Citation network
Davis Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1946
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
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 328 U.S. 582 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946) Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
a distinction is made between private papers or documents and public property in the custody of a citizen. Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
the right to inspect a place of business to stand mute when clear evidence of criminal activity is known to them. Amos v. UnitedSearch
-
the seizure of the coupons and their use at the trial in Page 328 U. S. 585 violation of the rule of Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
revealed in the decisions of this Court is the product of the interplay of these two constitutional provisions. Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
protection of the individual against compulsory production of evidence to be used against him. Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra. And see Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. WallingSearch
-
The distinction between the two classes of property in the law of searches and seizures was recognized in Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 328 U. S. 591 The distinction has had important repercussions in the law, beyond that indicated by Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
to possession. The claim of ownership will even justify a trespass, and warrant steps otherwise unlawful. Richardson v. AnthonySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Madden v. BrownSearch
-
State v. DooleySearch
-
only coupons were taken. These facts distinguished this case from such cases as Amos v. UnitedSearch
-
involved. The custodian in this situation is not protected against the production of incriminating documents. Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
This distinction was noted in another connection in Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
such as counterfeit coin, lottery tickets, implements of gambling, etc., are not within this category. Commonwealth v. DanaSearch
-
State of Tennessee v. HallSearch
-
State v. KnightSearch
-
State v. BennettSearch
-
Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
and drastic break with the whole history of the Fourth Amendment and its applications by this Court. See Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
charge also is a misdemeanor. The petitioner made timely motions for the suppression of the evidence, see Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
determinations even when they come here, unlike the present case, supported by both lower courts. See United States v. AppalachianSearch
-
constitutes a voluntary yielding is to disregard ordinary experience. This Court preferred not to do that in Amos v. UnitedSearch
-
See Union Pac. R. Co. v. PublicSearch
-
protection afforded their possessors between papers exclusively private and documents having public aspects. Cf. Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
only its own reasoning to support it. Nothing that this Court has ever decided or sanctioned gives it strength. Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
Crown, 130, 133. An attempt to exceed these narrow limits called forth the enduring judgment of Lord Camden, in Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Commonwealth v. DanaSearch
-
historic reach of the Amendment and the duty to observe it was expounded for the Court by Mr. Justice Bradley in Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 328 U. S. 607 Brandeis, J., in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
because the information leading to the issue of the subpoena has been unlawfully secured. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
yet we held in Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
of the amendment extends to a witness before a grand jury, although he has not been charged with crime ( Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
Its chief reliance was language in Marron v. UnitedSearch
-
A short answer would be that the sting of the Marron case was taken by two later cases. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 282 U. S. 344 , 282 U. S. 358 , and United States v. LefkowitzSearch
-
in early Anglo-Saxon law, see People v. ChiaglesSearch
-
N.E. 583, 584, or is based on the necessity of depriving the prisoner of potential means of escape, Closson v. MorrisonSearch
-
N.H. 482, or on preventing the prisoner from destroying evidence otherwise properly subject to seizure, see Reifsnyder v. LeeSearch
-
Holker v. HennesseySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
Amos v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial