Silverman v. United States

12 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. WA: Homeless man had REP in his tent camping in park after hours

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallOctober 14, 2017

    Thus, in determining whether Pippin’s private affairs were disturbed, we examine the characteristics his tent shares, and does not share, with a dwelling.¶32 In Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512 n.4, 81 S. Ct. 679, 5 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1961), the United States Supreme Court spoke to this question:“A man can still control a small part of his environment, his house; he can retreat thence from outsiders, secure in the knowledge that they cannot get at him without disobeying the Constitution. That is still a sizable hunk of liberty—worth protecting from encroachment.

  2. CA9: Use of another’s wireless router was not protected by any REP; police tracked def with Moocherhunter

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallNovember 5, 2019

    In Karo, the United States Supreme Court held that the government’s monitoring of a beeper inside a private residence violated the Fourth Amendment because the beeper provided location information that could not have been obtained from outside the curtilage of the house. See id. at 708, 714; see also Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 506, 509-12 (1961) (holding that a Fourth Amendment search occurred when police inserted a “spike mike” into a house to overhear conversations of the house next door); Jardines, 569 U.S. at 4 (concluding that a Fourth Amendment search occurred when police used a drug-sniffing dog along the front porch (the curtilage) to establish the location of marijuana inside a house). Unlike in Karo, Silverman, and Jardines, the agents in this case collected information from non-constitutionally protected areas, and they collected no information from inside Norris’s residence.

  3. Defense win on community caretaking seizure

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderNovember 8, 2017

    Contrary to the State’s suggestion, we cannot so casually set aside an individual’s right “to retreat into his [or her] own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961); see also Dumstrey, 366 Wis. 2d 64, ¶23. Balancing all the above factors, we conclude any discernable community caretaker function in this case was nevertheless unreasonably exercised.(¶19).

  4. MN: Arrest warrant permits entry into home of third party for arrest of guest

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallFebruary 15, 2017

    The home is “first among equals” under the Fourth Amendment, representing the “very core” of a person’s constitutional protections. Florida v. Jardines, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (2013) (quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Yet Payton held that it is constitutionally reasonable for police to enter a person’s own home when police have an arrest warrant for that person.

  5. FL: Hot pursuit for misd possession of MJ and nonviolent fleeing does not permit warrantless entry into the home

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallFebruary 1, 2017

    Id. at 1414 (quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961)). Similarly, the Court in Randolph reasoned, “Since we hold to the ‘centuries-old principle of respect for the privacy of the home,’ ‘it is beyond dispute that the home is entitled to special protection as the center of the private lives of our people.'”

  6. Dog-sniff searches in apartment hallways require a warrant

    Connecticut Public DefenderTejas BhattJanuary 4, 2017

    The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that a person's home is "first among equals":At the Amendment's 'very core' stands 'the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.' Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511 (1961). Thus, the home and the "curtilage" - the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, are revered in Fourth Amendment law.

  7. Extending Jardines to apartments

    Connecticut Public DefenderTejas BhattApril 10, 2016

    The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that a person's home is "first among equals":At the Amendment's 'very core' stands 'the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.' Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511 (1961). Thus, the home and the "curtilage" - the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, are revered in Fourth Amendment law.

  8. CA2: Crossing threshold to arrest without warrant violates Fourth Amendment

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallJanuary 30, 2016

    At the Amendment’s “very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961). In Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the Amendment prohibits law enforcement officials from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home to arrest him.

  9. US Supreme Court: Taking drug-sniffing dog onto porch is a search

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderMarch 27, 2013

    ” (Slip op. at 5, quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 182 (1984)). The “very core” of the Fourth Amendment is the right to retreat into your own home and be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion, Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511 (1961), and “[t]his right would be of little practical value if the State’s agents could stand in a home’s porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity; the right to retreat would be significantly diminished if the police could enter a man’s property to observe his repose from just outside the front window.” (Slip op. at 4).Second, the police were not authorized to be on the porch.

  10. Search – GPS Tracking Device

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJanuary 23, 2012

    The Government usurped Jones’ property for the purpose of conducting surveillance on him, thereby invading privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection. See, e.g., Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511– 512 (1961).Her concurrence continues: “More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976).