Citation network
irvine Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 08, 1954
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
-
U.S. 128 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court Irvine v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 128 (1954) Irvine v. CaliforniaSearch
-
et seq., held constitutional by this Court in United States v. KahrigerSearch
-
Cf. Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
Goldman v. UnitedSearch
-
The decision in Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Page 347 U. S. 133 338 U. S. 338 U.S. 25, 338 U. S. 33 . See Stefanelli v. MinardSearch
-
That holding would seem to control here. An effort is made, however, to bring this case under the sway of Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in violation of the Fourth Amendment, both the Court and individual Justices have wavered considerably. Compare Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Trupiano v. UnitedSearch
-
Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
On Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
sanctions which put an end to illegal search and seizure by federal officers. The rule was announced in 1914, in Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
perpetrated the wrong. Private detectives may use methods to obtain evidence not open to officers of the law. Burdeau v. McDowellSearch
-
McGuire v. UnitedSearch
-
Feldman v. UnitedSearch
-
Lustig v. UnitedSearch
-
must claim some proprietary or possessory interest in that which was unlawfully searched or seized. E.g., Connolly v. MedalieSearch
-
Steeber v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 198 F.2d 615, 617. See Goldstein v. UnitedSearch
-
supra, at 338 U. S. 30 -31. Cf. United States v. JeffersSearch
-
the officers and their aides if they have violated defendant's constitutional rights. It was pointed out in Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Fourteenth Amendment, that being the right to be secure in his home against unreasonable searches, as defined in Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
by the Constitution of the United Page 347 U. S. 138 States shall be fined or imprisoned. See Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
obtained under the federal wagering statute, is answered in United States v. KahrigerSearch
-
E.g., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
Amos v. UnitedSearch
-
Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
Byars v. UnitedSearch
-
Gambino v. UnitedSearch
-
Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
Grau v. UnitedSearch
-
Nathanson v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 48 . The Court has also cited the doctrine with approval in many related cases. E.g., Perlman v. UnitedSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
McGuire v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Irvine v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Stefanelli v. MinardSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial