Frank v. Maryland

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = Frank v. Maryland
ArgueDate = March 5
ArgueYear = 1959
DecideDate = May 4
DecideYear = 1959
FullName = Frank v. Maryland
USVol = 359
USPage = 360
Citation =
Prior =
Subsequent =
Holding = Section 120 is valid, and appellant's conviction for resisting an inspection of his house without a warrant did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
SCOTUS = 1958-1962
Majority = Frankfurter
JoinMajority =
Concurrence =
JoinConcurrence =
Concurrence2 =
JoinConcurrence2 =
Concurrence/Dissent =
JoinConcurrence/Dissent =
Dissent =
JoinDissent =
Dissent2 =
JoinDissent2 =
LawsApplied =

"Frank v. Maryland" (359 U.S. 360 (1959) was United States Supreme Court interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Frank refused to allow the health inspectors into his home citing the Fourth Amendment. Inspectors were trying to preform an administrative search for code violations, specifically a rat infestation, not a criminal investigation, so they did not believe they were violating the Fourth Amendment. The Court, in an opinion written by Felix Frankfurter, decided in favor of the inspectors claiming that the search would benefit the public more than Frank's interests in privacy.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 360
*"Wolf v. Colorado", ussc|338|25|1949

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Michener |first=J. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1960 |month= |title=Health Inspections of Private Homes—"Frank v. Maryland" |journal=Maryland Law Review |volume=20 |issue= |pages=345 |issn=00254282 |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Schneider |first=Joseph J. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1961 |month= |title=Constitutional Law—Search and Seizure—Duty of Home Owner to Permit Housing Inspection without a Warrant |journal=Michigan Law Review |volume=59 |issue=3 |pages=447–450 |doi=10.2307/1285791 |url= |accessdate= |quote=

External links

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=359&invol=360 Full text opinion at Findlaw]