Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Rabinowitz

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 20, 1950

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

69 entries 3 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Robertson Vs. Baldwin US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1897
  2. United States Vs. Lefkowitz US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
  3. Wolf Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
    Distinguished
  4. U.S. 56 (1950) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Rabinowitz
    Search
  5. U.S. 56 (1950) United States v. Rabinowitz
    Search
  6. and (5) the possession of the forged stamps was a crime. Pp. 339 U. S. 63 -64. 2. Trupiano v. United
    Search
  7. Respondent was convicted on both counts after trial before a jury in which he offered no evidence. Relying on Trupiano v. United
    Search
  8. It is unreasonable searches that are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Carroll v. United
    Search
  9. The right to search the person incident to arrest always has been recognized in this country and in England. Weeks v. United
    Search
  10. because the officers had probable cause to believe that a felony was being committed in their very presence. Carroll v. United
    Search
  11. this Court have often recognized that there is a permissible area of search beyond the person proper. Thus, in Agnello v. United
    Search
  12. practice of searching for other proofs of guilt within the control of the accused found upon arrest. Weeks v. United
    Search
  13. Agnello v. United
    Search
  14. Carroll v. United
    Search
  15. Boyd v. United
    Search
  16. States, 116 U. S. 616 , 116 U. S. 623 -624. In Marron v. United
    Search
  17. Marron v. United
    Search
  18. We do not understand the Marron case to have been drained of contemporary vitality by Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  19. States, 282 U. S. 344 , and United States v. Lefkowitz
    Search
  20. arrested, over which room he had immediate control, and in which he had been selling such stamps unlawfully. Harris v. United
    Search
  21. the reasonableness of searches must find resolution in the facts and circumstances of each case. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  22. We think not, because the search was otherwise reasonable, as previously concluded. In a recent opinion, Trupiano v. United
    Search
  23. in a case of search incident to arrest. On the occasion of the previous suggestion of such a test, Taylor v. United
    Search
  24. upon the practicability of procuring a search warrant, for the warrant is not required. To the extent that Trupiano v. United
    Search
  25. search of the premises at least to the extent conducted in the instant case is not unreasonable. See, e.g., Argetakis v. State
    Search
  26. Italiano v. State
    Search
  27. State v. Conner
    Search
  28. State v. Carenza
    Search
  29. Wong You v. District
    Search
  30. Davis v. State
    Search
  31. Fong v. Superior
    Search
  32. State v. Adams
    Search
  33. objects are to be distinguished from merely evidentiary materials which may not be taken into custody. United States v. Lefkowitz
    Search
  34. Gouled v. United
    Search
  35. United States v. Poller
    Search
  36. F.2d 911, 914. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting. Trupiano v. United
    Search
  37. search. I dissented in that case. Later, concurring in this Court's decision in Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  38. an evidentiary policy adopted by this Court in the exercise of its supervisory powers over federal courts. Cf. McNabb v. United
    Search
  39. Trupiano v. United
    Search
  40. premises and papers by officers, some of whom might be overzealous and oppressive. See dissent in Feldman v. United
    Search
  41. makes all the difference in the world whether one approaches the Fourth Amendment as the Court approached it in Boyd v. United
    Search
  42. States, 116 U. S. 616 , in Weeks v. United
    Search
  43. States, 232 U. S. 383 , in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United
    Search
  44. States, 251 U. S. 385 , in Gouled v. United
    Search
  45. in early Anglo-Saxon law. See Judge Cardozo in People v. Chiagles
    Search
  46. first, in order to protect the arresting officer and to deprive the prisoner of potential means of escape, Closson v. Morrison
    Search
  47. N.H. 482, and, secondly, to avoid destruction of evidence by the arrested person. See Reifsnyder v. Lee
    Search
  48. Holker v. Hennessey
    Search
  49. in necessity. The search without a warrant of moving objects -- vehicles and vessels -- was sanctioned in Carroll v. United
    Search
  50. The guiding line in dealing with the Fourth Amendment was set forth in Gouled v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial