In the Matter of D---- M

11 Cited authorities

United States v. Rabinowitz
339 U.S. 56 (1950) Cited 1,567 times
Holding that the test "is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable"
United States v. Jeffers
342 U.S. 48 (1951) Cited 1,057 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that no person can have a legally protected interest in contraband per se
Walder v. United States
347 U.S. 62 (1954) Cited 734 times
Holding that evidence obtained in an illegal search was admissible because “the evidence was introduced for the sole purpose of impeaching the credibility of the appellant, and the court was meticulous in protecting his rights by instructions limiting the consideration of the evidence to the one point for which it was admitted”
Weeks v. United States
232 U.S. 383 (1914) Cited 2,611 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment must be excluded in federal court
Burdeau v. McDowell
256 U.S. 465 (1921) Cited 990 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that when “no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of the petitioner's property, . . . there was no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as whatever wrong was done was the act of individuals in taking the property of another”
Gouled v. United States
255 U.S. 298 (1921) Cited 870 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding it unconstitutional to secretly ransack an office and seize papers when allowed into the home on the false representation that the officer was there for a social visit
Marcello v. Bonds
349 U.S. 302 (1955) Cited 258 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it does not violate due process to have an adjudicator who is "subject to the supervision and control of officials in the Immigration Service charged with investigative and prosecuting functions"
Byars v. United States
273 U.S. 28 (1927) Cited 533 times
Recognizing the "right of the federal government to avail itself of evidence improperly seized by state officers operating entirely upon their own account," but holding that, where the federal government itself "participates in the wrongful search and seizure," the improperly seized evidence is excludable in federal court
Amos v. United States
255 U.S. 313 (1921) Cited 508 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that wife's consent to search was not voluntary when agents told her that they had come to search the premises
United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod
263 U.S. 149 (1923) Cited 346 times
Holding that there is no "presumption of citizenship comparable to the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. . . . To defeat deportation it is not always enough for the person arrested to stand mute at the hearing and put the Government upon its proof."

In the Matter of D---- M

11 Cited authorities

Holding that the test "is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable"

Holding that no person can have a legally protected interest in contraband per se

Holding that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment must be excluded in federal court

Holding it unconstitutional to secretly ransack an office and seize papers when allowed into the home on the false representation that the officer was there for a social visit

Holding that it does not violate due process to have an adjudicator who is "subject to the supervision and control of officials in the Immigration Service charged with investigative and prosecuting functions"

Holding that wife's consent to search was not voluntary when agents told her that they had come to search the premises

Holding that there is no "presumption of citizenship comparable to the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. . . . To defeat deportation it is not always enough for the person arrested to stand mute at the hearing and put the Government upon its proof."