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

Illinois v. Andreas

• 1982 • 463 U.S. 765 • Burger Court
In the 1982 case of Illinois v. Andreas, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of an individual if they had no reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to the item seized. The defendant, Andreas, was arrested after customs officials intercepted a package containing cocaine addressed to him from Panama. After replacing most of the cocaine with flour and delivering it under surveillance, law enforcement 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 Burger Court
Term: 1982
Docket: 81-1843
463 U.S. 765
103 S. Ct. 3319
77 L. Ed. 2d 1003
1983 U.S. LEXIS 106
Argued: Mar 30, 1983

Illinois v. Andreas

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1982 case of Illinois v. Andreas, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of an individual if they had no reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to the item seized. The defendant, Andreas, was arrested after customs officials intercepted a package containing cocaine addressed to him from Panama. After replacing most of the cocaine with flour and delivering it under surveillance, law enforcement officers arrested Andreas when he accepted delivery at his apartment. He was released on bail but rearrested two months later when another similar package arrived for him from Panama which also contained cocaine replaced by flour as before. The court held that since both packages were essentially identical and their contents known due to prior lawful examination by customs agents, opening up second one without a warrant didn't infringe upon any legitimate expectation of privacy because its contents were already known or anticipated.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Illinois v. Andreas, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold the warrantless search of a container that had previously been lawfully opened and inspected by customs officials. He argued that once Andreas regained possession of his suitcase after it was initially searched at customs, he held an expectation of privacy in its contents again. Therefore, any subsequent searches without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The fact that authorities knew what was inside due to prior lawful inspection did not justify bypassing constitutional protections on later occasions according to him. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse from this ruling as police could potentially use knowledge gained from one legal search to conduct multiple future illegal ones without warrants or probable cause.

Opinion written by Justice WEBurger
Decided: Jul 05, 1983
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
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