green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivas, Gerardo Tomas
See ROMO v STATE, 315 SW 3d 565, 573 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref'd)(citing RODRIGUEZ v STATE, 106 SW 3d 224, 228-29 (Tex. App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 540 US 1189 (2004), for the proposition that 'A.DRUG DETECTION IXJG'S SNIFF OF THE FRONT IXX>R OF A DEFENDANT 1 S HOME IS LEGAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE AREA AROUND AN UNENCLOSED FRONT IXX>R 1 }.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivas, Gerardo Tomas
See ROMO v STATE, 315 SW 3d 565, 573 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref'd)(citing RODRIGUEZ v STATE, 106 SW 3d 224, 228-29 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 540 US 1189 (2004), for the proposition that 'A DRUG DETECTION DOG'S SNIFF OF THE FRoNT DOOR OF· A DEFENDANT'S HOME IS LEGAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE AREA AROUND AN UNENCLOSED FRONT DOOR').
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivas, Gerardo Tomas
See ROMO v STATE, 315 SW 3d 565, 573 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref'd)(citing RODRIGUEZ v STATE, 106 SW 3d 224, 228-29 (Tex. App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 540 US 1189 (2004), for the proposition that 'A DRUG DETECTION DOG'S SNIFF OF THE FRONT DOOR OF A DEFENDANT'S HOME IS LEGAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE AREA AROUND AN UNENCLOSED FRONT DOOR').
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerardo Tomas Rivas v. State
Id. at 573–74; see also Rodriguez v. State, 106 S.W.3d 224, 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref‘d) (stating that ―[w]hen a trained and certified narcotics dog alerts an officer to apparent evidence or contraband, probable cause exists‖ to obtain a search warrant), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1189 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerardo Tomas Rivas v. State
Id. at 573–74; see also Rodriguez v. State, 106 S.W.3d 224, 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref‘d) (stating that ―[w]hen a trained and certified narcotics dog alerts an officer to apparent evidence or contraband, probable cause exists‖ to obtain a search warrant), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1189 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerardo Tomas Rivas v. State
Id . at 573–74; see also Rodriguez v. State , 106 S.W.3d 224, 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (stating that “[w]hen a trained and certified narcotics dog alerts an officer to apparent evidence or contraband, probable cause exists” to obtain a search warrant), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 1189 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerardo Tomas Rivas v. State
Id . at 573–74; see also Rodriguez v. State , 106 S.W.3d 224, 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (stating that “[w]hen a trained and certified narcotics dog alerts an officer to apparent evidence or contraband, probable cause exists” to obtain a search warrant), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 1189 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerardo Tomas Rivas v. State
Id . at 573–74; see also Rodriguez v. State , 106 S.W.3d 224, 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (stating that “[w]hen a trained and certified narcotics dog alerts an officer to apparent evidence or contraband, probable cause exists” to obtain a search warrant), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 1189 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerardo Tomas Rivas v. State
Id. at 573–74; see also Rodriguez v. State, 106 S.W.3d 224, 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref‘d) (stating that ―[w]hen a trained and certified narcotics dog alerts an officer to apparent evidence or contraband, probable cause exists‖ to obtain a search warrant), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1189 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patterson
v.
Virginia
v.
Virginia
No. 03-7754.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 2004.
540 U.S. 1189
Published
Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.