Linkletter v. Walker
Significance, Impact, Retroactivity
Petitioner
Victor Linkletter
Respondent
Victor G. Walker
Petitioner's Claim
Evidence obtained as a result of unreasonable search and seizure should be found inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment under Mapp v. Ohio.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Euel A. Screws, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Teddy W. Airhart, Jr.
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark (writing for the Court), Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
7 June 1965
Decision
In the Constitution there are no circumstances that require retroactive implementation of the exclusionary rule.
Related Cases
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
- Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
- Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433 (1961).
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
- Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963).
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
Further Readings
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Additional topics
- Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia - Significance, Interracial Marriage
- Levy v. Louisiana - Significance, The Levy Family, An Important Reversal: Illegitimate Children As Persons, An Important Reversal
- Linkletter v. Walker - Significance
- Linkletter v. Walker - Impact
- Linkletter v. Walker - Retroactivity
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972