§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SCHMITZ

Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

52 Cited authorities

  1. Payton v. New York

    445 U.S. 573 (1980)   Cited 7,629 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a New York statute "authoriz[ing] police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest" was "not consistent with the Fourth Amendment"

  2. Rakas v. Illinois

    439 U.S. 128 (1978)   Cited 6,384 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"

  3. United States v. Knights

    534 U.S. 112 (2001)   Cited 1,808 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "warrantless search . . ., supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, was reasonable . . . [under] the Fourth Amendment"

  4. Georgia v. Randolph

    547 U.S. 103 (2006)   Cited 1,468 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that as to a residence, "a physically present inhabitant's express refusal of consent to a police search is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant"

  5. Samson v. California

    547 U.S. 843 (2006)   Cited 1,347 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

  6. Ohio v. Robinette

    519 U.S. 33 (1996)   Cited 1,818 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Fourth Amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is "free to go" before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary

  7. United States v. Matlock

    415 U.S. 164 (1974)   Cited 4,090 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government "may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected"

  8. South Dakota v. Opperman

    428 U.S. 364 (1976)   Cited 3,014 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inventory search was constitutionally permissible in part because there was "no suggestion" that the search "was a pretext concealing an investigatory police motive"

  9. Griffin v. Wisconsin

    483 U.S. 868 (1987)   Cited 1,543 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that supervision is a special need of the state "permitting a degree of impingent upon privacy that would not be constitutional if applied to the public at large."

  10. Wyoming v. Houghton

    526 U.S. 295 (1999)   Cited 981 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a search of an automobile and the containers within it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the officers have probable cause to believe the automobile contains contraband

  11. Section 2511 - Notice of Parole

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 2511   Cited 40 times

    (a) Definition. The notice of parole is a general description of rules and regulations governing parolees. (b) Notice. The notice parole shall read as follows: 1. Release. You will be released on parole effective __________ for a period of __________. This parole is subject to the following notice and conditions. Should you violate any conditions of this parole, you are subject to arrest and the board may modify, suspend, or revoke your parole and/or order your return to custody. You have read or