How cited: Cluster 1663 · Go Syfert

Cluster 1663

green · 89 citation events across 17 courts. Showing the 40 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201020182026
green Lundstrom v. Romero (2010)
Quote Authority · 10th Cir. · signal: compare · 5 citations in this opinion
Najar, 451 F.3d at 718-19 ; compare Armijo, 601 F.3d at 1072 (“[I]f the officers acted reasonably, they need not exhaust every avenue of dispelling suspicion.
“[I]f the officers acted reasonably, they need not exhaust every avenue of dispelling suspicion. Perhaps more investigation would have been worthy. Then again, given the imminence of the threatened attacks, perhaps any delay would risk too much.”
Rule Authority · 10th Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir.2010).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir.2010).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1075 (10th Cir.2010).
Rule Authority · 7th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir.2010).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
See Michigan v. Fisher, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 546 , 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (describing the Brigham City holding as embodying the "emergency aid exception," requiring "only an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a person within the house is in need of immediate aid[.]" Id. at 548 (citations, alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.2008) ("Considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcem…
green Springer v. Albin (2010)
Rule Authority · 10th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir.2010) (quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 1074.
green Springer v. Albin (2010)
Rule Authority · 10th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) -9- (quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 1074 .
green Thomas v. Durastanti (2010)
Rule Authority · 10th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1075 (10th Cir.2010) (the Fourth Amendment does not require officers to use the least restrictive means in investigating a threat).
green Flores v. Henderson (2024)
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1072 (10th Cir. 2010).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010); see also Cortez, 478 F.3d at 1124 n.21 (noting that Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006), “did not expressly require probable cause” for there to be exigent circumstances).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1072 (10th Cir. 2010).
green Stoedter v. Gates (2017)
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1075 (10th Cir. 2010).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1067-68 (10th Cir.2010).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir.2010) (Fourth Amendment analysis focuses on the objective reasonableness of the challenged conduct in the totality of the circumstances).
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071-73 (10th Cir.2010); United States v. Lindsey, 877 F.2d 777, 781-82 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890, 894 (9th Cir.1985).
green Hernandez v. Grant (2013)
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
green Storey v. Garcia (2012)
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1073 (10th Cir.2010).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir.2010) (stating, in the context of a § 1983 action, “[t]he officers bear the burden of establishing that the threats posed exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry”); Hardesty v. Hamburg Twp., 461 F.3d 646, 655 (6th Cir.2006) (concluding the government bears the burden of proving the presence of exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry); Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707, 711 (3d Cir.1996) (“T…
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir.2010), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1473 , 179 L.Ed.2d 313 (2011).
green Langford v. Wyatt (2010)
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir.2010) (“When a district court denies qualified immunity because of a factual dispute, that finding is not jurisdictionally dispositive on appeal if the defendants argue that immunity applies even under the plaintiffs version of the facts.”) (quotation marks omitted).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1069-70 (10th Cir.2010).
green Deutsch v. Jordan (2010)
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir.2010).
Rule Authority · Mass. · 4 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1224 7 requirement that compromises public safety and hampers law enforcement in fulfilling the purpose for which the emergency exception exists.
Rule Authority · D.N.M. · 3 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1072 (10th Cir.2010)). 6.
green James v. Chavez (2011)
Rule Authority · 3 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010).
Rule Authority · D. Colo. · 2 citations in this opinion
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1073 (10th Cir. 2010)).
green Harris v. Barnes (2021)
Rule Authority · D. Colo. · 2 citations in this opinion
The Objective Reasonableness Standard “The Fourth Amendment’s touchstone is reasonableness in the totality of the circumstances.” Armijo v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010).
Rule Authority · W.D. La.
Doc. 44-6 at 6. 137 Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 374 (2007) (An “opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”). 138 See Armijo v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1072 (10th Cir. 2010) (As long as police officers act reasonably, they “need not exhaust every avenue of dispelling suspicion” prior to detaining a suspect.). 139 See United States v. Webster, 314 F. Appx. 226, 229 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Although it might have been b…
As long as police officers act reasonably, they “need not exhaust every avenue of dispelling suspicion” prior to detaining a suspect.
green Mosley v. Daves (2025)
Rule Authority · Colo. Ct. App.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (concluding that, in a § 1983 case, the officer bears the burden of establishing a warrant exception existed to justify a warrantless entry); Mascorro v. Billings, 656 F.3d 1198, 1205 (10th Cir. 2011) (In a § 1983 action, “[t]he burden is on the government to demonstrate the existence of exigent circumstances” justifying a warrantless entry.). ¶ 27 The Second, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals a…
concluding that, in a § 1983 case, the officer bears the burden of establishing a warrant exception existed to justify a warrantless entry
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
Colo. 2019) (citing Mascorro, 656 F.3d at 1205 ; Lundstrom v. Romero, 616 F.3d 1108, 1124 (10th Cir. 2010); Armijo v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010)).
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
Indeed, “[e]xigent circumstances are frequently found when dangerous explosives are involved.” Armijo v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Haldorson, 941 F.3d 284, 295 (7th Cir. 2019) (“The exigent circumstances exception is frequently invoked in cases involving explosives.”).
Rule Authority · D. Kan.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 393–94 (1978)). 34 Id. (quoting United States v. Najar, 451 F.3d 710, 718 (10th Cir. 2006)). 35 Id. (citing United States v. Reeves, 524 F.3d 1161, 1169 (10th Cir. 2008)).
quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 393–94 (1978)
Rule Authority · W.D.N.C.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1073 (10th Cir. 2010).
Rule Authority · D.N.M.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010).
Quote Authority · Iowa
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The officers bear the burden of establishing that the threats posed exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry.”); Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 764 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A]s with other exceptions to the warrant requirement, the Government bears the burden of demonstrating that the search at issue meets the[] parameters.” (quoting United States v. Stafford, 416 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2005)))…
“The officers bear the burden of establishing that the threats posed exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry.”
green Smith v. City of Hobbs (2020)
Rule Authority · D.N.M.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010).
Rule Authority · D.N.M.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brigham City, 547 U.S. 398, 406 , 126 S. Ct. 1943, 1949 , 164 L.
green United States v. Owen (2014)
Rule Authority · N.D. Okla.
Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1072 (10th Cir.2010) (citing Walker, 474 F.3d at 1254).
green People v. Troyer (2011)
Cited (see also) · Cal. · signal: see also
(E.g., Wofford v. State (1997) 330 Ark. 8 [ 952 S.W.2d 646, 652 ]; People v. Allison (Colo. 2004) 86 P.3d 421, 427 ; State v. Fausel (2010) 295 Conn. 785 [ 993 A.2d 455, 461-462 ]; State v. Carlson, supra, 548 N.W.2d at p. 142 ; State v. Alexander (1998) 124 Md.App. 258 [ 721 A.2d 275, 286 ]; Hannon v. State (Nev. 2009) 207 P.3d 344, 346 ; Duquette v. Godbout (R.I. 1984) 471 A.2d 1359, 1362 ; State v. Deneui (2009) 2009 SD 99 [ 775 N.W.2d 221, 230 ]; State v. Comer (2002) 45…