32 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1938–2023 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2014This Court recently adopted the good faith exception. [The officers] were also acting in "good faith" and their actions fall directly under the criteria outlined by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 2014This Court recently adopted the good faith exception. [The officers] were also acting in "good faith" and their actions fall directly under the criteria outlined by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). | 6 | 11 |
State v. Thomasongreen2 sentences2014Since this Court has previously held in DeGraff v. State , 1909 OK CR 82, 2 Okla.Crim. 519, 103 P. 538, 541; State v. Thomason , 1975 OK CR 148, ¶ 14, 538 P.2d 1080, 1086; and Long v. State , 1985 OK CR 119, ¶ 6, 706 P.2d 915, 916-17, that the Federal Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution are the same in the rights protected, we find Leon is applicable here. 2014Since this Court has previously held in DeGraff v. State , 1909 OK CR 82, 2 Okla.Crim. 519, 103 P. 538, 541; State v. Thomason , 1975 OK CR 148, ¶ 14, 538 P.2d 1080, 1086; and Long v. State , 1985 OK CR 119, ¶ 6, 706 P.2d 915, 916-17, that the Federal Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution are the same in the rights protected, we find Leon is applicable here. | 2 | 4 |
Long v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Since this Court has previously held in DeGraff v. State , 1909 OK CR 82, 2 Okla.Crim. 519, 103 P. 538, 541; State v. Thomason , 1975 OK CR 148, ¶ 14, 538 P.2d 1080, 1086; and Long v. State , 1985 OK CR 119, ¶ 6, 706 P.2d 915, 916-17, that the Federal Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution are the same in the rights protected, we find Leon is applicable here. 2014Since this Court has previously held in DeGraff v. State , 1909 OK CR 82, 2 Okla.Crim. 519, 103 P. 538, 541; State v. Thomason , 1975 OK CR 148, ¶ 14, 538 P.2d 1080, 1086; and Long v. State , 1985 OK CR 119, ¶ 6, 706 P.2d 915, 916-17, that the Federal Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution are the same in the rights protected, we find Leon is applicable here. | 2 | 4 |
De Graff v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Since this Court has previously held in DeGraff v. State , 1909 OK CR 82, 2 Okla.Crim. 519, 103 P. 538, 541; State v. Thomason , 1975 OK CR 148, ¶ 14, 538 P.2d 1080, 1086; and Long v. State , 1985 OK CR 119, ¶ 6, 706 P.2d 915, 916-17, that the Federal Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution are the same in the rights protected, we find Leon is applicable here. 2014Since this Court has previously held in DeGraff v. State , 1909 OK CR 82, 2 Okla.Crim. 519, 103 P. 538, 541; State v. Thomason , 1975 OK CR 148, ¶ 14, 538 P.2d 1080, 1086; and Long v. State , 1985 OK CR 119, ¶ 6, 706 P.2d 915, 916-17, that the Federal Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution are the same in the rights protected, we find Leon is applicable here. | 2 | 4 |
Tomlin v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus 2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Oterogreen2 sentences2019See United States v. Otero , 563 F.3d 1127, 1133 (10th Cir. 2009). ¶21 Finally, we find that the record below was not fully developed. 2019See United States v. Otero , 563 F.3d 1127, 1133 (10th Cir. 2009). ¶21 Finally, we find that the record below was not fully developed. | 2 | 2 |
Rite Aid Corp. v. Hagleygreen2 sentences2014See also Rite Aid Corp. v. Hagley, 374 Md. 665 , 824 A2d 107, 117 (2003) ("[Nlegligence and lack of good faith are not equivalent," and "if good faith immunity can be overcome by establishing negligence, then good faith immunity is a meaningless concept as one would have to be free from negligence, and thus not lable in any event, to also avail one's self of the doctrine of good faith immunity.") (citation omitted). 2014See also Rite Aid Corp. v. Hagley, 374 Md. 665 , 824 A2d 107, 117 (2003) ("[Nlegligence and lack of good faith are not equivalent," and "if good faith immunity can be overcome by establishing negligence, then good faith immunity is a meaningless concept as one would have to be free from negligence, and thus not lable in any event, to also avail one's self of the doctrine of good faith immunity.") (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Illinois v. Krullgreen2 sentences2014Tllinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), extended the good-faith exception to searches conducted in reasonable reliance on subsequently invalidated statutes. 2014Tllinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), extended the good-faith exception to searches conducted in reasonable reliance on subsequently invalidated statutes. | 1 | 3 |
STATE v. HALIBURTON STATE v. GOURLEY STATE v. KNIPEgreen2 sentences2019State v. Haliburton , 2018 OK CR 28 , ¶¶ 13-18, 429 P.3d 997, 1001-02 . 2019State v. Haliburton , 2018 OK CR 28 , ¶¶ 13-18, 429 P.3d 997, 1001-02 . | 1 | 2 |
Bland v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Recognizing this requirement we have explained that "[t]he duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed." Bland v. State , 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 45 , 4 P.3d 702, 717 . ¶20 We further note that the District Court failed to determine whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule might apply under the facts of this case. 2019Recognizing this requirement we have explained that "[t]he duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed." Bland v. State , 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 45 , 4 P.3d 702, 717 . ¶20 We further note that the District Court failed to determine whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule might apply under the facts of this case. | 1 | 2 |
STATE v. THOMASgreen2 sentences2019See United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419, 82 L.Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Thomas , 2014 OK CR 12, ¶ 11, 334 P.3d 941, 945. 2019See United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419, 82 L.Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Thomas , 2014 OK CR 12, ¶ 11, 334 P.3d 941, 945. | 1 | 2 |
Arizona v. Gantgreen2 sentences2014Gant included this exception, but stressed that it was appropriate given "circumstances unique to the vehicle context." Gant , 556 U.S. at 343 , 129 S.Ct. at 1719 . 2014Gant included this exception, but stressed that it was appropriate given "circumstances unique to the vehicle context." Gant , 556 U.S. at 343 , 129 S.Ct. at 1719 . | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014In Davis v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), the Supreme Court listed those areas where the Court had extended the good-faith exception to similarly themed circumstances. 2014In Davis v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), the Supreme Court listed those areas where the Court had extended the good-faith exception to similarly themed circumstances. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sittingdowngreen2 sentences2014This Court adopted the good-faith doctrine in State v. Sittingdown, 2010 OK CR 22, ¶ 17 , 240 P.3d 714, 718 . 2014This Court adopted the good-faith doctrine in State v. Sittingdown, 2010 OK CR 22, ¶ 17 , 240 P.3d 714, 718 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. McNealgreen2 sentences2014Sittingdown v. State , 2010 OK CR 22, ¶ 17 , 240 P.3d 714, 718 ; State v. McNeal , 2000 OK CR 13, ¶ 10 , 6 P.3d 1055, 1057 ; Long v. State , 1985 OK CR 119, ¶ 6 , 706 P.2d 915, 916-17 ; State v. Thomason , 1975 OK CR 148, ¶ 14 , 538 P.2d 1080, 1086 ; DeGraff v. State , 1909 OK CR 82 , 2 Okla.Crim. 519 , 103 P. 538, 541 . 2014Sittingdown v. State , 2010 OK CR 22, ¶ 17 , 240 P.3d 714, 718 ; State v. McNeal , 2000 OK CR 13, ¶ 10 , 6 P.3d 1055, 1057 ; Long v. State , 1985 OK CR 119, ¶ 6 , 706 P.2d 915, 916-17 ; State v. Thomason , 1975 OK CR 148, ¶ 14 , 538 P.2d 1080, 1086 ; DeGraff v. State , 1909 OK CR 82 , 2 Okla.Crim. 519 , 103 P. 538, 541 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Popegreen2 sentences2014In considering the merits of the motion, the trial court specifically found that Oklahoma had not adopted the good-faith exception, and did not apply it when considering alleged defects in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. ¶5 We find regarding Proposition I that a review of the record shows the appeal is proper and review of the issue is in the best interests of justice. 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(5); State v. Pope , 2009 OK CR 9, ¶ 3, 204 P.3d 1285, 1287. ¶6 We find in Proposition II that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence as to Marcum. 2014In considering the merits of the motion, the trial court specifically found that Oklahoma had not adopted the good-faith exception, and did not apply it when considering alleged defects in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. ¶5 We find regarding Proposition I that a review of the record shows the appeal is proper and review of the issue is in the best interests of justice. 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(5); State v. Pope , 2009 OK CR 9, ¶ 3, 204 P.3d 1285, 1287. ¶6 We find in Proposition II that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence as to Marcum. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Timothy Carpentergreen2 sentences2020United States v. Carpenter , 926 F.3d 313, 317-18 (6th Cir. 2019). 3 See Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340, 350 (1987) ("If the statute is subsequently declared unconstitutional, excluding evidence obtained pursuant to it prior to such a judicial declaration will not deter future Fourth Amendment violations by an officer who has simply fulfilled his responsibility to enforce the statute as written"). 4 Rule 3.11(A) provides: After the Petition in Error has been timely filed in this Court, and upon notice from either party or upon this Court's own motion, the majority of the Court may, within it 2020United States v. Carpenter , 926 F.3d 313, 317-18 (6th Cir. 2019). 3 See Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340, 350 (1987) ("If the statute is subsequently declared unconstitutional, excluding evidence obtained pursuant to it prior to such a judicial declaration will not deter future Fourth Amendment violations by an officer who has simply fulfilled his responsibility to enforce the statute as written"). 4 Rule 3.11(A) provides: After the Petition in Error has been timely filed in this Court, and upon notice from either party or upon this Court's own motion, the majority of the Court may, within it | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Floridagreen2 sentences2020FOOTNOTES 1 In Hall v. Florida , 572 U.S. 701, 704 (2014), the Supreme Court addressed this very issue: "Previous opinions of this Court have employed the term 'mental retardation.' This opinion uses the term 'intellectual disability' to describe the identical phenomenon." 2 After the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals came to the perfectly logical conclusion that the good-faith exception applied in Carpenter's case as well. 2020FOOTNOTES 1 In Hall v. Florida , 572 U.S. 701, 704 (2014), the Supreme Court addressed this very issue: "Previous opinions of this Court have employed the term 'mental retardation.' This opinion uses the term 'intellectual disability' to describe the identical phenomenon." 2 After the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals came to the perfectly logical conclusion that the good-faith exception applied in Carpenter's case as well. | 1 | 1 |
ARGANBRIGHT v. STATEgreen2 sentences2020Arganbright v. State , 2014 OK CR 5, ¶ 15, 328 P.3d 1212, 1216. 2020Arganbright v. State , 2014 OK CR 5, ¶ 15, 328 P.3d 1212, 1216. | 1 | 1 |
| Orr v. Mallongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Gigergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ross v. Oklahomagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Merry v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Solis-Avila v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Isaacs v. District Court of Oklahoma Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Estate of Woodwardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Quinterogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
TULSA STOCKYARDS, INC. v. CLARK
green
2 sentences2023Tulsa Stockyards, Inc. v. Clark , 2014 OK 14 321 P.3d 185 ¶22 As noted above, the events in this case occurred more than a year after our Stewart case was published and so, unlike the troopers in Stewart , their reliance upon Section 10-104(B) does not fall within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. 2023"Our state and federal constitutions are the bulwark to which all statutes must yield." Tulsa Stockyards, Inc. v. Clark , 2014 OK 14, ¶ 27 , 321 P.3d 185, 196 . ¶22 As noted above, the events in this case occurred more than a year after our Stewart case was published and so, unlike the troopers in Stewart , their reliance upon Section 10-104(B) does not fall within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. | 3 | 2023–2023 |
TULSA STOCKYARDS, INC. v. CLARK
green
2 sentences2023Tulsa Stockyards, Inc. v. Clark , 2014 OK 14 321 P.3d 185 ¶22 As noted above, the events in this case occurred more than a year after our Stewart case was published and so, unlike the troopers in Stewart , their reliance upon Section 10-104(B) does not fall within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. 2023"Our state and federal constitutions are the bulwark to which all statutes must yield." Tulsa Stockyards, Inc. v. Clark , 2014 OK 14, ¶ 27 , 321 P.3d 185, 196 . ¶22 As noted above, the events in this case occurred more than a year after our Stewart case was published and so, unlike the troopers in Stewart , their reliance upon Section 10-104(B) does not fall within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. | 3 | 2023–2023 |
Arizona v. Evans
green
2 sentences2014Id. , at 14, 115 S.Ct. 1185 . 2014Id., at 14, 115 S.Ct. 1185 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Riley v. Cal. United States
green
2 sentences2014Id. ¶4 The State argues for application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule that the United States Supreme Court outlined in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 920-21 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 2014Id. ¶4 The State argues for application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule that the United States Supreme Court outlined in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Mike v. State
green
2 sentences2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus 2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus | 1 | 2022–2022 |
STATE v. NELSON
green
2 sentences2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus 2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus | 1 | 2022–2022 |
DeVooght v. State
green
2 sentences2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus 2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Shirey v. State
green
2 sentences2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus 2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ajeani v. State
green
2 sentences2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus 2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus | 1 | 2022–2022 |
STATE v. IVEN
green
2 sentences2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus 2022Id. ¶17 The State's appeal raises two issues--(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ballenger's warrantless arrest was unlawful; and (2) if so, whether the trial court erred when it failed to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶18 Warrantless arrests are governed by 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 State v. Iven , 2014 OK CR 8 335 P.3d 264 Id. , 2014 OK CR 8 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 196 ¶19 "[A] peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor based on his personal observations at the time, as long as the observations amount to probable caus | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Carpenter v. United States
green
2 sentences2020The State's attempt to distinguish the facts in this case from those in Carpenter v. United States , 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), is unnecessary: even Mr. Carpenter was ultimately denied relief, due to the good-faith exception. 2 Laws are presumed to be constitutional. 2020The State's attempt to distinguish the facts in this case from those in Carpenter v. United States , 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), is unnecessary: even Mr. Carpenter was ultimately denied relief, due to the good-faith exception. 2 Laws are presumed to be constitutional. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Powers Restaurants, Inc. v. Garrison green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Thompson v. Bar-S Foods Co. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Mahmoodjanloo v. Mahmoodjanloo green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Re the Reinstatement of Otis green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Michigan v. Long green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Rivera v. Illinois green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Grant v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Ross v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Rojem v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Harris v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Edwards v. State neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Rakas v. Illinois green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy neutral | 1 | 1942–1942 |
| Mistletoe Oil & Gas Co. v. Revelle neutral | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.