green
Positive treatment
1.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 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"
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 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gillespie
See United States v. Yong Bing-Gong, 594 F.Supp. 248, 256 (N.D.N.Y.1984), aff'd 788 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 818 , 107 S.Ct. 78 , 93 L.Ed.2d 33 (1986).
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."
United States v. Antone R. White, A/K/A Tone
Compare United States v. Kragness, 830 F.2d 842, 864 (8th Cir.1987) ("[Pjroof of the RICO conspiracy in fact rested upon proof of the drug conspiracies, and not upon proof of an agreement that some other predicate offenses would be committed.”) and United States v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1394, 1398 (10th Cir.1990) with United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1371 (2d Cir.1985) ("[A] RICO conspiracy charge is satisfied by proof of an agreement to commit a felony, no proof of conspiracy to commit narcotics violations is necessary,”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 818 , 107 S.Ct. 78 , 93 L.Ed.2d 34 (1986…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Van Nguyen
See United States v. Bernard S., 795 F.2d 749 (9th Cir.1986) (seventeen-year old suspect questioned in English, not Apache, claimed to understand his rights explained with the help of his mother and answered questions in English); see also United States v. Bing-Gong, 594 F.Supp. 248 (N.D.N.Y.1984), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 818 , 107 S.Ct. 78 , 93 L.Ed.2d 33 (1986) (defendant who had difficulty with English disputed that he had been given warnings and claimed not to understand although no interpreter was requested and defendant answered questions in English before the questions were translated).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Yong Bing-Nam, aka Pian-Nam
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 85-1905.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1986.
Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.