Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Amos v. United States

• 1920 • 255 U.S. 313 • White Court
In the 1920 case of Amos v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to convict and sentence William Amos for violating Prohibition laws. The defense argued that evidence used against him was obtained illegally because it was seized during an unwarranted search of his home by federal agents. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government stating that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply to federal officers...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1920
Docket: 114
255 U.S. 313
41 S. Ct. 266
65 L. Ed. 654
1921 U.S. LEXIS 1827
Argued: Dec 13, 1920

Amos v. United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1920 case of Amos v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to convict and sentence William Amos for violating Prohibition laws. The defense argued that evidence used against him was obtained illegally because it was seized during an unwarranted search of his home by federal agents. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government stating that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply to federal officers as they were not specifically mentioned in this amendment. This ruling effectively allowed federal law enforcement agencies to conduct warrantless searches until it was overturned by Weeks v. United States (1914) which established what is now known as "the exclusionary rule," prohibiting use of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Amos v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when evidence was seized from his home without a warrant or probable cause. He contended that this seizure constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, which is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. The majority ruling held that because the defendant had not objected to the search at trial, he could not raise this issue on appeal; however, Justice Holmes disagreed with this interpretation of procedural rules and believed it should not be used to excuse constitutional violations. Furthermore, he expressed concern about allowing law enforcement officers too much discretion in conducting searches without warrants or probable cause as it might lead to abuses of power and infringements on individual liberties.

Opinion written by Justice JHClarke
Decided: Feb 28, 1921
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms