Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
33 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rubiogreen2 sentences2022State v. Rubio, 115 Idaho 873, 876 , 771 P.2d 537, 540 (Ct. App. 1989). 2022State v. Rubio, 115 Idaho 873, 876 , 771 P.2d 537, 540 (Ct. App. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ferreiragreen2 sentences2006Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 575-76 (1971); State v. Ferreira, 133 Idaho 474, 479 , 988 P.2d 700, 705 (Ct.App.1999). 2006Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 575-76 (1971); State v. Ferreira, 133 Idaho 474, 479 , 988 P.2d 700, 705 (Ct.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences2006Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 575-76 (1971); State v. Ferreira, 133 Idaho 474, 479 , 988 P.2d 700, 705 (Ct.App.1999). 2006Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 575-76 (1971); State v. Ferreira, 133 Idaho 474, 479 , 988 P.2d 700, 705 (Ct.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2005Terry, 392 U.S at 30, 88 S.Ct. at 1884, 20 L.Ed.2d at 911; State v. Wright, 134 Idaho 73, 76 , 996 P.2d 292, 295 (2000). 2005Terry, 392 U.S at 30, 88 S.Ct. at 1884, 20 L.Ed.2d at 911; State v. Wright, 134 Idaho 73, 76 , 996 P.2d 292, 295 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1982Washington v. Chrisman, — U.S. -, ——, 102 S.Ct. 812, 816 , 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982); State v. Smith, 102 Idaho 108, 110 , 626 P.2d 206, 210 (1981). 1982Washington v. Chrisman, — U.S. -, ——, 102 S.Ct. 812, 816 , 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982); State v. Smith, 102 Idaho 108, 110 , 626 P.2d 206, 210 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2026A. The Scope of the Terry Frisk was Exceeded In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court created a stop-and- frisk exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. 2025In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court created a stop-and-frisk exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. | 26 | 2000–2026 |
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2020The extent to which implied consent laws act as an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement has been litigated extensively since Missouri v. McNeely, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that dissipation of alcohol in the blood, alone, does not qualify as a per se exigency allowing for a warrantless blood draw, but that exigency must be judged on a case-by- case basis based on the totality of the circumstances. 569 U.S. 141 (2013). 2020The extent to which implied consent laws act as an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement has been litigated extensively since Missouri v. McNeely, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that dissipation of alcohol in the blood, alone, does not qualify as a per se exigency allowing for a warrantless blood draw, but that exigency must be judged on a case-by- case basis based on the totality of the circumstances. 569 U.S. 141 (2013). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Pool
green
2 sentences2020In Pool, the 3 Court discussed its prior decisions, including Charlson, Rios and Eversole, and expressly declined to overrule these cases stating, “This Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that actual consent is the only way to demonstrate consent for Fourth Amendment purposes, and we find no compelling reason to overturn our controlling precedent in that regard.” Pool, 166 Idaho at 245 , 457 P.3d at 897 . 1 The Court held that “absent evidence that a defendant has affirmatively withdrawn his or her consent, implied consent for warrantless blood draws remains a valid exception to the Four 2020In Pool, the 3 Court discussed its prior decisions, including Charlson, Rios and Eversole, and expressly declined to overrule these cases stating, “This Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that actual consent is the only way to demonstrate consent for Fourth Amendment purposes, and we find no compelling reason to overturn our controlling precedent in that regard.” Pool, 166 Idaho at 245 , 457 P.3d at 897 . 1 The Court held that “absent evidence that a defendant has affirmatively withdrawn his or her consent, implied consent for warrantless blood draws remains a valid exception to the Four | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Washington v. Chrisman
green
2 sentences1982Washington v. Chrisman, — U.S. -, ——, 102 S.Ct. 812, 816 , 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982); State v. Smith, 102 Idaho 108, 110 , 626 P.2d 206, 210 (1981). 1982Washington v. Chrisman, — U.S. -, ——, 102 S.Ct. 812, 816 , 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982); State v. Smith, 102 Idaho 108, 110 , 626 P.2d 206, 210 (1981). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.