green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
57.2 score
“we, like most other courts, had read belton to mean that police could search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest regardless of the occupant's actual control over the passenger compartment.”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Deemer v. State
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
Accord, Armstead v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.App. 569 , 695 S.E.2d 561, 565 (2010); but see United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir.2010).
examined
Cited "but see"
People v. McCarty
(14×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
search performed in accordance with 1049 our erroneous interpretation of fourth amendment law is not culpable police conduct.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
McCain v. State
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
we stress, however, that our precedent on a given point must be unequivocal before we will suspend the exclusionary rule's operation----
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Dearborn
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
we, like most other courts, had read belton to mean that police could search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest regardless of the occupant's actual control over the passenger compartment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bain
This court has clarified that “the [Davis] exception is available only where the police rely on precedent that is ‘clear and well-settled.’” United States v. Sparks, 711 F.3d 58, 64 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010)). “[T]his emphasis on the clear application of the precedent to the case at hand is consistent with Davis’s focus on deterrence; where judicial precedent does not clearly authorize a particular practice, suppression has deterrent value because it creates an ‘incentive to err on the side of constitutional behavior.’…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Earl Marzett v. State
As in Johnson, 457 U.S. at 561 , a misinterpretation of traffic code involves an officer on patrol taking an overly aggressive view of a legal issue on which "reasonable minds ... may differ." UnitedStates v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010), aff d, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citationomitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harry Katzin
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
What law enforcement did in this case was to “rely on precedent to resolve legal questions as to which ‘[Reasonable minds ... may differ....’ ” United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir.2010), aff'd, -U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Henry Stephens
(2×)
THACKER, Circuit Judge, dissenting: “When law enforcement officers rely on precedent to resolve legal questions as to which '[Reasonable minds ... may differ,’ the exclusionary rule is well-tailored to hold them accountable for their mistakes.” United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir.2010), aff'd, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Trevor Ransfer
United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Baez
In Sparks , we interpreted that language as requiring “precedent that is ‘clear and well-settled.’ ” 711 F.3d at 64 (quoting United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir.2010), aff'd, 131 S.Ct. 2419 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Trevor Ransfer
United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Erick D. Smith
He points specifically to our insistence that, because the “justifications for the good-faith exception do not extend to situations in which police officers have interpreted ambiguous precedent,” our precedent on a given point “must be unequivocal before we will suspend the exclusionary rule’s operation.” United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1266-67 (11th Cir.2010), aff'd Davis, 131 S.Ct. 2419 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harry Katzin
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Buford, 632 F.3d 264 , 276 n.9 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Like the Eleventh Circuit, we also „stress, however, that our precedent on a given point must be unequivocal before we will suspend the exclusionary rule‟s operation.‟” (quoting Davis, 598 F.3d at 1266 )); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 , 1045 n.6 (10th Cir. 2009) (finding that the good faith exception applied because “Tenth Circuit jurisprudence supporting the search was settled.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wilford
To be sure, “ ‘[t]he justifications for the good-faith exception do not extend to situations in which police officers have interpreted ambiguous precedent or relied on their own extrapolations from existing easelaw.’” Sparks, 711 F.3d at 67 -68 (quoting United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir.2010), aff'd — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sparks
(2×)
They unanimously held — and we agree — that the exception is available only where the police rely on precedent that is “clear and well-settled.” United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir.2010), aff'd , — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 ; see also United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1042 (10th Cir.2009) (search was “wholly consistent with and supported by” precedent); State v. Baker, 229 P.3d 650, 663 (Utah 2010) (precedent was “settled”); State v. Dearborn, 327 Wis.2d 252 , 786 N.W.2d 97, 107 (2010) (officers relied on “clear and settled law”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lee
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Buford, 632 F.3d 264 , 276 n. 9 (6th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir.2010)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Narciso v. State
Id. (citing United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1265-66 (2010)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Debruhl
Once the vehicle’s occupants had been secured, Miller searched it and found a revolver in one of Davis’s jacket pockets.” United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir.2010).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Briscoe v. State
(4×)
United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1263 (11th Cir.2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wilks
Fourth Amendment violations.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1265-66 (11th Cir.2010)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Fourth Amendment violations.” 598 F. 3d, at 1265-1266 (bracketing and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Fourth Amendment violations.” 598 F.3d, at 1265-1266 (bracketing and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Caudle, Jr.
Prior to Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), we had read New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), to mean that “police could search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest regardless of the occupant’s actual control over the passenger compartment.” United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir.2010), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 502 , 178 L.Ed.2d 368 (2010).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Curtis
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 924-25 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (emphasizing the lower courts’ considerable discretion to reject suppression motions solely on good-faith grounds, without reaching the underlying Fourth Amendment question); United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir.) ("We consider constitutional violations and remedies separately in the Fourth Amendment context .... ’’), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 502 , 178 L.Ed.2d 368 (2010).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Buford
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The Seventh Circuit has "expressed skepticism about applying the [exclusionary] rule's good-faith exception when police had relied solely on caselaw in conducting a search[.]” Davis, 598 F.3d at 1263-64 (discussing United States v. Real Prop.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Enrique Perez Ochoa
United States v. Gonzalez, 71 F.3d 819, 826-27 (11th Cir.1996), abrogated in part on other grounds, Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), as recognized by United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Short
The Eleventh Circuit also recently ruled “that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on our well-settled precedent, even if that precedent is subse quently overturned.” United States v Davis, 598 F3d 1259, 1264 (CA 11, 2010). 2 As the Court explained in Davis : The [Supreme] Court has gradually expanded this good-faith exception to accommodate objectively reasonable police reliance on: subsequently invalidated search warrants, Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3430 ; subsequently invalidated statutes, Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Luke Lewis Melton, III
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir.2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Corbitt v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Corbitt v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 598 F.3d 1259, 1259 (11th Cir.2010) (en banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Franklin
United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir.2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re T.L.
United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir.2010). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Tl
The Eleventh Circuit also "note[d] the fundamental unfairness of holding citizens to `the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse,' while allowing those `entrusted to enforce' the law to be ignorant of it." Id. (citation omitted). [40] United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir.2010). [41] Id. (internal citation and footnote omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Debruhl
United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir.2010). 35 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lebowitz
See United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir.2010), aff'd, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011); United States v. Gonzalez, 71 F.3d 819, 825-26 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Christopher Antonio Owens
See United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
Montgomery v. State
See United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir.2010); Brown v. State, 24 So.3d 671, 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), review denied, 39 So.3d 1264 (Fla.2010); see also Howard v. State, 59 So.3d 229 , 231 & n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State v. Harris, 58 So.3d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 61 So.3d 410 (Fla. 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Montgomery v. State
See United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir.2010); Brown v. State, 24 So.3d 671, 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), review denied, 39 So.3d 1264 (Fla.2010); see also Howard v. State, 59 So.3d 229 , 231 & n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State v. Harris, 58 So.3d 408, 410-11 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 61 So.3d 410 (Fla. 2011).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Martell Peoples
See United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Harris
See U.S. v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir.2009); U.S. v. Amos, 733 F.Supp.2d 907 (E.D.Tenn.2010); Brown v. Romeoville, No. 08C1577, 2010 WL 431474 (N.D.Ill.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jemison
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Davis, 598 F.3d at 1263 , quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), quoting in turn Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (“ ‘Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case ... is “an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.” ’ ”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Amos
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1044 (10th Cir.2009) (holding that the good faith exception applied to a search later invalidated by Gant)', see also United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1264-65 (11th Cir. 2010) (same), contra Gonzalez, 578 F.3d at 1133 (holding that a lower court cannot apply the good faith exception to a retroactive application of Gant and a search invalidated by Gant). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Armstead v. Commonwealth
See generally United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259 , 1263 (11th Cir.2010); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1045 (10th Cir. 2009); State v. Riley, 154 Wash.App. 433 , 225 P.3d 462, 465-66 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dennis Mitchell
(2×)
See Davis, 598 F.3d at 1262 (citing United States v. Gonzalez, 71 F.3d 819, 825 (11th Cir.1996)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Lopez
(McKay, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 622 ; see, e.g., U.S. v. Davis (11th Cir. 2010) 598 F.3d 1259 , 1261 [after detainee gave false name, bystanders supplied true name, which officer was then able to verify].) In the absence of other satisfactory identification, an officer “may require the arrestee to place a right thumbprint” on a notice to appear.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Avis Dante Hinkle v. State of Alabama.
See also United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir.2010) (“As the Supreme Court later explained, its opinion in Belton was ‘widely understood to allow a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there [was] no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search.’ Gant, [ 556 U.S. at 341 ,] 129 S.Ct. at 1718 .”) In Gant , however, the United States Supreme Court replaced the rule it had announced in Belton , holding that “[p]olice may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Daniel
(2×)
Ed. 2d 759 (2010) (good-faith exception applies when officers relied on circuit’s then-prevailing pre-Gant jurisprudence); see also United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1264 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); United States v. Lopez, 655 F. Supp. 2d 720, 725 (E.D.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Tyrone O. Johnson, Jr. s/k/a Tyrone Orneall Johnson, Jr.
See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1263-68 (11th Cir. 2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Corbitt
v.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
v.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
08-12199.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 10, 2010.
Dubina, Tjoflat, Edmondson, Birch, Black, Carnes, Barkett, Hull, Marcus, Wilson, Pryor, Martin.
Published
BY THE COURT:
A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc, and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.