UNITED STATES

v.

JOHNS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Berkemer v. McCARTY, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984)
  …he Fourth Amendment on the scope of a Terry stop. Nothing in this opinion is intended to refine the constraints imposed by the Fourth Amendment on the duration of such detentions. Cf. Sharpe v. United States, 712 F. 2d 65 (CA4 1983), cert. granted, 467 U. S. 1250 (1984). Cf. Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 148 (1972). Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S., at 34 (White, J., concurring). Contrast the minor burdens on law enforcement and significant protection of citizens’ rights effected by our holding that Miran…
• United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985)
  …,” reasoning that its action complied with this Court’s mandate. The panel assumed that “[h]ad [this] Court felt that a reversal was in order, it could and would have said so.” Id., at 65, n. 1. Judge Russell again dissented. We granted certiorari, 467 U. S. 1250 (1984), and we reverse.2 [*682] ) — 1 A The Fourth Amendment is not, of course, a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only against unreasonable searches and seizures. The authority and limits of the Amendment apply to investigative st…
• Central States v. Cent. Transp., Inc., 472 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1985)
  …of ERISA, the Court of Appeals held that Central States had to show “reasonable cause” to believe that a specific employee was covered by the plans before gaining a right of access to that employee’s records. Id., át 809-812. We granted certiorari, 467 U. S. 1250 (1984), and we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. [*565] ) — I The documents governing Central Transport’s contractual relationship with Central States include the collective-bargaining agreements between Central Transport and variou…