United States v. Monty Edward Clayborne, Jr. And George Ingram

How courts have described this case

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

• holding use of beeper ―as a substitute for persistent extensive visual‖ surveillance, when it enters a ―clandestine laboratory‖ exposed to ―outside viewing‖ and ―ingress and egress of the public‖ did not per se violate the Fourth Amendment
• court recognized distinction between privacy interests in a house and those in a clandestine laboratory

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).