Appellate 2026-27 Case law-Petitioner

1. Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925)

An officer’s belief, even if well-founded, that an item sought is concealed in a home does not justify searching that home without a warrant.

A search connected to an arrest does not automatically allow police to search a separate home without a warrant.

2. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)

Physically moving or handling property to investigate it can constitute an intrusion. It specifically states that removing a motorcycle cover to inspect the vehicle is an intrusion comparable to an unauthorized property search.

3. Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927)

A search conducted in violation of the Constitution is not made lawful by the evidence it discovers.

4. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)

The automobile exception applies when a vehicle is being used on highways or is readily capable of such use and is stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes. The brief argues that the exception does not apply when a vehicle is within the home's protected curtilage.

Police can search a motor home without a warrant when it is readily movable and is located in a place that indicates it is being used as a vehicle.

5. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)

The brief cites this case for the principle that curtilage receives heightened privacy protection because it is intimately connected to the home, both physically and psychologically.

6. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)

The mobility of automobiles provides the original justification for the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

Police can search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband, because the vehicle could quickly be moved.

7. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

A warrantless search of a home following an arrest is unreasonable in the circumstances discussed in the brief, even where there is a concern that others might remove evidence.

8. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)

The brief explains that a majority held that the automobile exception did not justify the warrantless search of a vehicle parked in a private driveway. It also cites the Court's reasoning that searching an unoccupied vehicle on private property without a warrant raises the same constitutional concerns as searching portable containers in a home or backyard.

The warrant was invalid because it was not issued by a neutral or detached official. The search was not justified under the vehicle exception, search incident to arrest, or plain-view doctrine.

9. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013)

Bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto a home's front porch to investigate was a Fourth Amendment search. The brief explains that the curtilage is part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes and that the customary implied license to approach a front door does not authorize investigative searches.

Police could conduct a search when they physically enter the protected area around a home to gather evidence without permission. Police may approach a home and knock, as any private citizen might do.

10. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)

The brief cites this case to establish that the relevant portion of Coolidge is binding precedent. It also cites the principle that police generally may not enter and seize property without a warrant, even when the object is contraband.

11. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

The brief cites this case as authority for the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy basis for Fourth Amendment protection.

12. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)

The brief cites this case for the proposition that an area immediately adjacent to a private home is curtilage.

13. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999)

The brief cites this case for the rule that the automobile exception does not require a separate showing of exigent circumstances once the exception applies.P

14. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958)

The brief quotes this case to emphasize the principle that a person's home should be protected against governmental intrusion, even when the home is physically fragile.

15. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) l

A warrantless entry to arrest an overnight guest without exigent circumstances violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

16. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)

The brief cites this case for the rejection of a categorical exception to the warrant requirement for blood tests in drunk-driving cases. It also recognizes that modern technology and procedures allow police to obtain warrants more quickly.

17. New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986)

A police officer may reach into a vehicle's passenger compartment to move papers obscuring the vehicle identification number (VIN) after the driver has been stopped for a traffic violation. The brief argues that this ruling does not authorize warrantless intrusions onto private property to inspect a parked vehicle.

18. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)

The brief cites this case for the definition of curtilage as the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, which receives Fourth Amendment protection as part of the home itself.

19. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 160 (1977)

The brief cites this case to explain that roadside vehicle stops can present significant officer-safety risks, which help justify the automobile exception in that context.

20. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014)

The brief cites this case for the requirement to obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone following an arrest. It also relies on the case's reasoning that courts should consider whether extending an exception is justified by its underlying rationales and whether exigent circumstances can address urgent needs.

21. Rooney v. United States, 476 U.S. 1138 (1986)

The brief identifies this case as the proceeding in which United States v. Moscatiello was vacated on other grounds. It does not provide a substantive ruling from Rooney itself.

22. Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251 (1938)

The Court upheld a vehicle search after police followed a car into a garage, where the driver exited and made incriminating statements. The brief argues that the ruling rested on a search incident to arrest and hot pursuit, so it does not establish that the automobile exception independently authorizes warrantless searches within curtilage.

23. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961)

The brief quotes this case for the principle that the Fourth Amendment protects the right to retreat into one's home and be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.

24. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)

The brief cites this case for the principle that automobiles are subject to pervasive government regulation, which reduces expectations of privacy in vehicles.

25. Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)

Police must obtain a search warrant before entering a third party's home to execute an arrest warrant. The brief also cites this case for the principle that a well-founded belief does not independently justify a warrantless entry and search of a home.

26. Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1 (1932)

The warrantless search of a garage adjacent to a dwelling was unreasonable. The brief uses this case to support the argument that the warrant requirement extends to protected areas associated with the home.

27. United States v. Beene, 818 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2016)

The brief cites this case to show that some courts require exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle parked in a defendant's residential driveway.

28. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)

The Court identified four factors useful in determining whether an area qualifies as curtilage: proximity to the home, enclosure, the nature of the area's uses, and measures taken to shield it from observation. The brief emphasizes that these are analytical tools rather than rigid requirements.

29. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984)

The brief cites this case for the proposition that illegal drugs do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy.

30. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

The brief cites this case for the principle that vehicles are protected effects under the Fourth Amendment. It also relies on the proposition that physically intruding on property to obtain information can constitute a search

31. United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984)

Monitoring a tracking device after a vehicle entered a home violated Fourth Amendment protections when the monitoring revealed information that could not have been obtained through observation from outside the curtilage.

32. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Police did not need a warrant to track a vehicle's movements on public roads using a beeper in the circumstances described in the brief. The brief distinguishes this case from Karo, where monitoring continued after the vehicle reached a home

33. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1974)

The brief cites this case to illustrate that automobile-exception searches can extend to intrusive searches of vehicle compartments and personal spaces.

34. Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 (1970)

The possibility that drugs could be removed, hidden, or destroyed does not by itself justify a warrantless search of a home. The brief explains that genuine exigent circumstances are necessary.

35. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967)

principle that Fourth Amendment privacy protections can apply even when the person asserting them lacks a property claim to the items seized, including stolen goods.