Citation network
Ashcroft Vs. Al-kidd
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 26, 2011
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, 2010 Ashcroft V. Al-KiddSearch
-
never called al-Kidd as a witness, and (as he alleges) never meant to do so. Al-Kidd filed suit pursuant to Bivens v. SixSearch
-
at the time of the challenged conduct. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Scott v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 128 , 138. Except for cases that involve special-needs, e.g., Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. ActonSearch
-
U. S. 646 , 653, or administrative searches, e.g., Michigan v. CliffordSearch
-
s cases eschewing inquiries into intent, e.g., Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 517 U. S. 806 , 813, and Terry v. OhioSearch
-
and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Ashcroft v. al-KiddSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Ashcroft V. Al-KiddSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-98 John D. Ashcroft, Petitioner V. AbdullahSearch
-
later. Prosecutors never called him as a witness. In March 2005, al-Kidd filed this Bivens action, see Bivens v. SixSearch
-
courts have discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first. See Pearson v. CallahanSearch
-
under this provision, Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
motivating the relevant officials. Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
This approach recognizes that the Fourth Amendment regulates conduct rather than thoughts, Bond v. UnitedSearch
-
and it promotes evenhanded, uniform enforcement of the law, Devenpeck v. AlfordSearch
-
do matter. United States v. KnightsSearch
-
such as the need to deter drug use in public schools, Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. ActonSearch
-
to assure that railroad employees engaged in train operations are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Skinner v. RailwaySearch
-
warrant authorizing, for example, an inspection of fire-damaged premises to determine the cause, Michigan v. CliffordSearch
-
plurality opinion), or an inspection of residential premises to assure compliance with a housing code, Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
Apart from those cases, we have almost uniformly rejected invitations to probe subjective intent. See Brigham City v. StuartSearch
-
previously approved vehicle checkpoints set up for the purpose of keeping off the road unlicensed drivers, Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
U. S. 648 , 663 (1979), or alcohol-impaired drivers, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. SitzSearch
-
and for the purpose of interdicting those who illegally cross the border, United States v. Martinez-FuerteSearch
-
the motives behind seizures supported by probable cause but lacking a warrant approved by a detached magistrate. Terry v. OhioSearch
-
implying (we accept for the sake of argument) that the detention would therefore be unconstitutional. United States v. AwadallahSearch
-
and the Ninth Circuit in particular, see Brosseau v. HaugenSearch
-
cf. Sawyer v. SmithSearch
-
of little help in determining whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established. See Saucier v. KatzSearch
-
search and seize whatever and whomever they pleased while investigating crimes or affronts to the Crown. See Stanford v. TexasSearch
-
in the consideration or decision of this case. Footnote 1 The Court of Appeals also relied upon Ferguson v. CharlestonSearch
-
s policy, not by a desire to call al-Kidd as a witness. Ashcroft v. al-KiddSearch
-
Kennedy, J., Concurring Ashcroft V. Al-KiddSearch
-
s separate reasonableness requirement for seizures of the person. See United States v. WatsonSearch
-
a high office in the Government must inform what law is clearly established for the purposes of this case. Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
and so are expected to adjust their behavior in accordance with local precedent. Davis v. SchererSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial