Citation network
Elkins Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1960
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
-
Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 364 U.S. 206 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
no longer be accepted. To put the issue in historic perspective, the appropriate starting point must be Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 232 U.S. 383, 232 U. S. 391 -393. To the exclusionary rule of Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
States there has been unquestioning adherence for now almost half a century. See Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
Amos v. UnitedSearch
-
Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Grau v. UnitedSearch
-
McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
unlawfully seized by state officers apparently went unquestioned for the next thirty-five years. See, e.g., Byars v. UnitedSearch
-
Feldman v. UnitedSearch
-
by federal agents in the search and seizure as to make applicable the exclusionary rule of Weeks. See Flagg v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. SlusserSearch
-
United States v. FallocoSearch
-
Legman v. UnitedSearch
-
Marron v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BrownSearch
-
F.2d 630, 631. This Court first came to grips with the problem in Byars v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 273 U. S. 33 . In Gambino v. UnitedSearch
-
solely on behalf of the United States, the evidence was not admissible in a federal prosecution. Then came Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
The Court has subsequently found frequent occasion to reiterate this statement from Wolf. See Stefanelli v. MinardSearch
-
to the admissibility rule appear to have recognized that Wolf casts doubt upon its continuing validity. Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BenantiSearch
-
F.2d 389, reversed on other grounds, 355 U. S. 355 U.S. 96. Cf. Kendall v. UnitedSearch
-
Hanna v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Weeks admissibility rule has been manifest from the very day that Wolf was decided. In Lustig v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 338 U. S. 79 . And in Benanti v. UnitedSearch
-
of a federal statute, yet would admit that which they had seized in violation of the Constitution itself. Cf. Benanti v. UnitedSearch
-
otherwise admissible evidence because of the status of the witness or his relationship to the defendant. Cf. Hawkins v. UnitedSearch
-
McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. DeforeSearch
-
guaranty in the only effectively available way -- by removing the incentive to disregard it. See Eleuteri v. RichmanSearch
-
Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
search and seizure unlawful under the Fourth Amendment must be suppressed in a prosecution in the state courts. State v. ArreguiSearch
-
Walters v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Little v. StateSearch
-
State v. RebastiSearch
-
State v. HiteshewSearch
-
Ramirez v. StateSearch
-
Tex.Cr.R. 254, 58 S.W.2d 829. Compare Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
Court of that State resolutely turned its back on many years of precedent and adopted the exclusionary rule. People v. CahanSearch
-
today affects not at all the freedom of the states to develop and apply their own sanctions in their own way. Cf. Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial