green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.5 score
“probable cause to believe certain items will be found in a specific location is a 'practical, nontechnical conception,' that need not be based on direct, first-hand, or 'hard' evidence.”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Rodriguez v. State
But see United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1366-67 (2d Cir.1985) (holding that dog sniff at door of apartment constituted search), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 (1985), and cert. denied, 479 U.S. 818 , 107 S.Ct. 78 , 93 L.Ed.2d 34 (1986); State v. Ortiz, 257 Neb. 784 , 600 N.W.2d 805, 819-20 (1999) (holding that dog sniff in hallway outside apartment was a search). 7 .
discussed
Cited "but see"
Porter v. State
But see United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1366-67 (2d Cir.1985) (holding that dog sniff at door of apartment constituted search), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985), and cert. denied, 479 U.S. 818 , 107 S.Ct. 78 , 93 L.Ed.2d 34 (1986); State v. Ortiz, 257 Neb. 784 , 600 N.W.2d 805, 819-20 (1999) (holding that dog sniff in hallway outside apartment was a search).
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re Montrail M.
But see United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1367 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 67, 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985) (dog sniff conducted outside door of apartment found to be a search).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Conrad Whitehead, Ii, United States of America v. Hector Quesada
(2×)
Id. at 891; see United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 159 (1st Cir.1987) (upholding dog sniff inside defendant’s automobile on showing of reasonable suspicion, unclear whether defendant consented to dog’s intrusion); but cf. United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir.1985), (dog sniff in corridor outside residential apartment is a search requiring probable cause and a warrant), ce rt. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1986); see generally United States v. Dicesare, 765 F.2d 890, 901-03 (9th Cir.1985) (Reinhardt, J., concurring) (opining that dogs are potentially more…
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Raffi Nakashian, A/K/A \Ralfi
See Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 694 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 1439 n. 8, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980); Whalen, 445 U.S. at 710 -12 and nn. 5 & 6, 100 S.Ct. at 1447 -48 nn. 5 & 6 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); see also Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); but cf. United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1372-76 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S.-,-, 106 S.Ct. 66 , 67, 88 L.Ed.2d 54, 55 (1985) and — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 78 , 93 L.Ed.2d 34 (1986) (Newman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 8 .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brandon Islas v. State
an accused ... may not use his constitutional right to counsel so as to manipulate the commencement of his trial to suit his convenience and pleasure.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nathan Hodges v. State
an accused . . . may not use his constitutional right to counsel so as to manipulate the commencement of his trial to suit his convenience and pleasure.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Cruz Corral
probable cause to believe certain items will be found in a specific location is a 'practical, nontechnical conception,' that need not be based on direct, first-hand, or 'hard' evidence.
cited
Cited "see"
Durham v. State
See Neal v. State, 689 S.W.2d 420, 428 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), cer t. denied., 474 U.S. 818 , 106 S.Ct. 65 , 88 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Escobar
See United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1365 (2d Cir.) cert. denied sub nom Fisher v. United States, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Colson v. Mitchell
See United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1363 (2d Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hancock v. Dodson
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 , 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1742 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); See United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1367 (2d Cir.) (reasonable expectation of privacy around front door of home), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hancock v. Dodson
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 , 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1742 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); See United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1367 (2d Cir.) (reasonable expectation of privacy around front door of home), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc.
(2×)
See Karmun v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 567, 570 (9th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc.
(2×)
See Karmun v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 567, 570 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) 3 Wilmington argues it could not have discovered the fraud because it was legally obligated to leave the diamond cassettes intact.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Coonan
See United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1370 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 67, 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985); United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 63 -64 n. 18.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Coonan
See United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1370 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 67, 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985); United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 63 -64 n. 18.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Rigoberto Moya-Gomez Celestino Orlando Estevez Amado Raphael Leon Adalberto Herrera and Menelao Orlando Estevez
See United States v. Coronel-Quintana, 752 F.2d 1284, 1291 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985); United States v. Anguloa, 598 F.2d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.1979); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 28.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Monsanto Co.
Id. at 711 , 94 S.Ct. at 2016 ; see Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 365 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 818 , 106 S.Ct. 65 , 88 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Monsanto Company Allied Corporation E.M. Industries, Inc. Defendants- American Insurance Association Chemical Manufacturers Association Amici Curiae. And South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. Columbia Organic Chemical Company Oscar Seidenberg Harvey Hutchinson Eaton Corporation Rad Services, Inc. Aquair Corporation v. G.D. Searle & Company Will Ross, Inc., Third Party United States of America South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Oscar Seidenberg Harvey Hutchinson American Insurance Association Chemical Manufacturers Association, Amici Curiae. And Monsanto Company Allied Corporation Aquair Corporation E.M. Industries, Inc. South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. Columbia Organic Chemical Company Eaton Corporation Rad Services, Inc. v. G.D. Searle & Company Will Ross, Inc., Third Party United States of America and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Monsanto Company Allied Corporation E.M. Industries Inc. South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. Oscar Seidenberg Harvey Hutchinson American Insurance Association Chemical Manufacturers Association, Amici Curiae. And Columbia Organic Chemical Company Eaton Corporation Rad Services, Inc. Aquair Corporation v. G.D. Searle & Company Will Ross, Inc., Third Party
Id. at 711 , 94 S.Ct. at 2016 ; see Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 365 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 818 , 106 S.Ct. 65 , 88 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Mira
See generally United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Persico
See United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1364-65 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Persico
See United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1364-65 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael E. Jones, United States of America v. Ralph Milton Pfeister
See United States v. Coronel-Quintana, 752 F.2d 1284, 1288 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ganias
See United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271, 1280 (2d Cir.) (“The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not protect searches by officers who fail to provide all potentially adverse information to the issuing judge.... ”), aff'd and amended, 91 F.3d 331 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam); see also United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1368 (2d Cir. 1985) (finding good faith reliance on a warrant, under Leon , where officers, first, committed a constitutional violation they did not reasonably know, at the time, was unconstitutional — a warrantless canine sniff— and second, in relyi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1367 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66, 67 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985) (dog sniff outside apartment door requires probable cause); Commonwealth v. Martin, 534 Pa. 136 , 626 A.2d 556 (Pa.1993) (requiring probable cause and warrant for dog sniff of person); but see People v. Dunn, 563 N.Y.S.2d 388 , 564 N.E.2d at 1058 (dog sniff outside apartment requires reasonable suspicion). [6] The continued viability of this theory in Oregon is questionable.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Maldonado-Rivera
See, e.g., United States v. Nakashian, 820 F.2d at 553 (§ 371 conspiracy and conspiracy to import and distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 963 and 846); United States v. Barton, 647 F.2d at 237 (§ 371 conspiracy and RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d)); see also, United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1369-71 (2d Cir.) (finding two specific conspiracy statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 , to be nonmultiplicitous), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William Shaffer
See also Nilson Van & Storage, 755 F.2d 362, 364-65 , (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 65 , 88 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985); United States v. Draper, 762 F.2d 81, 82 (10th Cir.1985) (citing with approval Nilson Van Storage as the basis for its earlier order which allowed the government to invoke the new provision of section 3731 as the basis for appealing a district court order of October 24, 1984 granting a new trial). 5 B.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Eduardo Arocena, A/K/A \Omar
See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir.) (denying a similar challenge to consecutive sentences), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 66 , 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ewert
v.
Exxon Co., USA, a Division of Exxon Corp.
v.
Exxon Co., USA, a Division of Exxon Corp.
No. 84-1774.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (2) · Tenth Circuit (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.