Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cosby v. State
Circumstances which have seemed relevant to courts include (1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant ...; (2) reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed ...; (3) the possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site of the contraband while a search warrant is sought ...; (4) information indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail ...; and (5) the ready destructibility of the contraband and the knowledge “that efforts to dispose of narcotics and to escape are characteristic be…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Benson v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Circumstances which have seemed relevant to courts include (1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant ...; (2) reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed ...; (3) the possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site of the contraband while a search warrant is sought ...; (4) information indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail ...; and (5) the ready destructibility of the contraband and the knowledge ‘that efforts to dispose of narcotics and to escape are characteristic be…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Clayton
In Cameron v. State, 861 So.2d 1145, 1149 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recognized one of the exceptional circumstances that justifies a warrantless entry and search of a residence, stating: “ ‘It is well settled that warrantless entries to and searches of a residence are presumptively unreasonable and that the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry and search.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McGurk v. State
Courts have also suggested that a showing of urgency may be easier to establish when narcotics are involved because “ ‘narcotics can be easily and quickly destroyed while a search is progressing.’ ” *49 United States v. Socey, 846 F.2d 1439, 1444-45 (D.C.Cir.) (quoting Johnson, 802 F.2d at 1462 ), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 858 , 109 S.Ct. 152 , 102 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988); see United States v. Cephas, 254 F.3d 488, 496 (4th Cir.2001) (noting that occupant’s awareness that the police were at his doorstep, that marijuana is easily destructible, and that the officer believed that marijuana woul…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bivens v. State
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
We held: “[T]he strong and overwhelming smell of marijuana emanating from the house, combined with Officer Watkins’s testimony regarding his ability to identify the distinctive odor of marijuana, established the existence of Officer Watkins’s probable cause to believe that contraband was present inside the residence.” Cameron, 861 So.2d at 1150 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited "see"
Mario G. Centobie v. Donal Campbell
See Centobie v. State, 861 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), aff'd, 861 So.2d 1145 (Ala.2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Lindsey v. State
See Cameron v. State, 861 So.2d 1145 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (holding that the destruction of evidence and possibility that the evidence will be removed constitute exigent circumstances).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. State
See also 2 Search at pp. 439-450.’ “Youtz v. State, 494 So.2d 189, 193-94 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).” Cameron, 861 So.2d at 1151-52 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
McGowan v. State
See also Ex parte Centobie, 861 So.2d 1145 (Ala.2003)(on rehearing ex mero motu); Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724 (Ala.2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Mario G. Centobie. (In Re: Mario Centobie
v.
State of Alabama).
v.
State of Alabama).
1010462.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Feb 14, 2003.
Gail Dickenson, Pell City, for petitioner. William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Regina F. Speagle, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
Brown.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The petition for the writ of certiorari is denied. Our denial of the writ should not be construed as approval of the Court of Criminal Appeals' articulation of the cumulative-error rule in Part XVII of the opinion of that court. Centobie v. State, [Ms. CR-98-2056, August 31, 2001] 861 So.2d 1111, 1143-44 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001). See Ex parte Bryant, [Ms. 1990901, June 21, 2002] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2002), and Ex parteWoods, 789 So.2d 941, 942 n. 1 (Ala. 2001).
ON REHEARING EX MERO MOTU; WRIT DENIED.
MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.