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 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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. Bertramgreen2 sentences2023“The determination of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy * * * is a two-tiered analysis: (1) the defendant must have a ‘subjective expectation of privacy,’ and (2) the expectation must also be ‘one that society accepts as objectively reasonable.’” Quinlan, 921 A.2d at 109 (quoting State v. Bertram, 591 A.2d 14, 19 (R.I. 1991)). 2015“The determination of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus standing, is a two-tiered analysis: (1) the defendant must have a ‘subjective expectation of privacy,’ and (2) the expectation must also be ‘one that society accepts as objectively reasonable.’” Quinlan, 921 A.2d at 109 (quoting State v. Bertram, 591 A.2d 14, 19 (R.I. 1991)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Casasgreen2 sentences2015We look at several factors, such as “whether the suspect possessed or owned the area searched or the property seized; his or her prior use of the area searched or the property seized; the person’s ability to control or exclude others’ use of the property; and the person’s legitimate presence in the area searched.” State v. Casas, 900 A.2d 1120, 1130 (R.I. 2006) (quoting State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115, 1127 (R.I. 2005)). 5 As the hearing justice noted, defendant did not contest the legality of the stop below, nor does he contest it on appeal. -6- In our opinion, defendant had no reasonable expec 2011The Court uses a two-tiered analysis to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus standing: "(1) the defendant must have a `subjective expectation of privacy,' and (2) the expectation must also be `one that society accepts as objectively reasonable.'" Id. (quoting Bertram , 591 A.2d at 19 ) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lindegreen1 sentence2015We look at several factors, such as “whether the suspect possessed or owned the area searched or the property seized; his or her prior use of the area searched or the property seized; the person’s ability to control or exclude others’ use of the property; and the person’s legitimate presence in the area searched.” State v. Casas, 900 A.2d 1120, 1130 (R.I. 2006) (quoting State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115, 1127 (R.I. 2005)). 5 As the hearing justice noted, defendant did not contest the legality of the stop below, nor does he contest it on appeal. -6- In our opinion, defendant had no reasonable expec | 1 | 1 |
Environmental Scientific Corp. v. Durfeegreen1 sentence2005Under this two-tiered standard of review, such deference is warranted because the CRMC has already reviewed the subcommittee's findings, and the farther away an official is "when he or she evaluates the adjudicative process, the more deference should be owed to the factfinder." Id. at 208. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maldonadogreen2 sentences1990E.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987); 3 Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204-05 (1st Cir.1987) (and cases cited); Manocchio v. Moran, 708 F.Supp. 473, 475 (D.R.I.1989); State v. *1223 Maldonado, 13 Conn.App. 368, 375 , 536 A.2d 600, 604 (1988); Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 637-38 , 492 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1986); State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744, 753-54 (R.I.1982). 1990E.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987); 3 Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204-05 (1st Cir.1987) (and cases cited); Manocchio v. Moran, 708 F.Supp. 473, 475 (D.R.I.1989); State v. *1223 Maldonado, 13 Conn.App. 368, 375 , 536 A.2d 600, 604 (1988); Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 637-38 , 492 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1986); State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744, 753-54 (R.I.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Manocchio v. Morangreen1 sentence1990E.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987); 3 Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204-05 (1st Cir.1987) (and cases cited); Manocchio v. Moran, 708 F.Supp. 473, 475 (D.R.I.1989); State v. *1223 Maldonado, 13 Conn.App. 368, 375 , 536 A.2d 600, 604 (1988); Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 637-38 , 492 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1986); State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744, 753-54 (R.I.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Joseph A. Puleio v. George A. Vose, Jr., Etc.green1 sentence1990E.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987); 3 Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204-05 (1st Cir.1987) (and cases cited); Manocchio v. Moran, 708 F.Supp. 473, 475 (D.R.I.1989); State v. *1223 Maldonado, 13 Conn.App. 368, 375 , 536 A.2d 600, 604 (1988); Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 637-38 , 492 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1986); State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744, 753-54 (R.I.1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anthonygreen1 sentence1990E.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987); 3 Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204-05 (1st Cir.1987) (and cases cited); Manocchio v. Moran, 708 F.Supp. 473, 475 (D.R.I.1989); State v. *1223 Maldonado, 13 Conn.App. 368, 375 , 536 A.2d 600, 604 (1988); Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 637-38 , 492 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1986); State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744, 753-54 (R.I.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Trigonesgreen2 sentences1990E.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987); 3 Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204-05 (1st Cir.1987) (and cases cited); Manocchio v. Moran, 708 F.Supp. 473, 475 (D.R.I.1989); State v. *1223 Maldonado, 13 Conn.App. 368, 375 , 536 A.2d 600, 604 (1988); Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 637-38 , 492 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1986); State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744, 753-54 (R.I.1982). 1990E.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987); 3 Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204-05 (1st Cir.1987) (and cases cited); Manocchio v. Moran, 708 F.Supp. 473, 475 (D.R.I.1989); State v. *1223 Maldonado, 13 Conn.App. 368, 375 , 536 A.2d 600, 604 (1988); Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 637-38 , 492 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1986); State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744, 753-54 (R.I.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Bourjaily v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1990E.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987); 3 Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204-05 (1st Cir.1987) (and cases cited); Manocchio v. Moran, 708 F.Supp. 473, 475 (D.R.I.1989); State v. *1223 Maldonado, 13 Conn.App. 368, 375 , 536 A.2d 600, 604 (1988); Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 637-38 , 492 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1986); State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744, 753-54 (R.I.1982). 1990E.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987); 3 Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204-05 (1st Cir.1987) (and cases cited); Manocchio v. Moran, 708 F.Supp. 473, 475 (D.R.I.1989); State v. *1223 Maldonado, 13 Conn.App. 368, 375 , 536 A.2d 600, 604 (1988); Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 637-38 , 492 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1986); State v. Anthony, 448 A.2d 744, 753-54 (R.I.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Quinlan
green
2 sentences2023“The determination of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy * * * is a two-tiered analysis: (1) the defendant must have a ‘subjective expectation of privacy,’ and (2) the expectation must also be ‘one that society accepts as objectively reasonable.’” Quinlan, 921 A.2d at 109 (quoting State v. Bertram, 591 A.2d 14, 19 (R.I. 1991)). 2015“The determination of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus standing, is a two-tiered analysis: (1) the defendant must have a ‘subjective expectation of privacy,’ and (2) the expectation must also be ‘one that society accepts as objectively reasonable.’” Quinlan, 921 A.2d at 109 (quoting State v. Bertram, 591 A.2d 14, 19 (R.I. 1991)). | 2 | 2015–2023 |
California v. Greenwood
green
2 sentences2007The determination of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus standing, is a two-tiered analysis: (1) the defendant must have a “subjective expectation of privacy,” and (2) the expectation must also be “one that society accepts as objectively reasonable.” Bertram, 591 A.2d at 19 (citing California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 39 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988)). 2007The determination of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus standing, is a two-tiered analysis: (1) the defendant must have a “subjective expectation of privacy,” and (2) the expectation must also be “one that society accepts as objectively reasonable.” Bertram, 591 A.2d at 19 (citing California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 39 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 , 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. DeLomba
green
1 sentence1998The definitive Rhode Island case in this area is State v. DeLomba, 370 A.2d 1273 (1977). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Andrew Jackson Robertson
green
2 sentences1994The Robertson court concentrated specifically on the accused’s perception of the discussions and developed a two-tiered analysis in order to determine whether discussions were in fact plea discussions under Federal Rule of Evidence 410. 582 F.2d at 1366 . 1994“The trial court must apply a two-tiered analysis and determine, first, whether the accused exhibited an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of the discussion, and, second, whether the accused’s expectation was reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances.” Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.