Case Citator › United States v. Lefkowitz

United States v. Lefkowitz

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
285 U.S. 452
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
34 of 34
Citing cases (total)
34
Treatment dates
1967
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. United States v. Lefkowitz was abrogated on its rule against seizing items solely as evidence. In Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, the Supreme Court rejected the distinction between evidence and the fruits or instruments of crime.
More on how this was screened

United States v. Ochs later identified Lefkowitz's rule as one Hayden abrogated. The prohibition on a general exploratory search remains a separate issue. All 34 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

34 later cases cite United States v. Lefkowitz; 34 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Lefkowitz?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected the distinction that barred seizure of items solely because they were evidence rather than fruits or instruments of crime.

    Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We come, then, to the question whether, even though the search was lawful, the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the seizure and introduction of the items of clothing violated the Fourth Amendment because they are “mere evidence.” The distinction made by some of our cases between seizure of items of evidential value only and seizure of instrumentalities, fruits, or contraband has been criticized by courts6 and commentators.7 The Court of Appeals, however, felt “obligated to adhere to it.” 363 F. 2d, at 655. We today reject the distinction as based on premises no longer *301accepted as rules governing the application of the Fourth Amendment.8
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Lefkowitz and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace