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.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 3 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. Fewsgreen2 sentences2026(E.g., People v. McGee, supra, at p. 804 [officers saw “unsealed bag of marijuana in the passenger’s cleavage”]; People v. Fews (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 553, 562 [driver admitted half-burnt 3 We do not suggest that bloodshot and/or watery eyes could be evidence of an open container violation in other circumstances. 2026(E.g., People v. McGee, supra, at p. 804 [officers saw “unsealed bag of marijuana in the passenger’s cleavage”]; People v. Fews (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 553, 562 [driver admitted half-burnt 3 We do not suggest that bloodshot and/or watery eyes could be evidence of an open container violation in other circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Celisgreen1 sentence2024(See, e.g., People v. Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 673 [“ ‘ “The substance of all the definitions of 2 The magistrate understandably rejected the argument that there could be an open container violation where there was no container but reasoned that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle because the loose marijuana they observed was “contraband” under Vehicle Code section 23222, subdivision (b). | 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. Chapman
green
2 sentences2018These circumstances are akin to the open container rule for alcohol. "[T]here is no quarrel with the legal proposition that, after observing the open container of alcohol, the officers had the right to search the vehicle for additional containers of alcohol." ( People v. Chapman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 253 , 256, 274 Cal.Rptr. 47 .) 2018These circumstances are akin to the open container rule for alcohol. "[T]here is no quarrel with the legal proposition that, after observing the open container of alcohol, the officers had the right to search the vehicle for additional containers of alcohol." ( People v. Chapman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 253 , 256, 274 Cal.Rptr. 47 .) | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Souza
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 227 , 233–235.) The totality of the circumstances supports the reasonableness, and length, of the detention. 2013(People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 227 , 233–235.) The totality of the circumstances supports the reasonableness, and length, of the detention. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Souza
green
1 sentence2025For instance, the issue in People v. Souza (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1646 (Souza) was whether the trial court should have suppressed evidence seized as a result of an automobile search carried out after an officer observed the defendant driving erratically and appearing nervous during an ensuing traffic stop, and saw a cardboard box containing beer bottles, as well as a bottle of tequila that had been opened, directly behind the driver’s seat. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.