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.
11 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kyllo v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2023Therefore, Idaho’s trespass laws are not controlling in this case, which concerns the application of the Fourth Amendment to [a search related to] a controlled substance charge.” Id. (citing Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34 ). 2020As we recently observed in Albertson, “trespass laws are not rooted in the same constitutional soil from whence the reasonable expectation of privacy standard has grown.” 165 Idaho at 131, 443 P.3d at 145 (citing Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Tyler Boyergreen2 sentences2025See id. at 266–69. 2025See id. at 266–69. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2020See United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 409 (2012) (“the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test.”) (emphasis in original); see also Florida 7 v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 , 1417–18 (2013) (holding that traditional, property-based principles underpinning the Fourth Amendment, rather than Katz’s privacy analysis, supported suppressing the evidence against Jardines when a drug dog trespassed on the home’s curtilage). 2020See United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 409 (2012) (“the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test.”) (emphasis in original); see also Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 , 1417–18 (2013) (holding that traditional, property-based principles underpinning the Fourth Amendment, rather than Katz’s privacy analysis, supported suppressing the evidence against Jardines when a drug dog trespassed on the home’s curtilage). | 2 | 2 |
Florida v. Jardinesgreen2 sentences2020See United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 409 (2012) (“the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test.”) (emphasis in original); see also Florida 7 v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 , 1417–18 (2013) (holding that traditional, property-based principles underpinning the Fourth Amendment, rather than Katz’s privacy analysis, supported suppressing the evidence against Jardines when a drug dog trespassed on the home’s curtilage). 2020See United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 409 (2012) (“the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test.”) (emphasis in original); see also Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 , 1417–18 (2013) (holding that traditional, property-based principles underpinning the Fourth Amendment, rather than Katz’s privacy analysis, supported suppressing the evidence against Jardines when a drug dog trespassed on the home’s curtilage). | 2 | 2 |
Brigham City v. Stuartgreen1 sentence2025See id. (explaining that, “because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’ the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions”); see also State v. Rebo, 168 Idaho 234 , 238, 482 P.3d 569 , 573 (2020) (explaining that the Fourth Amendment “also protects certain expectations of privacy, as long as society is willing to recognize such expectations as 6 reasonable”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rebogreen2 sentences2025See id. (explaining that, “because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’ the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions”); see also State v. Rebo, 168 Idaho 234 , 238, 482 P.3d 569 , 573 (2020) (explaining that the Fourth Amendment “also protects certain expectations of privacy, as long as society is willing to recognize such expectations as 6 reasonable”). 2025See id. (explaining that, “because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’ the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions”); see also State v. Rebo, 168 Idaho 234 , 238, 482 P.3d 569 , 573 (2020) (explaining that the Fourth Amendment “also protects certain expectations of privacy, as long as society is willing to recognize such expectations as 6 reasonable”). | 1 | 1 |
Katz v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2021It held that the reasonable expectation of privacy test articulated by Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967), does not encompass all of the Fourth Amendment’s protections: Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation. | 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. Albertson
green
2 sentences2023Therefore, Idaho’s trespass laws are not controlling in this case, which concerns the application of the Fourth Amendment to [a search related to] a controlled substance charge.” Id. (citing Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34 ). 2023Therefore, Idaho’s trespass laws are not controlling in this case, which concerns the application of the Fourth Amendment to [a search related to] a controlled substance charge.” Id. (citing Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34 ). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
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.