Legal Opinion

United States v. Padilla

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided May 3, 1993No. 92-207PublishedCited by 177 opinions

1Per curiam

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has adopted what it terms a “coconspirator exception” to the rule regarding who may challenge the constitutionality of a search or seizure. Under its reasoning, a co-conspirator obtains a legitimate expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes if he has either a supervisory role in the conspiracy or joint control over the place or property involved in the search or seizure. This “exception,” apparently developed in a series of earlier decisions of the Court of Appeals, squarely contradicts the controlling case from this Court.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Alderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Rawlings v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Soldal v. Cook CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. United States v. Robert H. Davis, United States of America v. George D. GelestinoCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by177 opinions

  1. United States v. SepulvedaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
  2. CAMP Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of AtlantaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2006
  3. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Rene Gonzalez-Lerma, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
  4. United States v. SarkisianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  5. United States v. Ronald L. Lingenfelter, United States of America v. Gary Marolf, AKA Gary Marlow, United States of America v. Lawrence MorganCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

172 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API