167 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1972–2025 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mincey v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2020Ed. 2d 576 (1967); see also State v. Clark, 255 Conn. 268, 291 , 764 A.2d 1251 (2001). ‘‘The state bears the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement applies when a warrantless search [and seizure have] been conducted.’’ State v. Clark, supra, 291 ; accord Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 390–91, 98 S. Ct. 2408 , 57 L. 2020Ed. 2d 576 (1967); see also State v. Clark, 255 Conn. 268, 291 , 764 A.2d 1251 (2001). ‘‘The state bears the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement applies when a warrantless search [and seizure have] been conducted.’’ State v. Clark, supra, 291 ; accord Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 390–91, 98 S. Ct. 2408 , 57 L. | 7 | 16 |
State v. Badgettgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Holmes, 51 Conn. App. 217, 220 , 721 A.2d 1195 (1998) (‘[b]ecause a warrantless search is presumptively invalid, the state has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement’), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 904 , 731 A.2d 309 (1999); see also State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 423-24 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L. 2011See State v. Holmes, 51 Conn. App. 217, 220 , 721 A.2d 1195 (1998) (‘[b]ecause a warrantless search is presumptively invalid, the state has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement’), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 904 , 731 A.2d 309 (1999); see also State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 423-24 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L. | 4 | 15 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2020Ed. 2d 576 (1967); see also State v. Clark, 255 Conn. 268, 291 , 764 A.2d 1251 (2001). ‘‘The state bears the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement applies when a warrantless search [and seizure have] been conducted.’’ State v. Clark, supra, 291 ; accord Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 390–91, 98 S. Ct. 2408 , 57 L. 2020Ed. 2d 576 (1967); see also State v. Clark, 255 Conn. 268, 291 , 764 A.2d 1251 (2001). ‘‘The state bears the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement applies when a warrantless search [and seizure have] been conducted.’’ State v. Clark, supra, 291 ; accord Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 390–91, 98 S. Ct. 2408 , 57 L. | 4 | 5 |
| Katz v. United Statesgreen | 4 | 4 |
Brown v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences2011See State v. Holmes, 51 Conn. App. 217, 220 , 721 A.2d 1195 (1998) (‘[b]ecause a warrantless search is presumptively invalid, the state has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement’), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 904 , 731 A.2d 309 (1999); see also State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 423-24 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L. 2011See State v. Holmes, 51 Conn. App. 217, 220 , 721 A.2d 1195 (1998) (‘[b]ecause a warrantless search is presumptively invalid, the state has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement’), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 904 , 731 A.2d 309 (1999); see also State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 423-24 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L. | 3 | 14 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2023On the defendant’s appeal to this court, held that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial because the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress was not improper, as the court properly relied on the automobile exception to the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement to determine that the police were not obligated to obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle: the defendant’s claim that the state was required to prove that he was in or near the vehicle at the time he was detained by the police in order for the automobile exception to apply was unavailing, as the defenda 2016Our constitutional preference for warrants is over- come only in specific and limited circumstances.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Waz, supra, 240 Conn. 374 n.16 ; see also State v. Miller, 227 Conn. 363, 382 , 630 A.2d 1315 (1993) (‘‘[t]his court’s precedents involving the state constitu- tion’s warrant requirement express a strong policy in favor of warrants’’). | 3 | 8 |
State v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Holmes, 51 Conn. App. 217, 220 , 721 A.2d 1195 (1998) (‘[b]ecause a warrantless search is presumptively invalid, the state has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement’), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 904 , 731 A.2d 309 (1999); see also State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 423-24 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L. 2011See State v. Holmes, 51 Conn. App. 217, 220 , 721 A.2d 1195 (1998) (‘[b]ecause a warrantless search is presumptively invalid, the state has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement’), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 904 , 731 A.2d 309 (1999); see also State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 423-24 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L. | 3 | 4 |
| State v. Gantgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Del Vecchio v. Illinois Department of Correctionsgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Sanchez v. United Statesgreen | 3 | 3 |
| United States v. David Campbell and Michael Tarttgreen | 3 | 3 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, ‘‘[i]t is axiomatic that the police may not enter the home without a warrant or consent, unless one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement is met.’’11 State v. Aviles, supra, 277 Conn. 292 ; see also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041 , 36 L. 2021Accordingly, ‘‘[i]t is axiomatic that the police may not enter the home without a warrant or consent, unless one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement is met.’’11 State v. Aviles, supra, 277 Conn. 292 ; see also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041 , 36 L. | 2 | 7 |
Chambers v. Maroneygreen2 sentences1997Second, this case does not involve the search of an automobile, which is an established exception to the warrant requirement under both the fourth amendment; see Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S. Ct. 1975 , 26 L. 1997Second, this case does not involve the search of an automobile, which is an established exception to the warrant requirement under both the fourth amendment; see Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S. Ct. 1975 , 26 L. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Holmes, 51 Conn. App. 217, 220 , 721 A.2d 1195 (1998) (‘[b]ecause a warrantless search is presumptively invalid, the state has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement’), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 904 , 731 A.2d 309 (1999); see also State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 423-24 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L. 2011See State v. Holmes, 51 Conn. App. 217, 220 , 721 A.2d 1195 (1998) (‘[b]ecause a warrantless search is presumptively invalid, the state has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement’), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 904 , 731 A.2d 309 (1999); see also State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 423-24 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L. | 2 | 4 |
| United States v. Russell Dean Jonesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Cantugreen | 2 | 2 |
| Cerny v. Woodgreen | 2 | 2 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences2018"In Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 464-73, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States *588 Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 2018"In Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 464-73, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States *588 Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. | 1 | 12 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2001The state also argued in the trial court that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. 29 We agree with the trial court that it is unnecessary to evaluate the state’s alternative position with respect to the inevitable discovery doctrine because the patdown search and subsequent seizure, although conducted without a warrant, were lawful under the aforementioned exceptions to the warrant requirement. 30 I THE TERRY STOP AND FRISK “Under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution, and under article first, [§§ 7 and 9] . . . of the Connecticut constitution, 2001The state also argued in the trial court that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. 29 We agree with the trial court that it is unnecessary to evaluate the state’s alternative position with respect to the inevitable discovery doctrine because the patdown search and subsequent seizure, although conducted without a warrant, were lawful under the aforementioned exceptions to the warrant requirement. 30 I THE TERRY STOP AND FRISK “Under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution, and under article first, [§§ 7 and 9] . . . of the Connecticut constitution, | 1 | 7 |
State v. Zindrosgreen2 sentences1986We conclude, therefore, that the defendant possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his overcoat, which was placed in the locked trunk of Therian’s automobile. 2 Having concluded that the defendant’s expectation of privacy entitled him to challenge the search of the coat, we next consider whether the warrantless search was “justified and thus constitutional because it was within an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Zindros, 189 Conn. 228, 236 , 456 A.2d 288 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012 , 104 S. Ct. 1014 , 79 L. 1986We conclude, therefore, that the defendant possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his overcoat, which was placed in the locked trunk of Therian’s automobile. 2 Having concluded that the defendant’s expectation of privacy entitled him to challenge the search of the coat, we next consider whether the warrantless search was “justified and thus constitutional because it was within an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Zindros, 189 Conn. 228, 236 , 456 A.2d 288 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012 , 104 S. Ct. 1014 , 79 L. | 1 | 7 |
State v. Dukesgreen2 sentences2023Although Connecticut cases arising under the automo- bile exception to the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement typically have involved factual scenarios in which the warrantless search of a vehicle is conducted immediately after observing the defendant near or in the vehicle; see, e.g., State v. Longo, 243 Conn. 732, 735 , 708 A.2d 1354 (1998) (defendant was in rear seat of vehicle when it was stopped by police); State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98 , 100–101, 547 A.2d 10 (1988) (defendant was stopped by police while he was driving vehicle); State v. Badgett, supra, 200 Conn. 414 (defendant was dri 2023Although Connecticut cases arising under the automo- bile exception to the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement typically have involved factual scenarios in which the warrantless search of a vehicle is conducted immediately after observing the defendant near or in the vehicle; see, e.g., State v. Longo, 243 Conn. 732, 735 , 708 A.2d 1354 (1998) (defendant was in rear seat of vehicle when it was stopped by police); State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98 , 100–101, 547 A.2d 10 (1988) (defendant was stopped by police while he was driving vehicle); State v. Badgett, supra, 200 Conn. 414 (defendant was dri | 1 | 6 |
State v. Bladesgreen2 sentences2010“Searches conducted pursuant to emergency circumstances are one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement under both the federal and state constitutions.” State v. Blades, 225 Conn. 609, 617-18 , 626 A.2d 273 (1993). 2010“Searches conducted pursuant to emergency circumstances are one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement under both the federal and state constitutions.” State v. Blades, 225 Conn. 609, 617-18 , 626 A.2d 273 (1993). | 1 | 6 |
Payton v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2014Indeed, [p]hysical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the fourth amendment is directed.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ryder, supra, 301 Conn. 821 ; see also Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 585–86, 100 S. Ct. 1371 , 63 L. 1992Payton violations—that is, warrantless searches and seizures inside ahorne, are “presumptively unreasonable”; id., 586 ; and the state bears the burden of showing that an exception to the warrant requirement exists. | 1 | 5 |
Connecticut v. Zindrosgreen2 sentences1994Payton v. New York, supra, 586 n.25; State v. Geisler, supra, 682 ; State v. Zindros, 189 Conn. 228, 237 , 456 A.2d 288 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012 , 104 S. Ct. 1014 , 79 L. 1986We conclude, therefore, that the defendant possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his overcoat, which was placed in the locked trunk of Therian’s automobile. 2 Having concluded that the defendant’s expectation of privacy entitled him to challenge the search of the coat, we next consider whether the warrantless search was “justified and thus constitutional because it was within an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Zindros, 189 Conn. 228, 236 , 456 A.2d 288 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012 , 104 S. Ct. 1014 , 79 L. | 1 | 5 |
Marine Corps Exchange v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programsgreen2 sentences1994Payton v. New York, supra, 586 n.25; State v. Geisler, supra, 682 ; State v. Zindros, 189 Conn. 228, 237 , 456 A.2d 288 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012 , 104 S. Ct. 1014 , 79 L. 1986We conclude, therefore, that the defendant possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his overcoat, which was placed in the locked trunk of Therian’s automobile. 2 Having concluded that the defendant’s expectation of privacy entitled him to challenge the search of the coat, we next consider whether the warrantless search was “justified and thus constitutional because it was within an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Zindros, 189 Conn. 228, 236 , 456 A.2d 288 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012 , 104 S. Ct. 1014 , 79 L. | 1 | 5 |
Stapf v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1994Payton v. New York, supra, 586 n.25; State v. Geisler, supra, 682 ; State v. Zindros, 189 Conn. 228, 237 , 456 A.2d 288 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012 , 104 S. Ct. 1014 , 79 L. 1986We conclude, therefore, that the defendant possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his overcoat, which was placed in the locked trunk of Therian’s automobile. 2 Having concluded that the defendant’s expectation of privacy entitled him to challenge the search of the coat, we next consider whether the warrantless search was “justified and thus constitutional because it was within an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Zindros, 189 Conn. 228, 236 , 456 A.2d 288 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012 , 104 S. Ct. 1014 , 79 L. | 1 | 5 |
Cady v. Dombrowskigreen2 sentences2018In Cady , the community caretaker function was seen as an exception to the search warrant rule for searching vehicles; id., at 447-48 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 ; but the concept of a community caretaker has been applied to **284 other exceptions from the warrant rule when searching homes or businesses. 2018In Cady , the community caretaker function was seen as an exception to the search warrant rule for searching vehicles; id., at 447-48 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 ; but the concept of a community caretaker has been applied to **284 other exceptions from the warrant rule when searching homes or businesses. | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Longogreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Avilesgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Magnanogreen | 1 | 3 |
| People v. Beltongreen | 1 | 2 |
| Michigan v. Tylergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Browngreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Geisler
green
2 sentences2008Entry by the government into a person’s home, is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed. . . . [Warrantless searches and seizures inside a home, are presumptively unreasonable . . . and the state bears the burden of showing that an exception to the warrant requirement exists.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 681-82 , 610 A.2d 1225 (1992). 2008Entry by the government into a person’s home, is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed. . . . [Warrantless searches and seizures inside a home, are presumptively unreasonable . . . and the state bears the burden of showing that an exception to the warrant requirement exists.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 681-82 , 610 A.2d 1225 (1992). | 9 | 1998–2016 |
Carroll v. United States
green
2 sentences2025The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the bag of crack cocaine should be suppressed, finding that the officers had probable cause to search his vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.10 8 General Statutes § 21a-278 (b) (1) provides in relevant part: ‘‘No person may manufacture, distribute, sell, prescribe, dispense, compound, transport with the intent to sell or dispense, possess with the intent to sell or dispense, offer, give or administer to another person, except as authorized in this chapter or chapter 420f . . . a narcotic substance . . . .’’ 9 2025The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the bag of crack cocaine should be suppressed, finding that the officers had probable cause to search his vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.10 8 General Statutes § 21a-278 (b) (1) provides in relevant part: ‘‘No person may manufacture, distribute, sell, prescribe, dispense, compound, transport with the intent to sell or dispense, possess with the intent to sell or dispense, offer, give or administer to another person, except as authorized in this chapter or chapter 420f . . . a narcotic substance . . . .’’ 9 | 7 | 1988–2025 |
State v. Joyce
green
2 sentences2016Indeed, "[u]nder the state constitution, all warrantless searches, [regardless of] whether ... the police have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, are per se unreasonable, unless they fall within one of a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v. Joyce , 229 Conn. 10 , 24-25, 639 A.2d 1007 (1994). 2016Indeed, "[u]nder the state constitution, all warrantless searches, [regardless of] whether ... the police have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, are per se unreasonable, unless they fall within one of a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v. Joyce , 229 Conn. 10 , 24-25, 639 A.2d 1007 (1994). | 7 | 1994–2016 |
New York v. Belton
red
2 sentences1989It is true that, had Carson searched the bag when he arrested the defendant on the highway, such a search would have come within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, namely, a search incident to a valid custodial arrest of an occupant of a car; New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S. Ct. 2860 , 69 L. 1989It is true that, had Carson searched the bag when he arrested the defendant on the highway, such a search would have come within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, namely, a search incident to a valid custodial arrest of an occupant of a car; New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S. Ct. 2860 , 69 L. | 7 | 1986–2003 |
State v. Trine
green
2 sentences2003In addition to weapons, however, a police officer may lawfully seize “nonthreatening contraband that the officer feels during a lawful patdown search. . . . [I]nformation obtained through the sense of touch during a lawful patdown search may be used to establish such probable cause as is necessary to trigger an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Trine, 236 Conn. 216, 234 , 673 A.2d 1098 (1996). 2003In addition to weapons, however, a police officer may lawfully seize “nonthreatening contraband that the officer feels during a lawful patdown search. . . . [I]nformation obtained through the sense of touch during a lawful patdown search may be used to establish such probable cause as is necessary to trigger an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Trine, 236 Conn. 216, 234 , 673 A.2d 1098 (1996). | 5 | 1997–2011 |
State v. Fausel
green
2 sentences2022Entry by the government into a per- son’s home . . . is the chief evil against which the . . . [f]ourth [a]mendment is directed.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fausel, 295 Conn. 785, 793 , 993 A.2d 455 (2010). ‘‘The warrant requirement protects an individual in his home from official intrusion whether the purpose of the search is to further a criminal investigation or the government’s enforcement of an administrative regulation. 2022Entry by the government into a per- son’s home . . . is the chief evil against which the . . . [f]ourth [a]mendment is directed.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fausel, 295 Conn. 785, 793 , 993 A.2d 455 (2010). ‘‘The warrant requirement protects an individual in his home from official intrusion whether the purpose of the search is to further a criminal investigation or the government’s enforcement of an administrative regulation. | 4 | 2011–2022 |
State v. Eady
green
2 sentences2002Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431, 436 , 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. 2002Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431, 436 , 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 4 | 2001–2018 |
Hooks v. Easley
green
2 sentences2018The warrantless seizure of contraband that is in plain view is reasonable under the fourth amendment if two requirements are met: (1) the initial intrusion that enabled the police to view the items seized must have been lawful; and (2) the police must have had probable cause to believe that these items were contraband or stolen goods." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eady , 249 Conn. 431 , 436-37, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S.Ct. 551 , 145 L.Ed. 2d 428 (1999). 2002Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431, 436 , 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 4 | 2001–2018 |
Foster v. United States
green
2 sentences2018The warrantless seizure of contraband that is in plain view is reasonable under the fourth amendment if two requirements are met: (1) the initial intrusion that enabled the police to view the items seized must have been lawful; and (2) the police must have had probable cause to believe that these items were contraband or stolen goods." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eady , 249 Conn. 431 , 436-37, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S.Ct. 551 , 145 L.Ed. 2d 428 (1999). 2002Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431, 436 , 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 4 | 2001–2018 |
Osorio de Escobar v. United States
green
2 sentences2018The warrantless seizure of contraband that is in plain view is reasonable under the fourth amendment if two requirements are met: (1) the initial intrusion that enabled the police to view the items seized must have been lawful; and (2) the police must have had probable cause to believe that these items were contraband or stolen goods." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eady , 249 Conn. 431 , 436-37, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S.Ct. 551 , 145 L.Ed. 2d 428 (1999). 2002Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431, 436 , 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 4 | 2001–2018 |
United States v. Matlock
green
2 sentences2011The basis for the adoption of the apparent authority doctrine was first set forth in United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 , 94 S. Ct. 988 , 39 L. 2011The basis for the adoption of the apparent authority doctrine was first set forth in United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 , 94 S. Ct. 988 , 39 L. | 4 | 1986–2011 |
| State v. Gasparro green | 4 | 1986–2008 |
| State v. Copeland green | 4 | 1989–1998 |
| State v. Ruth green | 4 | 1990–1998 |
| Arkansas v. Sanders red | 4 | 1981–1998 |
| Chimel v. California red | 4 | 1972–1992 |
| State v. Ryder green | 3 | 2011–2023 |
| Fleming v. City of Bridgeport green | 3 | 2011–2015 |
| State v. Guertin green | 3 | 1987–2011 |
| Snaer v. Territory of Guam green | 3 | 1986–2008 |
| Hammond v. Rapides Parish School Board green | 3 | 1986–2008 |
| State v. Delossantos green | 3 | 1998–2005 |
| State v. Harris green | 3 | 1989–2005 |
| Velasquez-Mercado v. United States green | 3 | 1998–2005 |
| Lewis v. United States green | 3 | 1998–2005 |
| Thomas v. Wisconsin green | 3 | 1998–2005 |
| United States v. Robinson green | 3 | 1986–2004 |
| United States v. Edwards green | 3 | 1975–1998 |
| California v. Acevedo green | 3 | 1992–1995 |
| Arizona v. Gant green | 2 | 2011–2025 |
| State v. Curet neutral | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Patterson green | 2 | 2008–2023 |
| State v. Patterson green | 2 | 2008–2023 |
| Bailey v. United States green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Golding green | 2 | 1992–2015 |
| State v. Vargas green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Colon green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
| Harris v. Louisiana green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
| Miller-Bates v. Wachovia Bank green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Smith green | 2 | 2008–2010 |
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.