Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Frank Vs. Maryland

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 04, 1959

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

63 entries 4 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Wolf Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  2. Schwartz Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1952
  3. Leyra Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1954
  4. District of Columbia Vs. Little US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1950
    Relied / Followed
  5. U.S. 360 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Frank v. Maryland
    Search
  6. U.S. 360 (1959) Frank v. Maryland
    Search
  7. fundamental to a free society, and, as such, protected by the Fourteenth Page 359 U. S. 363 Amendment. Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  8. found their way into State Constitutions. In 1765, in England, what is properly called the great case of Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  9. Many years later, this Court, in Boyd v. United
    Search
  10. States, 116 U. S. 616 , carefully reviewed this history and pointed out, as did Lord Camden in Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  11. issued search warrant. It is this aspect of the constitutional protection to which the quoted passages from Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  12. and Boyd v. United
    Search
  13. Jackman v. Rosenbaum
    Search
  14. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken
    Search
  15. Land and Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, and Ownbey v. Morgan
    Search
  16. Boyd v. United
    Search
  17. The Court in Boyd v. United
    Search
  18. See Givner v. State
    Search
  19. Compare Kotch v. Board
    Search
  20. of River Port Pilot Comm'rs, 330 U. S. 552 , and Ownbey v. Morgan
    Search
  21. U. S. 94 , with Brown v. Board
    Search
  22. unreasonable searches applies to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  23. of the Fourteenth Amendment enjoins upon the States the guarantee of privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment ( Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  24. Page 359 U. S. 375 The Court said in Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  25. made the Page 359 U. S. 376 ground for a narrow reading of statutory powers in Federal Trade Comm'n v. American
    Search
  26. primarily to searches for evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions. That certainly is not the teaching of Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  27. of our First Amendment (as well as the prohibitions of the Fourth and the Fifth) reflect the teachings of Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  28. See Ullmann v. United
    Search
  29. Feldman v. United
    Search
  30. States, 322 U. S. 487 , 322 U. S. 499 . It is only in that setting that Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  31. And see 2 Paterson, Liberty of the Subject (1877), pp. 129-132. This history, also recounted in Boyd v. United
    Search
  32. the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect criminals only was emphasized by Judge Prettyman in District of Columbia v. Little
    Search
  33. The philosophy of the Fourth Amendment was well expressed by Mr. Justice Butler speaking for the Court in Agnello v. United
    Search
  34. privacy must yield only when a judicial officer issues a warrant for a search on a showing of probable cause. Johnson v. United
    Search
  35. Trupiano v. United
    Search
  36. McDonald v. United
    Search
  37. States, 335 U. S. 451 , 335 U. S. 454 -455. As we said in McDonald v. United
    Search
  38. to the kinds of warrants James Otis inveighed against -- the writs of assistance and the general warrants. Cf. On Lee v. United
    Search
  39. U. S. 199 , 344 U. S. 205 . For as Chief Justice Vinson wrote in Nueslein v. District
    Search
  40. in their heyday when the government was out to suppress the nonconformists. That is the true explanation of Entick v. Carrington
    Search
  41. and again whenever government seeks to use its compulsive force against the citizen. Legislative Committees ( Watkins v. United
    Search
  42. Sweezy v. New
    Search
  43. U. S. 257 ), fire marshals ( In re Groban, 352 U. S. 330 , 352 U. S. 337 ), police ( Rochin v. California
    Search
  44. On Lee v. United
    Search
  45. which Boyd v. United
    Search
  46. Vines v. Governors
    Search
  47. Robinson v. Corporation
    Search
  48. Wimbledon Urban District Counsel v. Hastings
    Search
  49. Consett Urban District Council v. Crawford
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Frank v. Maryland
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial