United States v. Padilla
Supreme Court of the United States
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
- Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Alderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Rawlings v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Soldal v. Cook CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- 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
- United States v. SepulvedaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- CAMP Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of AtlantaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2006
- United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Rene Gonzalez-Lerma, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. SarkisianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- 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.