Clinton v. Virginia, 294
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 377 U.S. 158,84 S.Ct. 1186,12 L.Ed.2d 213 |
| Docket Number | No. 294,294 |
| Parties | Catherine CLINTON v. VIRGINIA |
| Decision Date | 04 May 1964 |
v.
VIRGINIA.
Supreme Court of the United States
Calvin H. Childress, Norfolk, Va., for petitioner.
D. Gardiner Tyler, Richmond, Va., for respondent.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to strike the supplemental brief on behalf of the respondent is denied. The judgment is reversed. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23.
Mr. Justice CLARK, concurring:
Since the Court finds that the 'spiked' mike used by the police officers penetrated petitioner's premises sufficiently to be an actual trespass thereof, I join in the judgment.
Mr. Justice WHITE dissents.
To continue reading
Request your trial
31 practice notes
-
State v. Tanner
...distinctions such as that between Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322 (1942), and Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1186, 12 L.Ed.2d 213 (1964): In Goldman, the Court held that use of an electronic amplifying device placed against a party wall to ea......
-
United States v. Perez, No. CR76-346.
...11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963); Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 486-490, fns. 4, 5, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964); Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1186, 12 L.Ed.2d 213 (1964); Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 213, 87 S.Ct. 424, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (Justice Brennan, concurring) ......
-
People v. Dunn
...reasonably expect to remain private (see e.g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576; Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1186, 12 L.Ed.2d Given defendant's heightened expectation of privacy in his home, I conclude that the dog sniff constituted a search ......
-
People v. Kaiser
...infringes on no constitutional right--has been 'negated' by any subsequent decision. Indeed, as late as 1964 in Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1186, 12 L.Ed.2d 213, the court adhered to the reasoning evolved in Olmstead. The court reversed a conviction obtained by the use of ea......
Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
-
People v. Dunn
...reasonably expect to remain private (see e.g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576; Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1186, 12 L.Ed.2d Given defendant's heightened expectation of privacy in his home, I conclude that the dog sniff constituted a search ......
-
State v. Cartwright
...505, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1186, 12 L.Ed.2d 213 (1964); as has the distinction based on whether the speaker intended his conversation to be confined within ......
-
People v. Grossman
...state of facts, only last term, the Court in a per curiam opinion reversed a Virginia judgment of conviction. (Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1186, 12 L.Ed.2d [45 Misc.2d 563] In Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, no 'eavesdropping' was involv......
-
State v. Tanner
...distinctions such as that between Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322 (1942), and Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1186, 12 L.Ed.2d 213 (1964): In Goldman, the Court held that use of an electronic amplifying device placed against a party wall to ea......
Request a trial to view additional results