Supreme Court· 2/22/2012

Messerschmidt v. Millender

Citations

132 S. Ct. 1235
182 L. Ed. 2d 47
2012 U.S. LEXIS 1687
565 U.S. 535

Oral argument

Argued
61 min recording
Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “a warrant is generally required before [a search of a cell phone], even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest.”
holding that the officers reasonably believed that the scope of a warrant, which was approved by a prosecutor and issued by a neutral magistrate, was supported by probable cause
holding that a warrant was not “so obviously defective that no reasonable officer could have believed it was valid” where revealing any defect would require “close parsing” of the warrant application
holding that officers acted reasonably where they “sought and obtained approval of the warrant application from a superior and a deputy district attorney” before it was approved by a neutral magistrate
concluding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity when they had, inter alia, submitted a warrant application for review to a superior officer and a deputy district attorney, both of whom approved the application
concluding that the officer’s consultation with superiors and a deputy district attorney with regard to a warrant application provided “further support for the conclusion that an officer could have reasonably believed” that his actions were lawful

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

271 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Messerschmidt v. Millender

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.