67 Cited authorities

Rakas v. Illinois
439 U.S. 128 (1978) Cited 6,389 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"
Horton v. California
496 U.S. 128 (1990) Cited 3,176 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding in the Fourth Amendment context that “evenhanded law enforcement is best achieved by the application of objective standards of conduct, rather than standards that depend upon the subjective state of mind of the officer”
Samson v. California
547 U.S. 843 (2006) Cited 1,350 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that a similarly worded condition imposed on all California parolees did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even without the reasonable suspicion restriction
Minnesota v. Carter
525 U.S. 83 (1998) Cited 1,657 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a guest lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host's apartment because there was nothing "similar to the overnight guest relationship in Olson to suggest a degree of acceptance into the household"
Maryland v. Buie
494 U.S. 325 (1990) Cited 2,356 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that, incident to arrest, an officer may conduct a limited protective sweep of those areas of a house in which he reasonably suspects a dangerous person may be hiding
Minnesota v. Olson
495 U.S. 91 (1990) Cited 2,010 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that overnight guests in the homes of a third person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those premises
Rawlings v. Kentucky
448 U.S. 98 (1980) Cited 2,286 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant could not benefit from the unconstitutional search of another person's purse
United States v. Salvucci
448 U.S. 83 (1980) Cited 1,692 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant could not benefit from the unconstitutional search of the apartment of his co-defendant's mother
Jones v. United States
362 U.S. 257 (1960) Cited 4,022 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding Jones had standing to challenge a search of his friend's apartment when the friend gave him use of the apartment and a key
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott
524 U.S. 357 (1998) Cited 594 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in state parole revocation hearings

The People, Respondent,v.Joseph Harris, Appellant.

67 Cited authorities

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"

Holding in the Fourth Amendment context that “evenhanded law enforcement is best achieved by the application of objective standards of conduct, rather than standards that depend upon the subjective state of mind of the officer”

Holding that a similarly worded condition imposed on all California parolees did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even without the reasonable suspicion restriction

Holding that a guest lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host's apartment because there was nothing "similar to the overnight guest relationship in Olson to suggest a degree of acceptance into the household"

Holding that, incident to arrest, an officer may conduct a limited protective sweep of those areas of a house in which he reasonably suspects a dangerous person may be hiding

Holding that overnight guests in the homes of a third person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those premises

Holding that a defendant could not benefit from the unconstitutional search of another person's purse

Holding that a defendant could not benefit from the unconstitutional search of the apartment of his co-defendant's mother

Holding Jones had standing to challenge a search of his friend's apartment when the friend gave him use of the apartment and a key

Holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in state parole revocation hearings