green
Positive treatment
3.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Singleton v. Carter
Id. at 441 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 (“Our decision in [Elstad ] ... simply recognizes the fact that unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment are different from unwarned interrogation under the Fifth Amendment.”); but see United States v. Orso, 266 F.3d 1030 , 1034 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that, after Dickerson , “[i]t has become an interesting question to ask why, exactly, the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine does not operate in the Miranda context in the same way it does in the Fourth Amendment context”), ce rt. denied, 537 U.S. 828 , 123 S.Ct. 125 , 154 L.Ed.2d 42 (2002…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Seals
See Berry v. State, 802 So.2d 1033, 1044 (Miss.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 828 , 123 S.Ct. 125 , 154 L.Ed.2d 42 (2002), and the citations therein. 50 .See Wood v. State, 715 So.2d 812, 816-17 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), affirmed, 715 So.2d 819 (Ala.1998), ce rt. denied, 525 U.S. 1042 , 119 S.Ct. 594 , 142 L.Ed.2d 536 (1998), where the court found that the State had a race-neutral reason for striking a potential juror who said he needed to be at work so that he could earn the money to meet his child support obligations. 51 . 06-232 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/26/06) , 942 So.2d 1099 , writ denied, 06-2529 (La.5…
discussed
Cited "see"
Kabat v. State
See id .' " United States v. Orso , 266 F.3d 1030 , 1034 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 828 , 123 S.Ct. 125 (2002). "`The exclusionary rule is not a personal constitutional right, but rather a judicially created remedy to deter government violations of the Constitution.
cited
Cited "see"
Foldi v. State
See id ." United States v. Orso , 266 F.3d 1030 , 1034 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 828 , 123 S.Ct. 125 (2002).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Griffin
See, e.g., United States v. Orso, 266 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘‘reprehensible’’), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 828 , 123 S. Ct. 125 , 154 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ronald Cortez Foreman
(2×)
Indeed, the "use of trickery is an accepted tool of criminal law enforcement." Alexander v. DeAngelo, 329 F.3d 912, 917 (7th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Orso, 266 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir.2001) ( en banc ) (false statement that witness had seen him with a gun was not coercive), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 828 , 123 S.Ct. 125 , 154 L.Ed.2d 42 (2002); Lucero v. Kerby, 133 F.3d 1299, 1311 (10th Cir.1998) (lie regarding fingerprint evidence). 8 Foreman claims the United States waived its right to rely on the presence of the air fresheners in his vehicle by failing to rely on this factor below.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Foreman
Indeed, the "use of trickery is an accepted tool of criminal law enforcement." Alexander v. DeAngelo, 329 F.3d 912, 917 (7th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Orso, 266 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (false statement that witness had seen him with a gun was not coercive), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 828 (2002); Lucero v. Kerby, 133 F.3d 1299, 1311 (10th Cir. 1998) (lie regarding fingerprint evi- dence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pletcher
See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); see also United States v. Orso, 266 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (discussing Elstad’s holding), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 828 , 123 S.Ct. 125 , 154 L.Ed.2d 42 (2002).
Harrower
v.
United States
v.
United States
01-9517.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 2002.
Published
HARROWER
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 01-9517.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 7, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.
2
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 31 Fed. Appx. 202.