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.
8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Potts v. Stategreen2 sentences1992See Potts v. State, 300 Md. 567 , 479 A.2d 1335 (1984) (applying Gates test under state and federal constitutions for a search based on a warrant). 1992See Potts v. State, 300 Md. 567 , 479 A.2d 1335 (1984) (applying Gates test under state and federal constitutions for a search based on a warrant). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Kimbrogreen2 sentences1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ruffingreen2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 2 | 2 |
Whisman v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 2 | 2 |
State v. Espinosa-Gamezgreen2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 3 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences1994Similar sentiments were voiced by Mr. Justice Brennan, who pointed out: [G]iven the relaxed standard for assessing probable cause established just last Term in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ] (1983), the Court’s newly fashioned good-faith exception, when applied in the warrant context, will rarely, if ever, offer any greater flexibility for police than the Gates standard already supplies. 1994Similar sentiments were voiced by Mr. Justice Brennan, who pointed out: [G]iven the relaxed standard for assessing probable cause established just last Term in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ] (1983), the Court’s newly fashioned good-faith exception, when applied in the warrant context, will rarely, if ever, offer any greater flexibility for police than the Gates standard already supplies. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences1988Eisenhauer v. Texas, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 127 , 102 L.Ed.2d 101 (1988); State v. Davis, 35 Wash.App. 724 , 669 P.2d 900 , 902 n. 2 *231 (1983) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under federal constitution), ce rt. denied, 100 Wash.2d 1039 (1984); State v. Boggess, 115 Wis.2d 443 , 340 N.W.2d 516 (1983) (applying Gates to warrantless search under state and federal constitutions); see generally 1 W.R. 1988Eisenhauer v. Texas, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 127 , 102 L.Ed.2d 101 (1988); State v. Davis, 35 Wash.App. 724 , 669 P.2d 900 , 902 n. 2 *231 (1983) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under federal constitution), ce rt. denied, 100 Wash.2d 1039 (1984); State v. Boggess, 115 Wis.2d 443 , 340 N.W.2d 516 (1983) (applying Gates to warrantless search under state and federal constitutions); see generally 1 W.R. | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See also Williams v. State, 342 Md. 724, 755-756 , 679 A.2d 1106, 1122 (1996) (holding that appellate review of probable *522 cause determination, made in connection with issuance of search warrant, is limited to determining whether issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that search would uncover evidence of •wrongdoing), Minor v. State, 334 Md. 707, 716 , 641 A.2d 214, 218 (1994) (restating the Gates standard). 8 See also Birchead v. State, 317 Md. 691, 701 , 566 A.2d 488, 492-493 (1989), in which we opined: “Our review of the judge’s decision to issue the search warrants i 2007See also Williams v. State, 342 Md. 724, 755-756 , 679 A.2d 1106, 1122 (1996) (holding that appellate review of probable *522 cause determination, made in connection with issuance of search warrant, is limited to determining whether issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that search would uncover evidence of •wrongdoing), Minor v. State, 334 Md. 707, 716 , 641 A.2d 214, 218 (1994) (restating the Gates standard). 8 See also Birchead v. State, 317 Md. 691, 701 , 566 A.2d 488, 492-493 (1989), in which we opined: “Our review of the judge’s decision to issue the search warrants i | 1 | 1 |
Birchead v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See also Williams v. State, 342 Md. 724, 755-756 , 679 A.2d 1106, 1122 (1996) (holding that appellate review of probable *522 cause determination, made in connection with issuance of search warrant, is limited to determining whether issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that search would uncover evidence of •wrongdoing), Minor v. State, 334 Md. 707, 716 , 641 A.2d 214, 218 (1994) (restating the Gates standard). 8 See also Birchead v. State, 317 Md. 691, 701 , 566 A.2d 488, 492-493 (1989), in which we opined: “Our review of the judge’s decision to issue the search warrants i 2007See also Williams v. State, 342 Md. 724, 755-756 , 679 A.2d 1106, 1122 (1996) (holding that appellate review of probable *522 cause determination, made in connection with issuance of search warrant, is limited to determining whether issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that search would uncover evidence of •wrongdoing), Minor v. State, 334 Md. 707, 716 , 641 A.2d 214, 218 (1994) (restating the Gates standard). 8 See also Birchead v. State, 317 Md. 691, 701 , 566 A.2d 488, 492-493 (1989), in which we opined: “Our review of the judge’s decision to issue the search warrants i | 1 | 1 |
Minor v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See also Williams v. State, 342 Md. 724, 755-756 , 679 A.2d 1106, 1122 (1996) (holding that appellate review of probable *522 cause determination, made in connection with issuance of search warrant, is limited to determining whether issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that search would uncover evidence of •wrongdoing), Minor v. State, 334 Md. 707, 716 , 641 A.2d 214, 218 (1994) (restating the Gates standard). 8 See also Birchead v. State, 317 Md. 691, 701 , 566 A.2d 488, 492-493 (1989), in which we opined: “Our review of the judge’s decision to issue the search warrants i 2007See also Williams v. State, 342 Md. 724, 755-756 , 679 A.2d 1106, 1122 (1996) (holding that appellate review of probable *522 cause determination, made in connection with issuance of search warrant, is limited to determining whether issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that search would uncover evidence of •wrongdoing), Minor v. State, 334 Md. 707, 716 , 641 A.2d 214, 218 (1994) (restating the Gates standard). 8 See also Birchead v. State, 317 Md. 691, 701 , 566 A.2d 488, 492-493 (1989), in which we opined: “Our review of the judge’s decision to issue the search warrants i | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lovegreen2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Fernando Cisneros-Mireles and Jorge Luis Cisneros-Mirelesgreen2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hector Marin and Aida Serna Barretogreen2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Timothy G. Smithgreen2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Raul Casiano Figueroagreen2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Eugenia Gonzalezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eisenhauer v. Statered | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Tislergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Love v. State
green
2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 2 | 1987–1988 |
State v. Boggess
green
2 sentences1988Eisenhauer v. Texas, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 127 , 102 L.Ed.2d 101 (1988); State v. Davis, 35 Wash.App. 724 , 669 P.2d 900 , 902 n. 2 *231 (1983) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under federal constitution), ce rt. denied, 100 Wash.2d 1039 (1984); State v. Boggess, 115 Wis.2d 443 , 340 N.W.2d 516 (1983) (applying Gates to warrantless search under state and federal constitutions); see generally 1 W.R. 1988Eisenhauer v. Texas, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 127 , 102 L.Ed.2d 101 (1988); State v. Davis, 35 Wash.App. 724 , 669 P.2d 900 , 902 n. 2 *231 (1983) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under federal constitution), ce rt. denied, 100 Wash.2d 1039 (1984); State v. Boggess, 115 Wis.2d 443 , 340 N.W.2d 516 (1983) (applying Gates to warrantless search under state and federal constitutions); see generally 1 W.R. | 2 | 1987–1988 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences1994Because the two standards overlap so completely, it is unlikely that a warrant could be found invalid under Gates and yet the police reliance upon it could be seen as objectively reasonable; otherwise, we would have to entertain the mind-boggling concept of objectively reasonable reliance upon an objectively unreasonable warrant. 468 U.S. at 958-59 , 104 S.Ct. at 3444-45 , 82 L.Ed.2d at 721-722 . 1994Because the two standards overlap so completely, it is unlikely that a warrant could be found invalid under Gates and yet the police reliance upon it could be seen as objectively reasonable; otherwise, we would have to entertain the mind-boggling concept of objectively reasonable reliance upon an objectively unreasonable warrant. 468 U.S. at 958-59 , 104 S.Ct. at 3444-45 , 82 L.Ed.2d at 721-722 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Massachusetts v. Upton
green
2 sentences1992After analyzing Illinois v. Gates itself, Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727 , 104 S.Ct. 2085 , 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984), and numerous state and federal authorities, the Court of Appeals held *297 that the Gates standard applied to warrantless searches and seizures as well: “We hold that a totality of the circumstances test applies to warrantless searches and seizures, just as it currently applies to searches based on a warrant. 1992After analyzing Illinois v. Gates itself, Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727 , 104 S.Ct. 2085 , 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984), and numerous state and federal authorities, the Court of Appeals held *297 that the Gates standard applied to warrantless searches and seizures as well: “We hold that a totality of the circumstances test applies to warrantless searches and seizures, just as it currently applies to searches based on a warrant. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Brinegar v. United States
green
2 sentences1992When Illinois v. Gates quoted with approval the statement from Brinegar v. United States, [ 338 U.S. 160 , 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) ], ‘In dealing with probable cause, ... as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. 1992When Illinois v. Gates quoted with approval the statement from Brinegar v. United States, [ 338 U.S. 160 , 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) ], ‘In dealing with probable cause, ... as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Commonwealth v. Gray
green
2 sentences1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Commonwealth v. Upton
green
2 sentences1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 1988State v. Kinibro, 197 Conn. 219 , 496 A.2d 498, 501 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless arrest and search under state constitution); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 , 488 N.E.2d 439, 444-45 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 623-24 (1985) (rejecting Gates test for warrantless searches under state constitution); cf. State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317 (Alaska 1985) (rejecting Gates test for search based on a warrant under state constitution); Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 , 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (same); Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985) (same); State v. Jackson, 102 Wash.2d 432 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences1988In Lee v. State, 311 Md. 642 , 537 A.2d 235 (1988), this Court found there was no probable cause based on an informant’s tip under the Gates test at a particular point in police investigation. 1988In Lee v. State, 311 Md. 642 , 537 A.2d 235 (1988), this Court found there was no probable cause based on an informant’s tip under the Gates test at a particular point in police investigation. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
United States v. Luis Carlos Mendoza and Oscar Tabares
green
2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| United States v. George Reed, Paul Sheary, Johnathan Riebli, Thomas Schenk, Peter Miller green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Jefferson v. United States
green
2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Eisenhauer v. State red | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Love v. United States
green
2 sentences1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert 1988Cases applying the Gates standard in warrantless situations include United States v. Gonzalez, 835 F.2d 449, 450-51 (2d Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023-25 (1st Cir.1987) (applying Gates to warrantless arrest under the federal constitution); United States v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1986) (applying Gates to warrantless search under the federal constitution); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.1985) (applying Gates to warrant-less arrest under the federal constitution), cert | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Eisenhauer v. Texas green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| United States v. Ernest Estrada, Jr., Tony F. Estrada, and George Gorman green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| United States v. Peltier green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.