12 Cited authorities

  1. Coolidge v. New Hampshire

    403 U.S. 443 (1971)   Cited 7,305 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a search or seizure carried out on a suspect's premises without a warrant is per se unreasonable, unless the police can show that it falls within one of a carefully defined set of exceptions based on the presence of exigent circumstances"
  2. Stanley v. Georgia

    394 U.S. 557 (1969)   Cited 1,194 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the First and Fourteenth Amendment forbid criminalizing the private possession of obscenity
  3. United States v. Jeffers

    342 U.S. 48 (1951)   Cited 976 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no person can have a legally protected interest in contraband per se
  4. U.S. v. Carey

    172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999)   Cited 179 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that opening computer files constitutes a search
  5. People v. Scott

    79 N.Y.2d 474 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 150 times
    Holding that N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 415-, which permitted the NYPD to conduct warrantless searches of vehicle-dismantling businesses, was unconstitutional under New York's Constitution
  6. S.E.C. v. Bausch Lomb Inc.

    565 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1977)   Cited 85 times
    Finding that fact of company's negative sales was "common knowledge" and thus was not material nonpublic information
  7. United States v. LaFatch

    565 F.2d 81 (6th Cir. 1977)   Cited 76 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preclusion should not apply "when it would result in manifest injustice to a party or violate an overriding public policy"
  8. DeBellis v. Property Clerk

    588 N.E.2d 55 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 44 times

    Argued November 21, 1991 Decided January 16, 1992 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, William J. Davis, J. Victor A. Kovner, Corporation Counsel (William J. Thom and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for appellants. Samuel Hirsch for respondents. Chief Judge WACHTLER. This appeal presents two issues regarding the petitioners' request for the return of property owned by them and held by respondent property clerk: whether, under the expedited procedure

  9. U.S. v. Harrell

    530 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 07-10238. Argued and Submitted March 11, 2008. Filed June 30, 2008. Daniel J. Broderick, Federal Defender, Sacramento, CA, for the defendant-appellant. McGregor W. Scott, United States Attorney, Sean C. Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-0047-LKK. Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, MELVIN BRUNETTI, and RAYMOND

  10. U.S. v. $490,920 in U.S. Currency

    911 F. Supp. 720 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that a New York statute conferred in rem jurisdiction where it provided that seized items be held "in the custody of the court"