Counselman v. Hitchcock
Primary source
Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). We link back to the source for attribution; edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.
Background
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1892 United States Supreme Court case
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that not incriminating an individual for testimony was not the same as not requiring them to testify at all. The court reasoned that as long as evidence arising from the compelled testimony could incriminate the individual in any way, the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination was not satisfied. The court then adopted the broader "transactional immunity " rule.
References
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counselman_v._Hitchcock&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: References")
]
- ↑ William Cohen; John Kaplan (1981). Constitutional law: civil liberty and individual rights . Foundation Press. ISBN 9780882770628 .
- ↑ Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892).
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counselman_v._Hitchcock&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Text of Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
hide
United States Fourth Amendment case law
hide
Scope of the Fourth Amendment
Definition of search
- _Boyd v. United States _ (1886)
- _United States v. Lee _ (1927)
- _Olmstead v. United States _ (1928)
- _Abel v. United States _ (1960)
- _Silverman v. United States _ (1961)
- _Katz v. United States _ (1967)
- _United States v. Knotts _ (1983)
- _United States v. Place _ (1983)
- _United States v. Karo _ (1984)
- _California v. Greenwood _ (1988)
- _Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n _ (1989)
- _United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez _ (1990)
- _Bond v. United States _ (2000)
- _Kyllo v. United States _ (2001)
- _Illinois v. Caballes _ (2005)
- _United States v. Jones _ (2012)
- _Florida v. Jardines _ (2013)
- _Klayman v. Obama _ (D.D.C. 2013)
- _American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper _ (D.D.C. 2013)
Definition of seizure
- _Counselman v. Hitchcock _ (1892)
- _Hale v. Henkel _ (1906)
- _Terry v. Ohio _ (1968)
- _United States v. Mendenhall _ (1980)
- _Florida v. Royer _ (1983)
- _INS v. Delgado _ (1984)
- _California v. Hodari D. _ (1991)
- _Florida v. Bostick _ (1991)
- _Soldal v. Cook County _ (1992)
- _United States v. Drayton _ (2002)
- _Brendlin v. California _ (2007)
- _Torres v. Madrid _ (2021)
Third-party entry
- _Wilson v. Layne _ (1999)
Fourth Amendment standing
- _Rakas v. Illinois _ (1978)
- _Byrd v. United States _ (2018)
show
Warrant requirement
- _Johnson v. United States _ (1948)
- _Franks v. Delaware _ (1978)
- _Ybarra v. Illinois _ (1979)
- _Maryland v. Garrison _ (1987)
- _United States v. Grubbs _ (2006)
- _Los Angeles County v. Rettelle _ (2006)
show
Exceptions to warrant requirement
show
Seizures
show
Remedies
Civil suit
show
Incorporation against States
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counselman_v._Hitchcock&oldid=1311188137 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
Counselman v. Hitchcock
Add languages Add topic
[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
…
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.