Citation network
On Lee Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 02, 1952
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
-
On Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 343 U.S. 747 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court On Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 343 U.S. 747 (1952) On Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
Even if the Court were to overturn its ruling that wiretapping is outside the ban of the Fourth Amendment, Olmstead v. PageSearch
-
The evidence should not have been excluded as a means of disciplining law enforcement officers. McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
agent Lee did not amount to an unlawful search and seizure such as is proscribed by the Fourth Amendment. In Goldman v. UnitedSearch
-
this contention was decided adversely to him in McGuire v. UnitedSearch
-
This was followed in Zap v. UnitedSearch
-
on the frivolous. Only in the case of physical entry, either Page 343 U. S. 753 by force, as in McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 335 U. S. 451 , by unwilling submission to authority, as in Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 333 U. S. 10 , or without any express or implied consent, as in Nueslein v. DistrictSearch
-
the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself was by subterfuge or fraud, rather than force. United States v. JeffersSearch
-
Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 255 U. S. 298 (the authority of the latter case is sharply limited by Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the Court to overturn the leading case holding wiretapping to be outside the ban of the Fourth Amendment, Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
cases which have followed it. We need not consider this, however, for success in this attempt, which failed in Goldman v. UnitedSearch
-
entitled to use. He was not sending messages to anybody, or using a system of communications within the Act. Goldstein v. UnitedSearch
-
overruled in all else, the evidence should be excluded as a means of disciplining law enforcement officers. Cf. McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
was not, would not render the evidence Page 343 U. S. 755 obtained inadmissible in federal courts. Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
exclusionary rules of evidence going beyond the requirements of the constitutional or statutory provision. McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
of such rules, and the creation of new ones, it is well to remember the remarks of Mr. Justice Stone in McGuire v. UnitedSearch
-
Zucker v. WhitridgeSearch
-
People v. AdamsSearch
-
his right in advance of trial to have returned to him evidence unconstitutionally obtained. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Funk v. UnitedSearch
-
BLACK believes that, in exercising its supervisory authority over criminal justice in the federal courts, see McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
whatever, or where the nature of the precise specific objection which could be made is readily discernible. Sparks v. TerritorySearch
-
Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
no softie, either before be became a judge or on the bench. Accordingly I adhere to the views expressed in Goldman v. UnitedSearch
-
Nor will crime be checked by such means. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. The Court held in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
stirred by those dissents and by an increasing use of wiretapping by the police. Fourteen years later, in Goldman v. UnitedSearch
-
of a man's home and the privacies of life' was provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language. Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
See Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting, Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
of tangible things. It extends to intangibles, such as spoken words. In applying the exclusionary rule of Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
concerned with where and how the evidence is seized, rather than what the evidence is. Cf. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Nueslein v. DistrictSearch
-
room which he has no warrant or permission to enter, provided he sees or hears it outside of those premises. Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 277 U. S. 438 . Cf. Hester v. UnitedSearch
-
it may come. He and his hearing aid pick up the sounds outside of, rather than within, the protected premises. Goldman v. UnitedSearch
-
to an unreasonable search, he should not be permitted, in this proceeding, to testify even to that. Cf. Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court On Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Fourth Amendment, Olmstead v. PageSearch
-
McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
the Fourth Amendment. In Goldman v. UnitedSearch
-
McGuire v. UnitedSearch
-
Zap v. UnitedSearch
-
McDonald v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial