Opinion

Murdaugh v. Livingston

  • 525 U.S. 1301
  • 119 S. Ct. 469
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed
Nov 18, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Rehnquist
On the bench
Rehnquist
Cited by
694 cases
Authority
More cited than 99.4%

explaining that when Katz is applied “to determine whether a ‘search or seizure’ within the meaning of the Constitution has occurred (as opposed to whether that ‘search or seizure’ is an ‘unreasonable’ one), it has no plausible foundation in the text of the Fourth Amendment” (emphasis omitted)

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that when Katz is applied “to determine whether a ‘search or seizure’ within the meaning of the Constitution has occurred (as opposed to whether that ‘search or seizure’ is an ‘unreasonable’ one), it has no plausible foundation in the text of the Fourth Amendment” (emphasis omitted)
  • recognizing that “almost all social guests have a legitimate expectation of privacy, and hence protection against unreasonable searches, in their host’s home,” but finding no such expectation here because defendants only had a “fleeting and insubstantial connection with Thompson’s home”
  • holding that non-resident defendants had no legitimate expectation of privacy in apartment in which they briefly conducted drug-dealing activities
  • holding that expectation of privacy in commercial premises is different from, and indeed less than, a similar expectation in individual’s home

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

CHIEF Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

The District Court in this case entered a temporary restraining order on October 20, 1998, against the State, enjoining it from proceeding further with the indictments against respondent. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining order cannot remain in effect for more than 10 days unless extended for good cause by the district court or consented to by the adverse party. I am advised that the Magistrate Judge to whom this ease was assigned has recommended dismissal, and, so far as I know, the matter is now pending before the District Court. I therefore deny the State’s application to vacate the stay, without prejudice to its renewal should the District Court issue a preliminary injunction or further stay the criminal proceedings.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.