green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Saez
But cf. State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481 , 181 A. 2d 761 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 835 , 83 S.Ct. 1879 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1055 (1963), in which the Court held that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when officers peered into an apartment through either a keyhole or a crack in the door while they were standing in a common hallway.
cited
Cited "but see"
Dept. of Cons. and Eco. Dev. v. Scipio
But see State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481 , 494-495 (1962), certiorari denied 374 U.S. 835 , 83 S.Ct. 1879 , 10 L.Ed. 2 d 1055 (1963), and People v. Burgess, 170 Cal. App. 2 d 36, 338 P. 2 d 524 ( Cal. D.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Henry
(2×)
See State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481, 494 , 181 A.2d 761 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 835 , 83 S.Ct. 1879 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. McKnight
See *57 State v. Smith, 37 N. J. 481, 496 (1962), certiorari denied, 374 U. S. 835 , 83 S. Ct. 1879 , 10 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bisaccia
Ed. 2d 1081, 1093 (1961); see State v. Smith, 37 N. J. 481, 487 (1962), cert. denied 374 U. S. 835 , 83 S. Ct. 1879 , 10 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cronin
See State v. James S. Smith, 37 N. J. 481, 483 et seq. (1962), certiorari denied 374 U. S. 835 , 83 S. Ct. 1879 , 10 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. De La Paz
See, e.g., State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481, 490, 495-97 , 181 A. 2d 761 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 835 , 83 S.Ct. 1879 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1055 (1963) (peering from common hallway in three-flat apartment building through crack or keyhole of defendant's door not a search); State v. Gibson, 318 N.J.Super. 1, 9-10 , 722 A. 2d 960 (App.Div.1999) (peering from common thoroughfare into residential driveway not a search); State v. Stanton, 265 N.J.Super. 383, 384-87 , 627 A. 2d 674 (App. Div.1993) (peering from common hallway into motel room window when occupant pulled back drapes not a search).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Johnson
Super. at 216 , 527 A. 2d 482 (quoting Texas v. Brown, supra, 460 U.S. at 740 , 103 S.Ct. at 1542 , 75 L.Ed. 2d at 513 ); see also *154 State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481, 496-97 , 181 A. 2d 761 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 835 , 83 S.Ct. 1879 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1055 (1963).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Love
See also State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481 (1962), cert. den. 374 U.S. 835 , 83 S.Ct. 1879 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1055 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Foley
"There is no legitimate expectation of privacy, ... shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers." Texas v. Brown, supra, 460 U.S. at 740 , 103 S.Ct. at 1542 ; see also State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481, 496-497 (1962), cert. den. 374 U.S. 835 , 83 S.Ct. 1879 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1055 (1963).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Carpentieri
Compare State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481 (1962), cert. den. 374 U.S. 835 , 83 S.Ct. 1879 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1055 (1963), and State v. Evans, 78 N.J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Edward J. Fisch, Ivan L. Glasscock
See also Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967), giving (in a search warrant situation) “full recognition to the competing public and private interests.” See, also, State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481 , 181 A.2d 761 , cert. denied 374 U.S. 835 , 83 S.Ct. 1879 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1963), quoted in People v. Berutko, 71 Cal.2d 84 , 77 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 453 P.2d 721 (1969), “But it is the duty of a policeman to investigate, and we cannot say that in striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of law enforcement, the ITourth Amendment it…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BONE
v.
UNITED STATES.
v.
UNITED STATES.
716 M.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 17, 1963.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Petitioner pro se.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Richard W. Schmude for the United States.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would deny certiorari on the basis of their dissent in Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S., at 23.