10 California opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Leonardgreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Leonard (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 235, 239 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] [one who has owner’s permission to use vehicle and is exercising control over it has a legitimate expectation of privacy in it].) This case is therefore distinguishable from People v. Dasilva (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 43, 49 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 563 ], which the trial court cited in its ruling that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. 2016(See People v. Leonard (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 235, 239 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] [one who has owner’s permission to use vehicle and is exercising control over it has a legitimate expectation of privacy in it].) This case is therefore distinguishable from People v. Dasilva (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 43, 49 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 563 ], which the trial court cited in its ruling that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dasilvagreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Leonard (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 235, 239 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] [one who has owner’s permission to use vehicle and is exercising control over it has a legitimate expectation of privacy in it].) This case is therefore distinguishable from People v. Dasilva (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 43, 49 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 563 ], which the trial court cited in its ruling that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. 2016(See People v. Leonard (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 235, 239 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] [one who has owner’s permission to use vehicle and is exercising control over it has a legitimate expectation of privacy in it].) This case is therefore distinguishable from People v. Dasilva (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 43, 49 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 563 ], which the trial court cited in its ruling that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Saundersgreen1 sentence2008Moreover, license plates once issued can be lost or damaged, requiring replacement (Saunders, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1137), and the Vehicle Code does provide that a vehicle may be driven without plates, if it displays a valid temporary permit (Veh. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2007In People v. Burns (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1266 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 230 ], the appellate court imagined “a scenario where, upon agreement of the *593 prosecution and the defense, the certified plea procedure is used with an understanding on the record that before accepting the plea and imposing the bargained-for sentence, the superior court would review the ruling made by the [magistrate], utilizing the record of the suppression hearing there conducted.” (Id. at p. 1273, fn. 3.) We reject that scenario for two reasons. 2007In People v. Burns (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1266 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 230 ], the appellate court imagined “a scenario where, upon agreement of the *593 prosecution and the defense, the certified plea procedure is used with an understanding on the record that before accepting the plea and imposing the bargained-for sentence, the superior court would review the ruling made by the [magistrate], utilizing the record of the suppression hearing there conducted.” (Id. at p. 1273, fn. 3.) We reject that scenario for two reasons. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bensongreen2 sentences1993When a party does not raise an argument at trial, he may not do so on appeal. ( People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 892 [ 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 678 , 830 P.2d 712 ]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 782, fn. 5 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 827 , 802 P.2d 330 ].) In any event, we find the argument to be without merit. 1993When a party does not raise an argument at trial, he may not do so on appeal. ( People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 892 [ 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 678 , 830 P.2d 712 ]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 782, fn. 5 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 827 , 802 P.2d 330 ].) In any event, we find the argument to be without merit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morenogreen2 sentences1993As appellant correctly observes, “the only factual material properly before this court... [is the 14-page] record of the section 1538.5 hearing . . . .” (See, e.g., People v. Moreno (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 577, 580 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ].) Apart from this “14-page record” of the hearing, which we next consider, the trial court only knew that appellant had been charged with armed robbery (the information so stated) and had filed a section 1538.5 suppression motion which was to be “based upon such evidence as may be introduced at the hearing.” We now consider the record of the suppression hearing. 1993As appellant correctly observes, “the only factual material properly before this court... [is the 14-page] record of the section 1538.5 hearing . . . .” (See, e.g., People v. Moreno (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 577, 580 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ].) Apart from this “14-page record” of the hearing, which we next consider, the trial court only knew that appellant had been charged with armed robbery (the information so stated) and had filed a section 1538.5 suppression motion which was to be “based upon such evidence as may be introduced at the hearing.” We now consider the record of the suppression hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Raleyred2 sentences1993When a party does not raise an argument at trial, he may not do so on appeal. ( People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 892 [ 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 678 , 830 P.2d 712 ]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 782, fn. 5 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 827 , 802 P.2d 330 ].) In any event, we find the argument to be without merit. 1993When a party does not raise an argument at trial, he may not do so on appeal. ( People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 892 [ 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 678 , 830 P.2d 712 ]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 782, fn. 5 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 827 , 802 P.2d 330 ].) In any event, we find the argument to be without merit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leybagreen2 sentences1988We reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress. 1 *1069 Facts Viewed in the light most favorable to the order denying suppression (People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ]), the record of the suppression hearing reveals that after a four-month investigation by a private investigator hired by the Star Free Press in which he infiltrated the work force and made “controlled buys” of narcotics, twenty to twenty-five police officers went to the Star Free Press newspaper offices, conducted a search of the premises, and arrested eight of its 1988We reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress. 1 *1069 Facts Viewed in the light most favorable to the order denying suppression (People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ]), the record of the suppression hearing reveals that after a four-month investigation by a private investigator hired by the Star Free Press in which he infiltrated the work force and made “controlled buys” of narcotics, twenty to twenty-five police officers went to the Star Free Press newspaper offices, conducted a search of the premises, and arrested eight of its | 1 | 1 |
People v. Schweitzergreen2 sentences1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. 1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stonergreen2 sentences1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. 1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burkegreen2 sentences1984(People v. Burke (1964) 61 Cal.2d 575, 578-580 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 531 , 394 P.2d 67 ]; cf. People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84, 89-90 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 453 P.2d 721 ].) In the instant case the record of the suppression hearing is completely silent as to what, if any, information was possessed by the police at the time that the defendant was taken into custody and held for the in-field showups. 1984(People v. Burke (1964) 61 Cal.2d 575, 578-580 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 531 , 394 P.2d 67 ]; cf. People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84, 89-90 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 453 P.2d 721 ].) In the instant case the record of the suppression hearing is completely silent as to what, if any, information was possessed by the police at the time that the defendant was taken into custody and held for the in-field showups. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Berutkogreen2 sentences1984(People v. Burke (1964) 61 Cal.2d 575, 578-580 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 531 , 394 P.2d 67 ]; cf. People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84, 89-90 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 453 P.2d 721 ].) In the instant case the record of the suppression hearing is completely silent as to what, if any, information was possessed by the police at the time that the defendant was taken into custody and held for the in-field showups. 1984(People v. Burke (1964) 61 Cal.2d 575, 578-580 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 531 , 394 P.2d 67 ]; cf. People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84, 89-90 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 453 P.2d 721 ].) In the instant case the record of the suppression hearing is completely silent as to what, if any, information was possessed by the police at the time that the defendant was taken into custody and held for the in-field showups. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Crewsgreen2 sentences1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. 1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sesslingreen2 sentences1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. 1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Wells
green
2 sentences2026(Ibid.; People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083 .) Defendant argues his detention was not justified because there was “no information that the caller had any personal information that [defendant] was driving a vehicle while intoxicated” and suggests Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266 (J.L.) and People v. Wells, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1078 are of some assistance to him. 2026(Ibid.; People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083 .) Defendant argues his detention was not justified because there was “no information that the caller had any personal information that [defendant] was driving a vehicle while intoxicated” and suggests Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266 (J.L.) and People v. Wells, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1078 are of some assistance to him. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Florida v. JL
green
1 sentence2026(Ibid.; People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083 .) Defendant argues his detention was not justified because there was “no information that the caller had any personal information that [defendant] was driving a vehicle while intoxicated” and suggests Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266 (J.L.) and People v. Wells, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1078 are of some assistance to him. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Glaser
green
1 sentence2026In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.” (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 .) Our review is 5 limited to the record of the suppression hearing.3 (People v. Moore (2006) 39 Cal.4th 168 , 171.) “The Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops—such as the traffic stop in this case—when a law enforcement officer has ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ [Citations.] The ‘reasonable suspicion’ necessary to | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Moore
green
1 sentence2026In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.” (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 .) Our review is 5 limited to the record of the suppression hearing.3 (People v. Moore (2006) 39 Cal.4th 168 , 171.) “The Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops—such as the traffic stop in this case—when a law enforcement officer has ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ [Citations.] The ‘reasonable suspicion’ necessary to | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Prado Navarette v. California
green
2 sentences2026In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.” (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 .) Our review is 5 limited to the record of the suppression hearing.3 (People v. Moore (2006) 39 Cal.4th 168 , 171.) “The Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops—such as the traffic stop in this case—when a law enforcement officer has ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ [Citations.] The ‘reasonable suspicion’ necessary to 2026(Id. at p. 268.) The court concluded the tip did not contain sufficient indicia of reliability: “All the police had to go on in this case was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he knew 3 Defendant cites to the transcript of the 911 call even though neither the transcript nor the call itself are part of the record of the suppression hearing. 6 about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about J.L.” (Id. at p. 271.) More recently, the United States Supreme Court held in Navarette v. California, supra, 572 U.S. 393 , t | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Cantor
green
1 sentence2015Defendant compares this situation to that in People v. Cantor (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 961 , in which an officer’s search of the defendant’s vehicle was found to have exceeded the scope of the defendant’s consent. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Ross
green
2 sentences1986Feinerman, P. J., and Ashby, J., concurred. 1 The facts herein also include testimony from the preliminary hearing, which was incorporated by reference into the record of the suppression hearing. 2 Vehicle Code section 2805 provides: “(a) For the purpose of locating stolen vehicles, a member of the California Highway Patrol, or a member of a city police department or county sheriff’s office whose primary responsibility is to conduct vehicle theft investigations, may inspect any vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code ... on a highway or in any public garage, repair shop, pa 1986Feinerman, P. J., and Ashby, J., concurred. 1 The facts herein also include testimony from the preliminary hearing, which was incorporated by reference into the record of the suppression hearing. 2 Vehicle Code section 2805 provides: “(a) For the purpose of locating stolen vehicles, a member of the California Highway Patrol, or a member of a city police department or county sheriff’s office whose primary responsibility is to conduct vehicle theft investigations, may inspect any vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code ... on a highway or in any public garage, repair shop, pa | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Florida v. Meyers
green
2 sentences1986Feinerman, P. J., and Ashby, J., concurred. 1 The facts herein also include testimony from the preliminary hearing, which was incorporated by reference into the record of the suppression hearing. 2 Vehicle Code section 2805 provides: “(a) For the purpose of locating stolen vehicles, a member of the California Highway Patrol, or a member of a city police department or county sheriff’s office whose primary responsibility is to conduct vehicle theft investigations, may inspect any vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code ... on a highway or in any public garage, repair shop, pa 1986Feinerman, P. J., and Ashby, J., concurred. 1 The facts herein also include testimony from the preliminary hearing, which was incorporated by reference into the record of the suppression hearing. 2 Vehicle Code section 2805 provides: “(a) For the purpose of locating stolen vehicles, a member of the California Highway Patrol, or a member of a city police department or county sheriff’s office whose primary responsibility is to conduct vehicle theft investigations, may inspect any vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code ... on a highway or in any public garage, repair shop, pa | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1984We are similarly compelled under the foregoing authorities to conclude that its seizure was prima facie invalid. 4 That the error in the case at bench of admitting the identification evidence and the gun was prejudicial under the reasonable doubt standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ] is manifest: As to the burglary offense charged in count I, the evidence merely showed that defendant, accompanied by another man and two women, entered the store, chose various items for which the other man was going to pay by means of a counterf 1984We are similarly compelled under the foregoing authorities to conclude that its seizure was prima facie invalid. 4 That the error in the case at bench of admitting the identification evidence and the gun was prejudicial under the reasonable doubt standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ] is manifest: As to the burglary offense charged in count I, the evidence merely showed that defendant, accompanied by another man and two women, entered the store, chose various items for which the other man was going to pay by means of a counterf | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Teresinski
green
1 sentence1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Superior Court (Sosa)
green
1 sentence1984(People v. Superior Court (Sosa), supra, 31 Cal.3d 883 ; People v. Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 832 ; People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 426-430 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 439 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Stoner (1967) 65 Cal.2d 595, 602-603 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 422 P.2d 585 ]; cf. United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 471 [ 63 L.Ed.2d 537, 545-546 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ]; People v. Schweitzer (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 696 ].) 3 Finally, the record of the suppression hearing is silent concerning the factual and legal justification for the seizure of the gun. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.