Citation network
Zap 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
-
Zap v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 328 U.S. 624 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Zap v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 328 U.S. 624 (1946) Zap v. UnitedSearch
-
of the action of the District Court in allowing the check to be admitted. As we have pointed out in Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
agents from testifying at the trial concerning the facts about which they had lawfully obtained knowledge. See Paper v. UnitedSearch
-
unlawful, that would not make inadmissible in evidence the knowledge which had been legally obtained. United States v. LeeSearch
-
U. S. 563 . The agents did not become trespassers ab initio when they took the check. See McGuire v. UnitedSearch
-
taken photostats or made copies of the check and offered them in evidence without producing the originals. Lisansky v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 31 F.2d 846, 850, 851. Darby v. UnitedSearch
-
is a narrow one. It is whether the check itself could be introduced at the trial. Page 328 U. S. 630 Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
seizure could not be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution of the owner. As explained in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
is suppressed on the theory that the government may not profit from its own wrongdoing. But, as stated in McGuire v. UnitedSearch
-
See Cravens v. UnitedSearch
-
JUSTICE MURPHY and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE concur, dissenting. The views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
inspectors could testify to what they had gleaned from the inspection. But, as is pointed out in my dissent in Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
authorized, since the seized items were uncovered in a lawful search. But this is to overlook what we ruled in Marron v. UnitedSearch
-
Court has frequently announced the duty to suppress evidence obtained by such defective warrants. Cf. United States v. BerkenessSearch
-
Grau v. UnitedSearch
-
Sgro v. UnitedSearch
-
Nathanson v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Zap v. UnitedSearch
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
See Paper v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. LeeSearch
-
See McGuire v. UnitedSearch
-
Lisansky v. UnitedSearch
-
Darby v. UnitedSearch
-
Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
McGuire v. UnitedSearch
-
Marron v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. United States v. BerkenessSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial