Jones v. State (2013)
green
· 22 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 6 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201420202026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
WHITE v. STATE (2019)
Comm. v. Simonson , 148 A.3d 792, 798-801 (Pa.Super. 2016); Jones v. State , 74 A.3d 802, 812-13 (Md.App. 2013) and cases cited at n.8 therein; United States v. Johnson , 445 F.3d 793, 795-96 (5th Cir. 2006). 12 The fact (established at trial) that gunshot residue can quickly be cast off, or brushed off, suggests a GSR swab might be permitted under the "exigent circumstances" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
App.3d 511, 520 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("Because the hand swabbing was so ‘minor an imposition that the defendant suffered no true humiliation or affront to his dignity,’ we find a search warrant was not required to justify the GSR test after defendant was in custody and while the arresting officers were assigned to investigate the April 17 attempt robbery.”); Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483, 501 , 74 A.3d 802, 812 (2013) ("Opinions of the appellat…
green
Commonwealth v. Simonson (2016)
See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a vali…
“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”
green
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr. (2015)
See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 795-96 (5th Cir.2006) (upholding gunpowder residue testing done on defendant's hands as a search incident to arrest); Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 812-13 (2013) (same and citing other cases so holding); State v. Riley, 201 W.Va. 708 , 500 S.E.2d 524, 533 (1997) (same); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106, 117-18 (Wyo.2013) (same). .
same and citing other cases so holding
green
Payne v. State (2019)
Standard of Review We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress on “‘only the evidence contained in the record of the suppression hearing.’” Gupta v. State, 452 Md. 103, 129 (2017) (quoting Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68 , 82–83 (2008)). “[W]e ‘extend great deference 5 to the findings of the motions court as to first-level findings of fact and as to the credibility of witnesses, unless those findings are clearly erroneous.’” Jones v. State, 213 Md.
quoting Padilla v. State, 180 Md. App. 210, 218 (2008)
green
Jones v. State (2014)
Jones v. State, 213 Md.
alternations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted