probable cause hearing in Nevada

1978Even if we concede the merit of this claim and disregard such testimony, in our view the other recited evidence is sufficient to meet the probable cause standard delineated in NRS 172.155, and the presence, companionship and conduct criteria specified in Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681 , 462 P.2d 528 (1969). “[W]e are not now concerned with the prospect that the evidence presently in the record may, by itself, be insufficient to sustain a conviction.” McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 327 , 512 P.2d 774, 775 (1973).

1978Even if we concede the merit of this claim and disregard such testimony, in our view the other recited evidence is sufficient to meet the probable cause standard delineated in NRS 172.155, and the presence, companionship and conduct criteria specified in Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681 , 462 P.2d 528 (1969). “[W]e are not now concerned with the prospect that the evidence presently in the record may, by itself, be insufficient to sustain a conviction.” McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 327 , 512 P.2d 774, 775 (1973).

2022Cf. Powell v. State, 113 Nev. 41, 46 , 930 P.2d 1123, 1126 (1997) (noting that a confession may be excluded where given during a detention that was unlawful because the defendant was not afforded a probable-cause hearing within 48 hours of his warrantless arrest).

2022Cf. Powell v. State, 113 Nev. 41, 46 , 930 P.2d 1123, 1126 (1997) (noting that a confession may be excluded where given during a detention that was unlawful because the defendant was not afforded a probable-cause hearing within 48 hours of his warrantless arrest).

2016United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772, 777 (6th Cir. 2012).

2016United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772, 777 (6th Cir. 2012).

2016SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A In United States v. Davis, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a defendant "ha[s] no reasonable expectation of privacy in business records made, kept, and owned by [his or her cell phone provider]." 785 F.3d 498, 517 (11th Cir. 2015).

2016SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A In United States v. Davis, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a defendant "ha[s] no reasonable expectation of privacy in business records made, kept, and owned by [his or her cell phone provider]." 785 F.3d 498, 517 (11th Cir. 2015).

2015Id. at 168 .

2015Id. at 168.

2016In In re Application of United States for Historical Cell Site Data, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that cell phone users, by and large, do not have an expectation of privacy with regard to CSLI, as they are aware that their phones must emit CSLI to cell phone providers in order to receive cell phone service but continue to use their cell phones to place calls and, thus, voluntarily convey CSLI to cell phone providers. 724 F.3d at 612-13 .

2016In In re Application of United States for Historical Cell Site Data, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that cell phone users, by and large, do not have an expectation of privacy with regard to CSLI, as they are aware that their phones must emit CSLI to cell phone providers in order to receive cell phone service but continue to use their cell phones to place calls and, thus, voluntarily convey CSLI to cell phone providers. 724 F.3d at 612-13.

1996Id. at 418-19 , 873 P.2d at 970-71 .

1996Id. at 418-19, 873 P.2d at 970-71 .

1979Cf. Glispy v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 221 , 510 P.2d 623 (1973) where, in a similar institutional setting, we held that appellant’s access to a common area alleged crime scene was not exclusive and the evidence did not meet the probable cause test to warrant a trial on the basis of constructive possession.

1979Cf. Glispy v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 221 , 510 P.2d 623 (1973) where, in a similar institutional setting, we held that appellant’s access to a common area alleged crime scene was not exclusive and the evidence did not meet the probable cause test to warrant a trial on the basis of constructive possession.

2014First, this court rejected a similar claim in Maestas v. State, 128 Nev. „ 275 P.3d 74, 86-87 (2012).

1997In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 , 34 S.Ct. 341, 346 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914), the United States Supreme Court first reasoned that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded in the federal courts.

1997In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 , 34 S.Ct. 341, 346 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914), the United States Supreme Court first reasoned that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded in the federal courts.

1995See State v. Judicial Standards Commission, 643 P.2d 210 (Mont. 1982).

1995See State v. Judicial Standards Commission, 643 P.2d 210 (Mont. 1982) (supreme court issued writ of prohibition barring judicial discipline proceedings based on complaint of misconduct that was not verified in compliance with statute and Commission's own rule).

1995See Matter of Chiovero, 570 A.2d 57, 60 (Pa. 1990). [42] We note, parenthetically, that in only one case processed under the current ARJD where the Commission has imposed any form of discipline by consent of the respondent judge, whether in supposed conformity with Rule 31 or not, has there been a certified copy of a Commission order imposing discipline filed with this court as required by Rule 31. [43] We note that there is no provision in the ARJD that would prohibit a respondent judge from conceding probable cause to the charges of the sworn complaint at the probable cause hearing.

1995Mr. Campbell was seemingly hired to investigate and prosecute Judge Whitehead and acted at all times in this role and not as the Commission's "own attorney." By deciding to help`out with the prosecution, Commissioner Lefebvre rather clearly forfeited his right to sit in judgment of Judge Whitehead. [19] It is very well established in this country that "a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process." In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).

1995See, e.g., McKenney v. Commission on Judicial Conduct, 388 N.E.2d 666 (Mass. 1979) (Commission on Judicial Conduct has no authority to investigate alleged judicial misconduct until a complaint has been filed with it); Richter v. State Com’n on Judicial Conduct, 445 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y.

1995See, e.g., McKenney v. Commission on Judicial Conduct, 388 N.E.2d 666 (Mass. 1979) (Commission on Judicial Conduct has no authority to investigate alleged judicial misconduct until a complaint has been filed with it); Richter v. State Com'n on Judicial Conduct, 445 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y.

1992See, e.g., Wenger v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 630 P.2d 954, 956 (Cal. 1981). 7 The commission eventually found it appropriate to resolve in a single final decision all the matters at issue. 8 At the formal hearing the commission deferred ruling on appellant’s objections to the admission of the transcript of the probable cause hearing and the exhibits that had been admitted at the prior hearing.

1992See also Kennick v. Com’n on Judicial Performance, 787 P.2d 591, 598 (Cal. 1990) (court refused to adopt commission determinations based upon findings outside scope of a notice of formal proceedings).

1976See State v. von Brincken, 86 Nev. 769 , 476 P.2d 733 (1970).

1976See State v. von Brincken, 86 Nev. 769 , 476 P.2d 733 (1970).

1974See concurring opinion by Zenoff, J., in Franklin v. State, 89 Nev. 382 , 513 P.2d 1252 (1973). “[W]e are not now concerned with the prospect that the evidence presently in the record may, by itself, .be insufficient to sustain a conviction.” McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326 , 512 P.2d 774 (1973).

1974See concurring opinion by Zenoff, J., in Franklin v. State, 89 Nev. 382 , 513 P.2d 1252 (1973). “[W]e are not now concerned with the prospect that the evidence presently in the record may, by itself, .be insufficient to sustain a conviction.” McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326 , 512 P.2d 774 (1973).