gptkbp:instance_of
|
gptkb:legal_case
|
gptkbp:argued_on
|
gptkb:2014
defendant's position
government's position
|
gptkbp:case_number
|
discussed implications for law enforcement
highlighted importance of judicial oversight
involved warrantless search
13-1073
addressed reasonable expectation of privacy
examined scope of Fourth Amendment protections
|
gptkbp:case_outcome
|
decided
|
gptkbp:case_types
|
gptkb:legal_case
|
gptkbp:court
|
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
|
gptkbp:date
|
November 2014
|
gptkbp:decided_by
|
gptkb:2015
reversed
|
gptkbp:dissenting_opinion
|
gptkb:Justice_Roberts
gptkb:Justice_Alito
gptkb:Justice_Thomas
gptkb:Justice_Kennedy
|
gptkbp:docket_number
|
13-1073
|
gptkbp:effective_date
|
June 2015
|
gptkbp:has_implications_for
|
civil liberties
privacy rights
law enforcement authority
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
|
United States v. Sanchez
|
gptkbp:impact
|
law enforcement practices
|
gptkbp:is_cited_in
|
135 S. Ct. 2158
|
gptkbp:judges
|
gptkb:Sonia_Sotomayor
gptkb:Elena_Kagan
gptkb:John_Roberts
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Samuel_Alito
gptkb:Anthony_Kennedy
gptkb:Clarence_Thomas
|
gptkbp:legal_context
|
constitutional law
criminal procedure
search and seizure law
|
gptkbp:legal_issue
|
Fourth Amendment rights
|
gptkbp:legal_principle
|
exclusionary rule
|
gptkbp:legal_representation
|
public defender
government attorney
|
gptkbp:outcome
|
impact on future cases
law enforcement policy changes
search warrant validity
judicial interpretation of the Fourth Amendment
|
gptkbp:precedent
|
gptkb:Terry_v._Ohio
gptkb:Florida_v._Jardines
gptkb:Katz_v._United_States
gptkb:Illinois_v._Gates
established Fourth Amendment interpretation
|
gptkbp:public_perception
|
gptkb:Justice_Ginsburg
|
gptkbp:related_cases
|
gptkb:United_States_v._Jones
|
gptkbp:significance
|
Fourth Amendment interpretation
|
gptkbp:bfsParent
|
gptkb:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit
gptkb:Tenth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals
gptkb:U._S._Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit
|
gptkbp:bfsLayer
|
5
|