Brinegar v. United States
- Decided
- October 10, 1949
- Docket
- 12
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,013 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that probable cause to stop a vehicle was supported by the fact that the defendant had previously been arrested for illegally transporting liquor — United States v. Floyd (2002)
- holding that “[pjrobable cause to believe certain items will be found in a specific location is a ‘practical, nontechnical conception,’ [citations omitted] that need not be based on direct, first-hand, or ‘hard’ evidence.” — United States v. Tisdale (2001)
- concluding that officers mistakenly but reasonably suspected person of unlawfully importing alcoholic beverages from one state to another state based on “facts within the officers’ knowledge” about suspect’s prior activities — Lester Leroy Hiltz, Jr. v. Commissioner of Public Safety (2015)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Rutledge delivered the opinion of the Court.
Brinegar was convicted of importing intoxicating liquor into Oklahoma from Missouri in violation of the federal statute which forbids such importation contrary to the laws of any state.[1] His conviction was based in [*162] part on the use in evidence against him of liquor seized from his automobile in the course of the alleged unlawful importation.
Prior to the trial Brinegar moved to suppress this evidence as having been secured through an unlawful search and seizure.[2] The motion was denied, as was a renewal of the objection at the trial.
Cite this
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.