10 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Adkinsgreen2 sentences1995State v. Adkins, 176 W.Va. 613 , 346 S.E.2d 762, 775 (W.Va.1986). 1995State v. Adkins, 176 W.Va. 613 , 346 S.E.2d 762, 775 (W.Va.1986). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Timothy Dequasiegreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t 2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2007We explained the basis and application of the " Leon exception" in Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500 , 498 S.E.2d 924 (1998): In Leon , the United States Supreme Court held that "suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; see also Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 987-88, 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984). 2007We explained the basis and application of the " Leon exception" in Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500 , 498 S.E.2d 924 (1998): In Leon , the United States Supreme Court held that "suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; see also Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 987-88, 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984). | 1 | 3 |
Polston v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2007We explained the basis and application of the " Leon exception" in Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500 , 498 S.E.2d 924 (1998): In Leon , the United States Supreme Court held that "suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; see also Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 987-88, 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984). 2007We explained the basis and application of the " Leon exception" in Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500 , 498 S.E.2d 924 (1998): In Leon , the United States Supreme Court held that "suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; see also Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 987-88, 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
Massachusetts v. Sheppardgreen2 sentences2007We explained the basis and application of the " Leon exception" in Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500 , 498 S.E.2d 924 (1998): In Leon , the United States Supreme Court held that "suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; see also Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 987-88, 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984). 2007We explained the basis and application of the " Leon exception" in Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500 , 498 S.E.2d 924 (1998): In Leon , the United States Supreme Court held that "suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; see also Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 987-88, 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Clarence Jay Lynch v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t 2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t | 1 | 1 |
Moyer v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t 2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bradford Satterwhite, IIIgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir.1999) ("If the good-faith exception applies, we need not reach the question of probable cause.”); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that the court "need not reach the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies”); Davidson v. State, 76 Ark. 2005See, e.g., United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir.1999) ("If the good-faith exception applies, we need not reach the question of probable cause.”); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that the court "need not reach the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies”); Davidson v. State, 76 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Marvin B Chernagreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir.1999) ("If the good-faith exception applies, we need not reach the question of probable cause.”); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that the court "need not reach the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies”); Davidson v. State, 76 Ark. 2005See, e.g., United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir.1999) ("If the good-faith exception applies, we need not reach the question of probable cause.”); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that the court "need not reach the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies”); Davidson v. State, 76 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t 2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Luis Perezgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t 2005See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.2004) ("Assuming without deciding that the district court correctly concluded the search warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly to the question of good faith.”); United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 520 (4th Cir.2004) ("Without deciding whether the [specific] warrant is supported by probable cause, we will exercise our discretion and proceed directly to consideration of the Leon exception.”); Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504 , 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998) (“We hold t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Kimberly Ann Hove
green
2 sentences2006Janis , relying only on the sworn affidavit, reasons “[t]he Leon test for good faith reliance is clearly an objective one and it is based solely on facts presented to the magistrate,” and “does not extend ‘to allow the consideration of facts known only to an officer and not presented to a magistrate.’ ” 22 Va.App. at 654 , 472 S.E.2d at 653 -54 (quoting Hove, 848 F.2d at 140 ). 2006Janis , relying only on the sworn affidavit, reasons "[t]he Leon test for good faith reliance is clearly an objective one and it is based solely on facts presented to the magistrate," and "does not extend `to allow the consideration of facts known only to an officer and not presented to a magistrate.'" 22 Va.App. at 654 , 472 S.E.2d at 653 -54 (quoting Hove, 848 F.2d at 140 ). | 2 | 1996–2006 |
State v. Edmonson
green
2 sentences2008In recognition that the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule is not well-served when a police officer executes a search warrant in objective good faith, the Leon exception was designed "to limit the application of the exclusionary rule to those instances when it will most effectively serve to deter police misconduct." Edmonson, 598 N.W.2d at 461 . 2008In recognition that the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule is not well-served when a police officer executes a search warrant in objective good faith, the Leon exception was designed "to limit the application of the exclusionary rule to those instances when it will most effectively serve to deter police misconduct." Edmonson, 598 N.W.2d at 461 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Janis v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2006Janis , relying only on the sworn affidavit, reasons “[t]he Leon test for good faith reliance is clearly an objective one and it is based solely on facts presented to the magistrate,” and “does not extend ‘to allow the consideration of facts known only to an officer and not presented to a magistrate.’ ” 22 Va.App. at 654 , 472 S.E.2d at 653 -54 (quoting Hove, 848 F.2d at 140 ). 2006Janis , relying only on the sworn affidavit, reasons “[t]he Leon test for good faith reliance is clearly an objective one and it is based solely on facts presented to the magistrate,” and “does not extend ‘to allow the consideration of facts known only to an officer and not presented to a magistrate.’ ” 22 Va.App. at 654 , 472 S.E.2d at 653 -54 (quoting Hove, 848 F.2d at 140 ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Davidson v. State
green
2 sentences2005See, e.g., United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir.1999) ("If the good-faith exception applies, we need not reach the question of probable cause.”); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that the court "need not reach the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies”); Davidson v. State, 76 Ark. 2005See, e.g., United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir.1999) ("If the good-faith exception applies, we need not reach the question of probable cause.”); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that the court "need not reach the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies”); Davidson v. State, 76 Ark. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Lauren Eric Wilhelm
green
2 sentences1996In Wilhelm , the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit interpreted the third exception to the Leon test to mean that the good faith exception does not apply where the affidavit did not "provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause." Wilhelm, 80 F.3d at 123 . 1996In Wilhelm , the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit interpreted the third exception to the Leon test to mean that the good faith exception does not apply where the affidavit did not "provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause." Wilhelm, 80 F.3d at 123 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Terry Jon Martin
green
2 sentences1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). 1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Dennis L. Taxacher
green
2 sentences1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). 1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Martin v. United States
green
2 sentences1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). 1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Freeman
green
2 sentences1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). 1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Terry v. Blue Cab, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). 1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Taxacher v. United States
green
2 sentences1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). 1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Pittman v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). 1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
McKnight v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). 1996I disagree with Hove `s analysis and would apply the standard used in United States v. *655 Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 919 , 111 S.Ct. 1307 , 113 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991), and United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 , 110 S.Ct. 1793 , 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.