Case Citator › Gouled v. United States

Gouled v. United States

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
255 U.S. 298
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
75 of 75
Citing cases (total)
1,256
Treatment dates
1967
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Gouled v. United States has been overruled in part; all 75 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed federal treatment is listed below. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden rejected Gouled's rule barring seizure of items solely because they are evidence rather than fruits, instrumentalities, or contraband.
More on how this was screened

Gouled's separate protection against a surreptitious, warrantless seizure continued to be cited. State v. Johnson kept a different rule under the Kansas constitution, without changing federal law. Later lower-court descriptions of Warden's act add no overruling of their own.

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.

1,256 later cases cite Gouled v. United States; 75 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 Gouled v. United States?

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 Supreme Court rejected Gouled's categorical ban on seizing evidence when the government lacked a separate property interest in it.

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

    The premise in Gouled that government may not seize evidence simply for the purpose of proving crime has likewise been discredited. The requirement that the Government assert in addition some property interest in material it seizes has long been a fiction,11 obscuring the reality that government has an interest in solving crime.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Gouled v. United States 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