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

United States v. Di Re

• 1947 • 332 U.S. 581 • Vinson Court
In the United States v. Di Re case of 1947, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to search and seizure rights under the Fourth Amendment. The defendant, Di Re, was in a car with another individual who sold counterfeit fuel ration coupons to an undercover informant. When police arrested all individuals present during this transaction, they found additional counterfeit coupons on Di Re's person during a warrantless search. In court, he argued that these should be excluded as evidence...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 Vinson Court
Term: 1947
Docket: 61
332 U.S. 581
68 S. Ct. 222
92 L. Ed. 2d 210
1948 U.S. LEXIS 2667
Argued: Oct 17, 1947

United States v. Di Re

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Di Re case of 1947, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to search and seizure rights under the Fourth Amendment. The defendant, Di Re, was in a car with another individual who sold counterfeit fuel ration coupons to an undercover informant. When police arrested all individuals present during this transaction, they found additional counterfeit coupons on Di Re's person during a warrantless search. In court, he argued that these should be excluded as evidence because they were obtained illegally without a warrant or probable cause for his arrest specifically. The Supreme Court agreed with him in an 8-1 decision stating that being merely present at a crime scene did not constitute probable cause for arrest and subsequent search of his person without a warrant. This ruling reinforced protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring law enforcement officers to have specific reasons (probable cause) for believing each individual involved is guilty before conducting such invasive procedures.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Di Re, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of Di Re was misguided and could potentially undermine law enforcement efforts. He contended that there were reasonable grounds for police officers to believe that Di Re was involved in criminal activity, thus justifying their actions under exigent circumstances doctrine. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in applying Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures; while an individual’s home is protected, it seemed illogical to him why a person would have more protection inside someone else’s car than his own house or on foot on public streets. The justice also expressed concern over potential implications of this ruling - if criminals knew they had immunity from searches within another's vehicle without a warrant present, it might encourage them to use vehicles as shields for illegal activities.

Opinion written by Justice RHJackson
Decided: Jan 05, 1948
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