green
Positive treatment
Issue: Fourth Amendment warrant requirementWA ↗
Issue: exclusionary ruleWY ↗
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Scott
(3×)
See United States v. Merchant, 760 F.2d 963, 969 (9th Cir.1985), cert. granted, 478 U.S. 1003 , 106 S.Ct. 3293 , 92 L.Ed.2d 708 (1986), cert. dismissed, 480 U.S. 615 , 107 S.Ct. 1596 , 94 L.Ed.2d 614 (1987); 5 see also, United States v. Davis, 932 F.2d 752, 758, n. 4 (9th Cir.1991).
examined
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert M. SILVER, Defendant-Appellant
(3×)
See United States v. Merchant, 760 F.2d 963, 967 (9th Cir.1985), cert. granted, 478 U.S. 1003 , 106 S.Ct. 3293 , 92 L.Ed.2d 708 (1986), cert. dismissed, 480 U.S. 615 , 107 S.Ct. 1596 , 94 L.Ed.2d 614 (1987).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Reichert
(3×)
United States v. Ooley, 116 F.3d 370, 372 (9th Cir.1997) ("the legality of a warrantless search depends upon a showing that the search was a true probation search and not an investigation search"); United States v. Jarrad, 754 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir.) (probation officer may not act as a "stalking horse" for the police to evade the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 , 106 S.Ct. 96 , 88 L.Ed.2d 78 (1985); see e.g., United States v. Merchant, 760 F.2d 963 (9th Cir.1985) (search that was not a genuine attempt to enforce probation but rather attempt to avoid Fourth …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Reichert
United States v. Ooley, 116 F.3d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1997) (“the legality of a warrantless search depends upon a showing that the search was a true probation search and not an investigation search”); United States v. Jarrad, 754 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir.) (probation officer may not act as a “stalking horse” for the police to evade the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1985); see, e.g., United States v. Merchant, 760 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1985) (search that was not a genuine attempt to enforce probation but rather an attempt to avoid Fourth Amendment warrant…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cochran
See also, State v. Blair, 691 S.W.2d 259 (Mo. banc 1985), cert. dismissed, 480 U.S. 698 , 107 S.Ct. 1596 , 94 L.Ed.2d 678 (1987), for a Missouri case which holds that an arrest may not be used as a pretext for an ulterior purpose.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eddie Williams v. A.L. Lockhart
Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985); see also Petty v. McCotter, 779 F.2d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1986) (pro se habeas petitioner should be given leave to amend petition on remand to raise issues that were raised for the first time on appeal), cert. dismissed, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 1596 , 94 L.Ed.2d 679 (1987) (writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES
v.
MERCHANT
v.
MERCHANT
85-1672.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 24, 1987.
480 U.S. 615
1987 U.S. LEXIS 1386
Per Curiam.
Cited by 11 opinions | Published
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Paul J. Larkin, Jr., argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Trott, and Deputy Solicitor General Bryson.
Penelope M. Cooper argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Cristina C. Arguedas and Ted W. Cassman.[*]
PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
[*] Nancy Gertner and Judith H. Mizner filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.