# Murdaugh v. Livingston

> Supreme Court of the United States · November 18, 1998 · 525 U.S. 1301

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9178915

## Case

- **Full name:** MURDAUGH, SOLICITOR, 14TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. LIVINGSTON
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** November 18, 1998
- **Citations:** 525 U.S. 1301; 119 S. Ct. 469
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Rehnquist
- **Judges:** Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 694 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9178915

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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” (…
- 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 Thomps…
- 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
- holding that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the host's home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9178915. Public record. Not legal advice.