Cases pin-citing Almeida-Sanchez · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Almeida-Sanchez

Cases pin-citing Almeida-Sanchez

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States  ·  1973  ·  76 pinpoint citations from 22 cases, 14 distinct passages.

United States v. Donald Wanjiku  ·  2019-03-19  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  pin 413 U.S. at 266
“a search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St. Louis airport after a nonstop flight from Mexico City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search.”
United States v. Donald Wanjiku  ·  2019-03-19  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
"a search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St. Louis airport after a nonstop flight from Mexico City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search."
Kincaid v. Government of the District of Columbia  ·  2016-04-14  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“[N]o Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution.”
United States v. Yvonne Taylor  ·  2014-09-24  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“[A] search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a [United States] airport after a nonstop flight from [abroad] would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search.”
United States v. Fnu Lnu  ·  2011-08-09  ·  Second Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
"[A] search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a [U.S.] airport after a nonstop flight from [abroad] would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search."
United States v. Cotterman  ·  2011-03-30  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
"[A] search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St. Louis airport after a nonstop flight from Mexico City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search."
United States v. Walker  ·  2011-02-11  ·  W.D. Michigan  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 596
“The undercarriage is part of'the car’s exterior, and as such, is not afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
United States v. Arnold  ·  2008-07-10  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“For ... example, a search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St. Louis airport after a non-stop flight from Mexico City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search.”
United States v. Arnold  ·  2008-04-21  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“For ... example, a search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St. Louis airport after a non-stop flight from Mexico City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search.”
Steven Warshak v. United States  ·  2007-06-18  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 596
“The needs of law enforcement stand in constant tension with the Constitution’s protections of the individual against certain exercises of official power. It is precisely the predictability of these pressures that counsels a resolute loyalty to constitutional safeguards.”
United States v. Fisher  ·  2001-05-15  ·  E.D. Michigan  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“[TJhere was no probable cause of any kind for the stop or the subsequent search — not even the ‘reasonable suspicion’ found sufficient for a street detention and weapons search in Terry v. Ohio.”
State v. 1983 Toyota Corolla  ·  1994-03-29  ·  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
"Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search."
United States v. Doris Lasanta, Luis Rivera, Juan Cardona, and Eladio Gonzalez  ·  1992-10-21  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“no act of Congress can authorize a violation of the constitution”
Manwani v. U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Service  ·  1990-04-23  ·  W.D. North Carolina  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“no Act of Congress [in the immigration context] can authorize a violation of the Constitution”
United States v. George Perry Pollack  ·  1990-02-01  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search.”
Schaill v. Tippecanoe County School Corporation  ·  1989-02-14  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
"The businessman in a regulated industry in effect consents to the restrictions placed upon him."
United States v. John David Stone  ·  1989-01-25  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search.”
Joseph L. Bailey v. Kevin C. Andrews  ·  1987-05-22  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
“Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search.”
United States v. Paul Mayhew Norman, United States of America v. Ramon Florencio Arce, United States of America v. Robert Leonard Bryant  ·  1983-03-29  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 596
"It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution. But under familiar principles of constitutional adjudication, our duty is to construe the statute, if possible, in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
United States v. Don Bruce Duncan  ·  1982-12-03  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
"a search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St. Louis airport after a nonstop flight from Mexico City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search"
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller Merck & Co., Inc. v. Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller  ·  1981-09-10  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 266
"The businessman in a regulated industry in effect consents to the restrictions placed upon him."
United States v. Roldan Guillen-Linares, Sergio Delrio-Buentes, Tomas Gonzalez, Felix Valle, Raul Delrio-Boquet and Raul Peralta  ·  1981-04-27  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 37 L. Ed. 2d at 596
"It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution. But under familiar principles of constitutional adjudication, our duty is to construe the statute, if possible, in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
Page 1 of 2   Next →