., Concurring in Judgment Virginia V. MooreSearch
-
s decision in Atwater v. LagoSearch
-
See also Atwater v. LagoSearch
-
the Court lists Atwater , 532 U. S., at 354, Devenpeck v. AlfordSearch
-
U. S. 146 , 152 (2004), Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
and Gerstein v. PughSearch
-
Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
Virginia, Petitioner V. DavidSearch
-
See Wyoming v. HoughtonSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Tiernan v. MayorSearch
-
In Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
In California v. GreenwoodSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial