Coolidge v. New Hampshire
403 U.S. 443 (1971) Cited 7,810 times 13 Legal AnalysesHolding that police who obtained evidence voluntarily from a suspect's wife did not need a search warrant because the officers exerted no effort to coerce or dominate her and were not obligated to refuse her offer to take the evidence
Stanley v. Georgia
394 U.S. 557 (1969) Cited 1,247 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that the First and Fourteenth Amendment forbid criminalizing the private possession of obscenity
United States v. Jeffers
342 U.S. 48 (1951) Cited 1,047 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that no person can have a legally protected interest in contraband per se
U.S. v. Carey
172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999) Cited 191 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that opening computer files constitutes a search
People v. Scott
79 N.Y.2d 474 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 159 timesHolding 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
S.E.C. v. Bausch Lomb Inc.
565 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1977) Cited 87 timesFinding that fact of company's negative sales was "common knowledge" and thus was not material nonpublic information
United States v. LaFatch
565 F.2d 81 (6th Cir. 1977) Cited 78 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that preclusion should not apply "when it would result in manifest injustice to a party or violate an overriding public policy"
U.S. v. Harrell
530 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 24 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 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
DeBellis v. Property Clerk
79 N.Y.2d 49 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 45 timesHolding that the purpose of the procedures set forth in McClendon v. Rosetti, supra was to ensure that property be returned upon demand and in accordance with a claimant's due process rights. The procedure was to make it easier for claimants to retrieve property taken from them and not place procedural obstacles in their way to recovering property once those proceedings have been terminated or it is determined that the property is not needed for the criminal proceedings
U.S. v. $490,920 in U.S. Currency
911 F. Supp. 720 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) Cited 13 timesFinding that a New York statute conferred in rem jurisdiction where it provided that seized items be held "in the custody of the court"