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. Batchelder

• 1982 • 463 U.S. 1112 • Burger Court
In the case of Illinois v. Batchelder in 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state could not prosecute an individual for conduct that had already been prosecuted by another jurisdiction if both jurisdictions had concurrent power to prosecute. The defendant, Robert Batchelder, was initially charged and convicted in federal court for transporting stolen property across state lines. Later on, he was also charged under Illinois law for theft of the same property. He appealed his conviction...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: 82-947
463 U.S. 1112
103 S. Ct. 3513
77 L. Ed. 2d 1267
1983 U.S. LEXIS 113

Illinois v. Batchelder

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Illinois v. Batchelder in 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state could not prosecute an individual for conduct that had already been prosecuted by another jurisdiction if both jurisdictions had concurrent power to prosecute. The defendant, Robert Batchelder, was initially charged and convicted in federal court for transporting stolen property across state lines. Later on, he was also charged under Illinois law for theft of the same property. He appealed his conviction arguing it violated his Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same crime. The Supreme Court agreed with Batchelder's argument and reversed his second conviction stating that although states have broad authority to define crimes and punishments within their borders, they cannot infringe upon rights protected by the Constitution such as protection from double jeopardy.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Illinois v. Batchelder, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search of an automobile trunk was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on Fourth Amendment rights. He contended that there were no exigent circumstances justifying such a search and therefore it should not have been allowed without a warrant. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that police officers could reasonably believe they had probable cause to conduct this type of search based on their training and experience alone. Instead, he believed these factors should be considered in conjunction with other evidence when determining whether or not probable cause exists.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Jul 06, 1983
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