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 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Katz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018Agnew argues, and the State concedes, that none of these exceptions permits admission of the audio recording in the case before us. "[T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.' " Katz , 389 U.S. at 361 , 88 S.Ct. at 516 (Harlan, J. concurring). 2018Agnew argues, and the State concedes, that none of these exceptions permits admission of the audio recording in the case before us. "[T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.' " Katz , 389 U.S. at 361 , 88 S.Ct. at 516 (Harlan, J. concurring). | 2 | 5 |
Venner v. Stategreen2 sentences1978In Venner v. State, 279 Md. 47 , 51-52 and 59, 367 A. 2d 949 , cert. denied, 431 U. S. 932 (1977), we adopted and applied the criteria for testing the Fourth Amendment’s applicability enunciated by Mr. Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 361 , 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967): “[T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ Thus a man’s home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy___ 1978In Venner v. State, 279 Md. 47 , 51-52 and 59, 367 A. 2d 949 , cert. denied, 431 U. S. 932 (1977), we adopted and applied the criteria for testing the Fourth Amendment’s applicability enunciated by Mr. Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 361 , 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967): “[T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ Thus a man’s home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy___ | 1 | 3 |
New Jersey v. T. L. O.green2 sentences2007Under this reasonableness standard, both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable: “Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider ‘whether the ... action was justified at its inception,’ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. [1], at 20 [ 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ]; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted “was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place,’ ibid.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., supra[ 469 U.S. 325 ] at 341, 105 S.Ct. [733] at 2007Under this reasonableness standard, both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable: “Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider ‘whether the ... action was justified at its inception,’ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. [1], at 20 [ 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ]; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted “was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place,’ ibid.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., supra[ 469 U.S. 325 ] at 341, 105 S.Ct. [733] at | 1 | 2 |
Cameron v. Stategreen1 sentence1978See Cooks v. State, 50 Ala. App. 49 , 276 So. 2d 634, 638 , cert. denied, 290 Ala. 363 , 276 So. 2d 640 (1973); State v. Lee, 311 So. 2d 876, 879 (La. 1975); Knowles v. State, 341 So. 2d 913, 916 (Miss. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Knowles v. Stategreen1 sentence1978See Cooks v. State, 50 Ala. App. 49 , 276 So. 2d 634, 638 , cert. denied, 290 Ala. 363 , 276 So. 2d 640 (1973); State v. Lee, 311 So. 2d 876, 879 (La. 1975); Knowles v. State, 341 So. 2d 913, 916 (Miss. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Cooks v. Stategreen1 sentence1978See Cooks v. State, 50 Ala. App. 49 , 276 So. 2d 634, 638 , cert. denied, 290 Ala. 363 , 276 So. 2d 640 (1973); State v. Lee, 311 So. 2d 876, 879 (La. 1975); Knowles v. State, 341 So. 2d 913, 916 (Miss. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Cooks v. Stategreen2 sentences1978See Cooks v. State, 50 Ala. App. 49 , 276 So. 2d 634, 638 , cert. denied, 290 Ala. 363 , 276 So. 2d 640 (1973); State v. Lee, 311 So. 2d 876, 879 (La. 1975); Knowles v. State, 341 So. 2d 913, 916 (Miss. 1977). 1978See Cooks v. State, 50 Ala. App. 49 , 276 So. 2d 634, 638 , cert. denied, 290 Ala. 363 , 276 So. 2d 640 (1973); State v. Lee, 311 So. 2d 876, 879 (La. 1975); Knowles v. State, 341 So. 2d 913, 916 (Miss. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leegreen1 sentence1978See Cooks v. State, 50 Ala. App. 49 , 276 So. 2d 634, 638 , cert. denied, 290 Ala. 363 , 276 So. 2d 640 (1973); State v. Lee, 311 So. 2d 876, 879 (La. 1975); Knowles v. State, 341 So. 2d 913, 916 (Miss. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ghalayini v. United States
green
2 sentences1978In Venner v. State, 279 Md. 47 , 51-52 and 59, 367 A. 2d 949 , cert. denied, 431 U. S. 932 (1977), we adopted and applied the criteria for testing the Fourth Amendment’s applicability enunciated by Mr. Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 361 , 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967): “[T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ Thus a man’s home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy___ 1978In determining whether an expectation of privacy is constitutionally justified, we adopted in Venner v. State, 279 Md. 47 , 367 A. 2d 949 (1977), cert. denied, 431 U. S. 932 (1977), the twofold test articulated by Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in Katz, i.e., “first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” 389 U. S. at 361 . | 2 | 1978–1978 |
Silverberg v. Silverberg
green
1 sentence2010It involves the twofold error of at once splitting the decree and attempting both to accept and reject its terms. 148 Md. at 689 , 130 A. 325 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Lewis v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2010The Court has since rejected this reasoning both expressly, see Lewis, 219 Md. at 316 , 149 A.2d 403 ("[W]e are unwilling to follow the reasoning of [Silverberg] that the appeal involved splitting the decree and attempting both to accept and reject its terms.”), and implicitly. 2010The Court has since rejected this reasoning both expressly, see Lewis, 219 Md. at 316 , 149 A.2d 403 ("[W]e are unwilling to follow the reasoning of [Silverberg] that the appeal involved splitting the decree and attempting both to accept and reject its terms.”), and implicitly. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2007Under this reasonableness standard, both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable: “Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider ‘whether the ... action was justified at its inception,’ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. [1], at 20 [ 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ]; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted “was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place,’ ibid.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., supra[ 469 U.S. 325 ] at 341, 105 S.Ct. [733] at 2007Under this reasonableness standard, both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable: “Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider ‘whether the ... action was justified at its inception,’ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. [1], at 20 [ 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ]; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted “was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place,’ ibid.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., supra[ 469 U.S. 325 ] at 341, 105 S.Ct. [733] at | 1 | 2007–2007 |
O'CONNOR v. Ortega
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 725-26, 480 U.S. 709 , 107 S.Ct. 1492 , 94 L.Ed.2d 714 . 2007Id. at 725-26, 480 U.S. 709 , 107 S.Ct. 1492 , 94 L.Ed.2d 714 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
green
1 sentence2000In T.L.O .,, the Supreme Court held that, "Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider whether the action was justified at its inception ... *419 second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified interference in the first place." Id. at 341-42 , 105 S.Ct. at 742 , 83 L.Ed.2d at 734-35 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Buettner v. State
green
2 sentences1978Buettner v. State, 233 Md. 235, 239 , 196 A. 2d 465 (1964) . 1978Buettner v. State, 233 Md. 235, 239 , 196 A. 2d 465 (1964) . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Watson v. United States
green
2 sentences1978The test that must be applied is one of the. reasonableness of the search: [Tjhere is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ Katz, supra, 389 U. S. 347 at 361 ; Venner v. State, 279 Md. 47, 52 , 367 A. 2d 949 , cert. denied, 421 U. S. 932 (1977). 1978The test that must be applied is one of the reasonableness of the search: [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as `reasonable.' *185 Katz, supra, 389 U.S. 347 at 361 ; Venner v. State, 279 Md. 47, 52 , 367 A.2d 949 , cert. denied, 421 U.S. 932 (1977). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Stewart v. McCaddin
green
1 sentence1925Stewart v. McCaddin, 107 Md. 314, 319 ; Murphy v. Spaulding, 46 N. Y. 556, 559 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Murphy v. . Spaulding
neutral
1 sentence1925Stewart v. McCaddin, 107 Md. 314, 319 ; Murphy v. Spaulding, 46 N. Y. 556, 559 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.