| 词条 | United States v. Chadwick |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=United States v. Chadwick |ArgueDate=April 26 |ArgueYear=1977 |DecideDate=June 21 |DecideYear=1977 |FullName=United States v. Chadwick et al. |USVol=433 |USPage=1 |ParallelCitations=97 S. Ct. 2476; 53 L. Ed. 2d 538; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 133 |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding=Absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception. |SCOTUS=1975-1981 |Majority=Burger |JoinMajority=Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens |Concurrence=Brennan |Dissent=Blackmun |JoinDissent=Rehnquist |LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. IV |Overruled = California v. Acevedo (1991) (in part) }} United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977),[1] was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception. The Court reasoned that while luggage is movable like an automobile, it does not have the lesser expectation of privacy associated with an automobile. Chadwick was later abrogated on other grounds by California v. Acevedo (1991),[2] in which the Court overruled Chadwick's holding with respect to containers within a vehicle, holding that police may search a container within a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the container itself holds contraband or evidence. The holding in Chadwick that a search incident to arrest must not be too remote in time or place is still good law. CaseRespondents had recently stepped off a train and were putting a suitcase into the trunk of a car when they were stopped by federal agents. Federal agents had probable cause to arrest the respondents and to believe that the suitcase contained narcotics. The respondents were arrested. About an hour and a half after the arrest, the agents opened and searched the suitcase without a warrant.[1] HoldingIn order to search a locked container that is in the exclusive possession of law enforcement officials, those law enforcement officials must get a warrant (unless an exception applies).[1] In this case, an exception did not apply. Subsequent JurisprudenceAfter California v. Acevedo (1991), this protection no longer applied to people in automobiles because people in automobiles have a diminished expectation of privacy.[2] However, it still applies to people walking on the street. Applications
See also
References1. ^1 2 {{ussc|name=United States v. Chadwick|volume=433|page=1|pin=|year=1977}}. 2. ^1 {{ussc|name=California v. Acevedo|volume=500|page=565|pin=|year=1991}}. External links
| case=United States v. Chadwick, {{ussc|433|1|1977|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/109714/united-states-v-chadwick/ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/433/1.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7941794401088685966 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/1/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep433/usrep433001/usrep433001.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1721{{US4thAmendment|warrantexceptions|state=expanded}}{{SCOTUS-case-stub}} 4 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court|United States Fourth Amendment case law|1977 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。