Linkletter v. Walker
- Decided
- June 7, 1965
- Docket
- 95
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,898 timesOverruled (verified)Overruled (verified: Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation (1993)) · Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt
What later courts said
- holding that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966 — Davis v. United States (2011)
- stating that rules of criminal procedure fashioned to correct serious flaws in the fact-finding process at trial are applied retroactively — In Re Markel (2005)
- deciding that Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961), was to be given retrospective effect to all cases which had not reached final disposition in the highest court authorized to review them — Commonwealth v. Johnson (1973)
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 Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), we held that the exclusion of evidence seized in violation of the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required of the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In so doing we overruled Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949), to the extent that it failed to apply the exclusionary rule to the States.[1] This case presents the question of whether this requirement operates retrospectively upon cases finally decided in the [*634] period prior to Mapp. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it did not, 323 F. 2d 11, and we granted certiorari in order to settle what has become a most troublesome question in the administration of justice.[2] 377 U. S. 930. We agree with the Court of Appeals.
[*635] The petitioner was convicted in a Louisiana District Court on May 28, 1959, of “simple burglary.” At the time of his arrest he had been under surveillance for two days as a suspect in connection with another burglary. He was taken to the police station, searched, and keys were taken from his person. After he was booked and placed in jail, other officers took his keys, entered and searched his home, and seized certain property and papers. Later his place of business was entered and searched and seizures were effected. These intrusions were made without a warrant. The State District Court held that the arresting officers had reasonable cause for the arrest under Louisiana law and finding probable cause to search as an incident to arrest it held the seizures valid. The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed in February 1960.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965)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.