41 Cited authorities

  1. Riley v. California

    134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014)   Cited 1,427 times   88 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a warrant is generally required to search a cellphone, even when the phone is seized incident to arrest
  2. Davis v. U.S.

    564 U.S. 229 (2011)   Cited 1,592 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding "newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure 'must apply retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception.'"
  3. United States v. Jones

    565 U.S. 400 (2012)   Cited 1,418 times   106 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s car constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment
  4. Rakas v. Illinois

    439 U.S. 128 (1978)   Cited 5,665 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the determinative question is "whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place"
  5. Herring v. United States

    555 U.S. 135 (2009)   Cited 1,492 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the exclusionary rule applies only where it "result in appreciable deterrence" (alteration in original) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 909, 104 S.Ct. 3405 )
  6. Powers v. Ohio

    499 U.S. 400 (1991)   Cited 2,227 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a white defendant has standing to challenge strikes of black jurors
  7. U.S. v. Stevens

    559 U.S. 460 (2010)   Cited 771 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding law unconstitutional under First Amendment where "impermissible applications . . . far outnumber[ed] any permissible ones"
  8. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

    521 U.S. 844 (1997)   Cited 847 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment
  9. Alderman v. United States

    394 U.S. 165 (1968)   Cited 2,114 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed
  10. Board of County Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. Umbehr

    518 U.S. 668 (1996)   Cited 687 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that First Amendment requires fact-intensive and deferential balancing of government’s interests against government contractors’ speech interests, in line with the standard applied to government employees under Pickering v. Board of Education , 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811
  11. Section 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records

    18 U.S.C. § 2703   Cited 893 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that these providers "shall disclose" such information "when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute"
  12. Section 2705 - Delayed notice

    18 U.S.C. § 2705   Cited 60 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Providing for a court-issued non-disclosure order, "for such period as the court deems appropriate," where an authorized Government agency subpoenas stored electronic records
  13. s 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1-a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation