Jump to content

Trupiano v. United States: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Alter: template type. Add: encyclopedia. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | Category:Subscription required using via | #UCB_Category 2333/3671
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Alter: template type. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | #UCB_CommandLine
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|1948 United States Supreme Court case}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Trupiano v. United States
|Litigants=Trupiano v. United States
Line 27: Line 29:
|Overruled = ''[[United States v. Rabinowitz]]'' (1950)
|Overruled = ''[[United States v. Rabinowitz]]'' (1950)
}}
}}
'''''Trupiano v. United States''''', 334 U.S. 699 (1948), was a [[US Supreme Court]] decision that ruled that warrantless searches following arrests were unconstitutional under the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]].
'''''Trupiano v. United States''''', 334 U.S. 699 (1948), was a [[US Supreme Court]] decision that ruled that warrantless searches following arrests were unconstitutional under the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]].


The case involved a warrantless raid by law enforcement on an illegal distillery, before which law enforcement had had sufficient time to obtain warrants but had chosen not to. After the raid, evidence was seized. In a majority opinion authored by Justice [[Frank Murphy]], the Court ruled that this seizure had been a violation of the Fourth Amendment:
The case involved a warrantless raid by law enforcement on an illegal distillery, before which law enforcement had had sufficient time to obtain warrants but had chosen not to. After the raid, evidence was seized. In a majority opinion authored by Justice [[Frank Murphy]], the Court ruled that this seizure had been a violation of the Fourth Amendment:
<blockquote>It is a cardinal rule that, in seizing goods and articles, law enforcement agents must secure and use search warrants whenever reasonably practicable. This rule rests upon the desirability of having magistrates rather than police officers determine when searches and seizures are permissible and what limitations should be placed upon such activities.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-203929619 |title=The supreme court reexamines search incident to lawful arrest |author=Schott, Richard G. |date=July 1, 2009 |work=FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin |via=[[Questia Online Library]] |url-access=subscription|access-date=August 11, 2013}}</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>It is a cardinal rule that, in seizing goods and articles, law enforcement agents must secure and use search warrants whenever reasonably practicable. This rule rests upon the desirability of having magistrates rather than police officers determine when searches and seizures are permissible and what limitations should be placed upon such activities.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://leb.fbi.gov/file-repository/archives/july09leb.pdf/view |title= The Supreme Court Reexamines Search Incident to Lawful Arrest |author=Schott, Richard G. |date=July 1, 2009 |work=[[FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin]] |format=pdf|pages=22–31 }}</ref></blockquote>


''Trupiano'' was overturned only two years later in ''[[United States v. Rabinowitz]]'' (1950), which allowed law enforcement to search and seize evidence at the site of an arrest.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002247.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160409172253/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002247.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=2016-04-09 |title=Search Incident to Arrest |author=Landynski, Jacob W. |date=1986 |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of the American Constitution |publisher= {{Subscription required|via=[[HighBeam Research]]}}|access-date=August 11, 2013}}</ref>
''Trupiano'' was overturned only two years later in ''[[United States v. Rabinowitz]]'' (1950), which allowed law enforcement to search and seize evidence at the site of an arrest.<ref>{{citation |url= |url-status= |archive-date=|title=Search Incident to Arrest |author=Landynski, Jacob W. |date=2000 |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of the American Constitution|publisher= }}</ref>


== References ==
== References ==
Line 38: Line 40:


== External links ==
== External links ==
*{{caselaw source
* {{caselaw source
| case=''Trupiano v. United States'', {{ussc|334|699|1948|el=no}}
| case=''Trupiano v. United States'', {{ussc|334|699|1948|el=no}}
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/104576/trupiano-v-united-states/
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/104576/trupiano-v-united-states/

Latest revision as of 19:35, 2 December 2023

Trupiano v. United States
Argued March 9, 1948
Decided June 14, 1948
Full case nameTrupiano v. United States
Docket no.427
Citations334 U.S. 699 (more)
68 S. Ct. 1229; 92 L. Ed. 2d 1663
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
MajorityMurphy, joined by Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson, Rutledge
DissentVinson, joined by Black, Reed, Burton
Laws applied
Fourth Amendment
Overruled by
United States v. Rabinowitz (1950)

Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 (1948), was a US Supreme Court decision that ruled that warrantless searches following arrests were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The case involved a warrantless raid by law enforcement on an illegal distillery, before which law enforcement had had sufficient time to obtain warrants but had chosen not to. After the raid, evidence was seized. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Frank Murphy, the Court ruled that this seizure had been a violation of the Fourth Amendment:

It is a cardinal rule that, in seizing goods and articles, law enforcement agents must secure and use search warrants whenever reasonably practicable. This rule rests upon the desirability of having magistrates rather than police officers determine when searches and seizures are permissible and what limitations should be placed upon such activities.[1]

Trupiano was overturned only two years later in United States v. Rabinowitz (1950), which allowed law enforcement to search and seize evidence at the site of an arrest.[2]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Schott, Richard G. (July 1, 2009). "The Supreme Court Reexamines Search Incident to Lawful Arrest" (pdf). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. pp. 22–31.
  2. ^ Landynski, Jacob W. (2000), "Search Incident to Arrest", Encyclopedia of the American Constitution
[edit]