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 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carroll v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020Search based on automobile exception {¶ 12} Raslovsky also argues that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement did not give officers the right to search her purse. {¶ 13} The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” But the automobile exception allows “a warrantless search of an automobile stopped by police officers who had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband.” United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 799 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L. 2020Search based on automobile exception {¶ 12} Raslovsky also argues that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement did not give officers the right to search her purse. {¶ 13} The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” But the automobile exception allows “a warrantless search of an automobile stopped by police officers who had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband.” United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 799 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L. | 2 | 4 |
United States v. Rossgreen2 sentences2020Search based on automobile exception {¶ 12} Raslovsky also argues that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement did not give officers the right to search her purse. {¶ 13} The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” But the automobile exception allows “a warrantless search of an automobile stopped by police officers who had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband.” United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 799 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L. 2020Search based on automobile exception {¶ 12} Raslovsky also argues that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement did not give officers the right to search her purse. {¶ 13} The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” But the automobile exception allows “a warrantless search of an automobile stopped by police officers who had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband.” United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 799 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L. | 1 | 3 |
Gore v. Stategreen2 sentences2007For the reasons set forth below, however, we decline to do so. ¶ 15 In Gore v. State, 24 Okla.Crim.App. 394, 411, 218 P. 545, 547-48 (1923), this Court explained that if construction of federal constitutional provisions made by the United States Supreme Court appears to rest on "sound principles," the decisions of this Court construing equivalent provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution should harmonize with those of the United States Supreme Court construing the federal constitution. 2007For the reasons set forth below, however, we decline to do so. 115 In Gore v. State, 24 Okla.Crim.App. 394, 411, 218 P. 545, 547-48 (1923), this Court explained that if construction of federal constitutional provisions made by the United States Supreme Court appears to rest on "sound principles," the decisions of this Court construing equivalent provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution should harmonize with those of the United States Supreme Court construing the federal constitution. | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Stategreen2 sentences1986Oklahoma did not recognize the automobile exception to the exclusionary rule until 1974 in Hughes v. State, 522 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Okla. 1986Between these two positions there can be no halting of the ways if we are to save our government from confusion and ultimate anarchy." [36] Oklahoma did not recognize the automobile exception to the exclusionary rule until 1974 in Hughes v. State, 522 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Okla. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Burnside
green
2 sentences2020State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 , 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8 . 2020State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 , 2003-Ohio-5372 , 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Paul
green
2 sentences2007To reach this conclusion the dissent relies primarily on the case of State v. Paul, 2003 OK CR 1 , 62 P.3d 389 . 2007To reach this conclusion the dissent relies primarily on the case of State v. Paul, 2003 OK CR 1 , 62 P.3d 389 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hitchcock v. State
neutral
1 sentence1953Cr. 20 , 238 P. 2d 379 , this court held: “When officers are where they have a right to be, as on a public street, and they observe taxpaid liquor in an automobile in violation of law, a misdemeanor has been committed in their presence and they have the right to arrest the owner and search the automobile and seize the liquor without a search warrant.” In Nott v. State, 70 Okla. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Nott v. State
neutral
2 sentences1953Cr. 20 , 238 P. 2d 379 , this court held: “When officers are where they have a right to be, as on a public street, and they observe taxpaid liquor in an automobile in violation of law, a misdemeanor has been committed in their presence and they have the right to arrest the owner and search the automobile and seize the liquor without a search warrant.” In Nott v. State, 70 Okla. 1953Cr. 432 , 107 P. 2d 366, 367 , it was held: “Whether search of, and seizure from, an automobile upon a public street without a search warrant, is reasonable is in its final analysis to be determined as a judicial question, in view of all the circumstances under which it is made. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Farmer v. State
green
1 sentence1951Farmer v. State, 86 Okla. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Logan v. State
neutral
1 sentence1940Cr. 1 , 274 P. 39 . *245 If, while so operating an automobile in violation of law a person should injure a pedestrian or other person without causing death, and such unlawful act is the proximate cause of the injury, he is likewise guilty of a crime. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Davy v. State Ex Rel.
neutral
1 sentence1930(Second Series) 705, the first paragraph of the syllabus is as follows: “Tires sold without retaining title in seller, and placed upon an automobile, become a part of the automobile under the doctrine of accession.” That case follows the doctrine announced in the case of Blackwood v. Auto Storage Co., supra. In ’the case of Davy v. State, 130 Okla. 91 , 265 Pac. 626 , the general rule as announced in the first paragraph of the sy.la-. bus of the case of Blackwood v. Auto Storage Co., supra, was approved by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Shew Chin v. State
neutral
1 sentence1930(Second Series) 705, the first paragraph of the syllabus is as follows: “Tires sold without retaining title in seller, and placed upon an automobile, become a part of the automobile under the doctrine of accession.” That case follows the doctrine announced in the case of Blackwood v. Auto Storage Co., supra. In ’the case of Davy v. State, 130 Okla. 91 , 265 Pac. 626 , the general rule as announced in the first paragraph of the sy.la-. bus of the case of Blackwood v. Auto Storage Co., supra, was approved by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Incorporated Town of Guymon v. Triplett
green
1 sentence1923Spencer et al. v. Holt, 82 Okla. 280 , 200 Pac. 187 ; Dickinson v. Cole, 74 Oklahoma, 177 Pac. 570 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Spencer v. Holt
neutral
2 sentences1923Spencer et al. v. Holt, 82 Okla. 280 , 200 Pac. 187 ; Dickinson v. Cole, 74 Oklahoma, 177 Pac. 570 . 1923Spencer et al. v. Holt, 82 Okla. 280 , 200 Pac. 187 ; Dickinson v. Cole, 74 Oklahoma, 177 Pac. 570 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.