distinction between a suppression hearing (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

distinction between a suppression hearing in Texas

8 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2010 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas 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.

Followed or applied (13)

CaseFollowedCited
Illinois v. Gatesgreen
scotus · 1983 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2006
2 sentences

2006App. 2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing, at which additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). 4: See Gates , 462 U.S. at 239 , 103 S. Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State , 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex. Crim.

2006App. 2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing, at which additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). 4: See Gates , 462 U.S. at 239 , 103 S. Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State , 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex. Crim.

34
Jones v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1992 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2006
2 sentences

2006Ann. art. 18.01(b) (Vernon 2005); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 123 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 1285 , 122 L.Ed.2d 678 (1993); cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing, at which additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). 4 .

2005Ann. art. 18.01(b) (Vernon Supp.2004-05); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 123 (Tex.Crim.App.) cert, denied, 507 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 1285 , 122 L.Ed.2d 678 (1993); cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing where additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). .

33
Hennessy v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1983 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2006
2 sentences

2006App. 2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing, at which additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). 4: See Gates , 462 U.S. at 239 , 103 S. Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State , 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex. Crim.

2006See Gates, 462 U.S. at 239 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1983). 5 .

33
Bower v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2006
2 sentences

2006App. [Panel Op.] 1983). 5: Gates , 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S. Ct. at 2331 . 6: Id. at 230, 103 S. Ct. at 2328 . 7: Id. at 241-42, 103 S. Ct. at 2334 . 8: Id. at 233, 103 S. Ct. at 2329 . 9: Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S. Ct. 2674, 2676 (1978). 10: Gates , 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S. Ct. at 2331 ; see Bower v. State , 769 S.W.2d 887, 902 (Tex. Crim.

2005IV. [4] Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (op. on reh'g). [5] Frazier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 375, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). [6] Ellis v. State, 722 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no pet.). [7] Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S.Ct. at 2331 ; Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [8] Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding that the informant's basis of knowledge, or reliability, along with his veracity, or credibility, are relevant considerations in the totality of the circ

22
Cassias v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1986 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005IV. 4: Cassias v. State , 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex. Crim.

2005IV. [4] Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (op. on reh'g). [5] Frazier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 375, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). [6] Ellis v. State, 722 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no pet.). [7] Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S.Ct. at 2331 ; Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [8] Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding that the informant's basis of knowledge, or reliability, along with his veracity, or credibility, are relevant considerations in the totality of the circ

22
Cates v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2003 · cited in 6 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2010
2 sentences

2010Cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n.3 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing where additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit).

2010Cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n.3 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing where additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit).

16
Franks v. Delawaregreen
scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006App. [Panel Op.] 1983). 5: Gates , 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S. Ct. at 2331 . 6: Id. at 230, 103 S. Ct. at 2328 . 7: Id. at 241-42, 103 S. Ct. at 2334 . 8: Id. at 233, 103 S. Ct. at 2329 . 9: Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S. Ct. 2674, 2676 (1978). 10: Gates , 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S. Ct. at 2331 ; see Bower v. State , 769 S.W.2d 887, 902 (Tex. Crim.

2006App. [Panel Op.] 1983). 5: Gates , 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S. Ct. at 2331 . 6: Id. at 230, 103 S. Ct. at 2328 . 7: Id. at 241-42, 103 S. Ct. at 2334 . 8: Id. at 233, 103 S. Ct. at 2329 . 9: Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S. Ct. 2674, 2676 (1978). 10: Gates , 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S. Ct. at 2331 ; see Bower v. State , 769 S.W.2d 887, 902 (Tex. Crim.

11
Ellis v. Stategreen
texapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005IV. [4] Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (op. on reh'g). [5] Frazier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 375, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). [6] Ellis v. State, 722 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no pet.). [7] Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S.Ct. at 2331 ; Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [8] Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding that the informant's basis of knowledge, or reliability, along with his veracity, or credibility, are relevant considerations in the totality of the circ

11
Swearingen v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005IV. [4] Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (op. on reh'g). [5] Frazier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 375, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). [6] Ellis v. State, 722 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no pet.). [7] Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S.Ct. at 2331 ; Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [8] Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding that the informant's basis of knowledge, or reliability, along with his veracity, or credibility, are relevant considerations in the totality of the circ

2005IV. [4] Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (op. on reh'g). [5] Frazier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 375, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). [6] Ellis v. State, 722 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no pet.). [7] Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S.Ct. at 2331 ; Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [8] Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding that the informant's basis of knowledge, or reliability, along with his veracity, or credibility, are relevant considerations in the totality of the circ

11
Frazier v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1972 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005IV. [4] Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (op. on reh'g). [5] Frazier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 375, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). [6] Ellis v. State, 722 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no pet.). [7] Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S.Ct. at 2331 ; Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [8] Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding that the informant's basis of knowledge, or reliability, along with his veracity, or credibility, are relevant considerations in the totality of the circ

11
Deford v. Soo Line Railroadgreen
scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005IV. [4] Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (op. on reh'g). [5] Frazier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 375, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). [6] Ellis v. State, 722 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no pet.). [7] Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S.Ct. at 2331 ; Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [8] Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding that the informant's basis of knowledge, or reliability, along with his veracity, or credibility, are relevant considerations in the totality of the circ

11
Fleming v. Mooregreen
scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005IV. [4] Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (op. on reh'g). [5] Frazier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 375, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). [6] Ellis v. State, 722 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no pet.). [7] Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S.Ct. at 2331 ; Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [8] Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding that the informant's basis of knowledge, or reliability, along with his veracity, or credibility, are relevant considerations in the totality of the circ

11
Heitman v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005IV. [4] Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (op. on reh'g). [5] Frazier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 375, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). [6] Ellis v. State, 722 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no pet.). [7] Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 , 103 S.Ct. at 2331 ; Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [8] Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct. at 2332 ; Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (holding that the informant's basis of knowledge, or reliability, along with his veracity, or credibility, are relevant considerations in the totality of the circ

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Milam v. United States green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2006Ann. art. 18.01(b) (Vernon 2005); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 123 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 1285 , 122 L.Ed.2d 678 (1993); cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing, at which additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). 4 .

2005Ann. art. 18.01(b) (Vernon Supp.2004-05); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 123 (Tex.Crim.App.) cert, denied, 507 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 1285 , 122 L.Ed.2d 678 (1993); cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing where additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). .

32004–2006
Jones v. Texas green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2006Ann. art. 18.01(b) (Vernon 2005); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 123 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 1285 , 122 L.Ed.2d 678 (1993); cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing, at which additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). 4 .

2005Ann. art. 18.01(b) (Vernon Supp.2004-05); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 123 (Tex.Crim.App.) cert, denied, 507 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 1285 , 122 L.Ed.2d 678 (1993); cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing where additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). .

32004–2006
Span v. United States green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2006Ann. art. 18.01(b) (Vernon 2005); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 123 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 1285 , 122 L.Ed.2d 678 (1993); cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing, at which additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). 4 .

2005Ann. art. 18.01(b) (Vernon Supp.2004-05); Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 123 (Tex.Crim.App.) cert, denied, 507 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 1285 , 122 L.Ed.2d 678 (1993); cf. Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 , 355 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (setting forth the distinction between a suppression hearing and a Franks hearing where additional evidence may be admitted to show the falsity of assertions within an affidavit). .

32004–2006

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check