Case Citator › Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary

Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
401 U.S. 560
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
53 of 53
Citing cases (total)
53
Treatment dates
1976–1995
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary remains authoritative on probable cause, but its automatic-exclusion rule was rejected. All 53 flagged citations were read.
More on how this was screened

The direct treatments are 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.

53 later cases cite Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary; 53 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 Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Court rejected Whiteley's automatic exclusion of evidence following every Fourth Amendment violation while preserving its probable-cause rule.

    Arizona v. Evans · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Although Whiteley clearly retains relevance in determining whether police officers have violated the Fourth Amendment, see Hensley, supra, at 230-231, its precedential value regarding application of the exclusionary rule is dubious. In Whiteley, the Court treated identification of a Fourth Amendment violation as synonymous with application of the exclusionary rule to evidence secured incident to that violation. 401 U. S., at 568-569. Subsequent case law has rejected this reflexive application of the exclusionary rule.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Court restricted the federal habeas remedy previously granted in Whiteley when the state had provided a full and fair chance to litigate the Fourth Amendment claim.

    Stone v. Powell · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In sum, we conclude that where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim,36 a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.37 In this context ... in only one case—Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560 (1971)—was relief granted on that basis. And in Whiteley, as in Man-cusi, the issue of the substantive scope of the writ was not presented in the petition for certiorari.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary 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