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.
32 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 17 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. Hobsongreen2 sentences2021That is, “would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search ‘warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate.” State v. Hobson, 95 Idaho 920, 925 , 523 P.2d 523, 528 (1974) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). 2021That is, “would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search ‘warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate.” State v. Hobson, 95 Idaho 920, 925 , 523 P.2d 523, 528 (1974) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). | 3 | 3 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2021That is, “would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search ‘warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate.” State v. Hobson, 95 Idaho 920, 925 , 523 P.2d 523, 528 (1974) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). 2021That is, “would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search ‘warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate.” State v. Hobson, 95 Idaho 920, 925 , 523 P.2d 523, 528 (1974) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). | 1 | 3 |
Brinegar v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2025Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949); Williams, 162 Idaho at 66 , 394 P.3d at 109 . 10 When reviewing an officer’s actions, the court must judge the facts against an objective standard. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Julian
green
2 sentences2021Julian, 129 Idaho at 136 , 922 P.2d at 1062 . 2021Julian, 129 Idaho at 136 , 922 P.2d at 1062 . | 17 | 2007–2021 |
State v. Chad Lee Williams
green
2 sentences2025Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949); Williams, 162 Idaho at 66 , 394 P.3d at 109 . 10 When reviewing an officer’s actions, the court must judge the facts against an objective standard. 2025Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949); Williams, 162 Idaho at 66 , 394 P.3d at 109 . 10 When reviewing an officer’s actions, the court must judge the facts against an objective standard. | 10 | 2024–2026 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2021In discussing the probable cause inquiry, we noted: 2 Nor does it appear that any person in Idaho, aside from Clark, has appealed a conviction under the felony enhancement of unlawful entry since it was added to Idaho Code section 18-7034 in 2017. 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 8 When reviewing an officer’s actions the court must judge the facts against an objective standard. 2021In discussing the probable cause inquiry, we noted: 2 Nor does it appear that any person in Idaho, aside from Clark, has appealed a conviction under the felony enhancement of unlawful entry since it was added to Idaho Code section 18-7034 in 2017. 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 8 When reviewing an officer’s actions the court must judge the facts against an objective standard. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
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.