54 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2025 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peña v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Consent and the existence of exigent circumstances are two of the exceptions to the warrant requirement." Pena v. State, 2004 WY 115 , ¶ 29, 98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo.2004); Meadows v. State, 2003 WY 37, ¶ 24 , 65 P.3d 33, 40 (Wyo. 2003). 2006Id. [¶ 17] This Court has considered the applicability of the emergency assistance exception to the warrant requirement in two prior cases. | 8 | 11 |
Vassar v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Alexander v. State, 2023 WY 127, ¶ 13 , 540 P.3d 232, 236 (Wyo. 2023); Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 13 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo. 2004). “[I]nventory searches are . . . a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 , 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 , 93 L. 2025Alexander v. State, 2023 WY 127, ¶ 13 , 540 P.3d 232, 236 (Wyo. 2023); Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 13 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo. 2004). “[I]nventory searches are . . . a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 , 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 , 93 L. | 8 | 9 |
Andrews v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See also, Baker, ¶ 10, 223 P.3d at 547 (recognizing “a search conducted while in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect” is an exception to the warrant requirement (quoting Andrews v. State, 2002 WY 28, ¶ 18 , 40 P.3d 708, 712 (Wyo. 2002)). 2021See also, Baker, ¶ 10, 223 P.3d at 547 (recognizing “a search conducted while in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect” is an exception to the warrant requirement (quoting Andrews v. State, 2002 WY 28, ¶ 18 , 40 P.3d 708, 712 (Wyo. 2002)). | 7 | 7 |
Meadows v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Consent and the existence of exigent circumstances are two of the exceptions to the warrant requirement." Pena v. State, 2004 WY 115 , ¶ 29, 98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo.2004); Meadows v. State, 2003 WY 37, ¶ 24 , 65 P.3d 33, 40 (Wyo. 2003). 2007Consent and the existence of exigent circumstances are two of the exceptions to the warrant requirement." Pena v. State, 2004 WY 115 , ¶ 29, 98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo.2004); Meadows v. State, 2003 WY 37, ¶ 24 , 65 P.3d 33, 40 (Wyo. 2003). | 4 | 4 |
Tucker v. Stategreen2 sentences2023“Under the Fourth Amendment, warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” Phippen v. State, 2013 WY 30, ¶ 13 , 297 P.3d 104, 108 (Wyo. 2013) (citing Tucker v. State, 2009 WY 107, ¶ 22 , 214 P.3d 236, 243 (Wyo. 2009)). 2023“Under the Fourth Amendment, warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” Phippen v. State, 2013 WY 30, ¶ 13 , 297 P.3d 104, 108 (Wyo. 2013) (citing Tucker v. State, 2009 WY 107, ¶ 22 , 214 P.3d 236, 243 (Wyo. 2009)). | 3 | 4 |
United States v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2025Speten v. State, 2008 WY 63, ¶ 16 , 185 P.3d 25, 30 (Wyo. 2008); United States v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 2010). [¶12] Mr. Serini contends the State failed to meet its burden of showing the search and seizure of his backpack was reasonable. 2025Speten v. State, 2008 WY 63, ¶ 16 , 185 P.3d 25, 30 (Wyo. 2008); United States v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 2010). [¶12] Mr. Serini contends the State failed to meet its burden of showing the search and seizure of his backpack was reasonable. | 2 | 2 |
Darrell Leonardo Alexander v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2025Alexander v. State, 2023 WY 127, ¶ 13 , 540 P.3d 232, 236 (Wyo. 2023); Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 13 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo. 2004). “[I]nventory searches are . . . a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 , 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 , 93 L. 2025Alexander v. State, 2023 WY 127, ¶ 13 , 540 P.3d 232, 236 (Wyo. 2023); Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 13 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo. 2004). “[I]nventory searches are . . . a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 , 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 , 93 L. | 2 | 2 |
Speten v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Speten v. State, 2008 WY 63, ¶ 16 , 185 P.3d 25, 30 (Wyo. 2008); United States v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 2010). [¶12] Mr. Serini contends the State failed to meet its burden of showing the search and seizure of his backpack was reasonable. 2025Speten v. State, 2008 WY 63, ¶ 16 , 185 P.3d 25, 30 (Wyo. 2008); United States v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 2010). [¶12] Mr. Serini contends the State failed to meet its burden of showing the search and seizure of his backpack was reasonable. | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“A search conducted pursuant to valid consent is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (citing Johnson v. State, 2010 WY 47, ¶ 7 , 228 P.3d 1306, 1310 (Wyo. 2010). 2024“A search conducted pursuant to valid consent is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (citing Johnson v. State, 2010 WY 47, ¶ 7 , 228 P.3d 1306, 1310 (Wyo. 2010). | 2 | 2 |
Fenton v. Stategreen2 sentences2023E.g., Fenton v. State, 2007 WY 51, ¶ 2 , 154 P.3d 974, 975 (Wyo. 2007) (quoting Pena v. State, 2004 WY 115, ¶ 29 , 98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo. 2004)); see also Fuller, ¶ 10, 481 P.3d at 1133. [¶17] Officer Warren and the other officers entered Mr. Woods’ home without any type of warrant to effectuate a warrantless arrest because they had probable cause to believe Mr. Woods committed a misdemeanor crime. 2023E.g., Fenton v. State, 2007 WY 51, ¶ 2 , 154 P.3d 974, 975 (Wyo. 2007) (quoting Pena v. State, 2004 WY 115, ¶ 29 , 98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo. 2004)); see also Fuller, ¶ 10, 481 P.3d at 1133. [¶17] Officer Warren and the other officers entered Mr. Woods’ home without any type of warrant to effectuate a warrantless arrest because they had probable cause to believe Mr. Woods committed a misdemeanor crime. | 2 | 2 |
McKenney v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See also McKenney v. State, 2007 WY 129, ¶ 8 , 165 P.3d 96, 98 (Wyo.2007), defining the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as "a search and/or seizure of an automobile upon probable cause." Probable cause justifying a stop and search of a vehicle is established if, under the totality of the cireumstances, there is a fair probability that the car contains contraband or evidence of a crime. 2009See also McKenney v. State, 2007 WY 129, ¶ 8 , 165 P.3d 96, 98 (Wyo.2007), defining the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as "a search and/or seizure of an automobile upon probable cause." Probable cause justifying a stop and search of a vehicle is established if, under the totality of the cireumstances, there is a fair probability that the car contains contraband or evidence of a crime. | 2 | 2 |
Hunter v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Hunter v. State, 704 P.2d 713, 715 (Wyo.1985); Neilson v. State, 599 P.2d 1326, 1337 (Wyo.1979); State v. Munger, 43 Wyo. 404, 408 , 4 P.2d 1094, 1095 (1931). 1998The Supreme Court of the United States has unequivocally held that "[t]he scope of a warrantless search based on probable cause is no narrowerand no broader than the scope of a search authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause." United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 823 , 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2172 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) ( quoted in Hunter v. State, 704 P.2d 713, 717 (Wyo.1985), detailing the line of cases leading to the holding in Ross ). | 2 | 2 |
Neilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Hunter v. State, 704 P.2d 713, 715 (Wyo.1985); Neilson v. State, 599 P.2d 1326, 1337 (Wyo.1979); State v. Munger, 43 Wyo. 404, 408 , 4 P.2d 1094, 1095 (1931). 2008We have recognized that the inherent mobility of vehicles and the diminished expectation *375 of privacy involved in the use and regulation of automobiles "permit warrantless searches of automobiles in circumstances in which warrantless searches would not be reasonable in other contexts." Neilson v. State, 599 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Wyo.1979). | 2 | 2 |
| Ortega v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Mickelson v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204 (a) states: (a) A person commits a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both, if he knowingly obstructs, impedes or interferes with or resists arrest by a peace officer while engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties. (emphasis added). [¶12] This Court has stated “[t]he legality of [a defendant’s] arrest . . . is elemental” to the crime of interference with a peace officer because such interference “is not a crime unless the officer is ‘engaged in the lawful perfor 2022Mickelson, 906 P.2d at 1022 (“[E]fforts to establish consent via post hoc colloquy with the owner ran afoul of the proposition that such action must be ‘justified at its inception . . . .’”) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)); see also Shrum, 908 F.3d at 1232 (“The initial legality of a [search] turns on the facts and circumstances known to the police at the time of the [search] rather than on facts and circumstances subsequently discovered.”); State v. Ellis, 210 P.3d 144, 153 (Mont. 2009) (“[T]o be valid and qualify as an exception to the wa | 1 | 4 |
Hughes v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Hughes [v. State ], [ 2003 WY 35 ,] ¶ 11, [ 65 P.3d 378, 382 (Wyo.2003) ] (citing Andrews v. State, 2002 WY 28, ¶ 18 , 40 P.3d 708, ¶ 18 (Wyo.2002)). 2008Hughes [v. State ], [ 2003 WY 35 ,] ¶ 11, [ 65 P.3d 378, 382 (Wyo.2003) ] (citing Andrews v. State, 2002 WY 28, ¶ 18 , 40 P.3d 708, ¶ 18 (Wyo.2002)). | 1 | 3 |
Owens v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable unless they are justified by probable cause and an established exception to the warrant requirement.” Sen v. State, 2013 WY 47, ¶ 26 , 301 P.3d 106, 117 (Wyo. 2013) (citing Owens v. State, 2012 WY 14, ¶ 10 , 269 P.3d 1093, 1096 (Wyo. 2012)). 2024“Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable unless they are justified by probable cause and an established exception to the warrant requirement.” Sen v. State, 2013 WY 47, ¶ 26 , 301 P.3d 106, 117 (Wyo. 2013) (citing Owens v. State, 2012 WY 14, ¶ 10 , 269 P.3d 1093, 1096 (Wyo. 2012)). | 1 | 2 |
Callaway v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Tucker v. State, 2009 WY 107, ¶ 22 , 214 P.3d 236, 243 (Wyo.2009); Callaway v. State, 954 P.2d 1365, 1370 (Wyo.1998). 2009Id. | 1 | 2 |
Vasquez v. Stategreen2 sentences2007However, using federal law as a guide, states may also conclude that the seope of the protection provided by their constitution is the same as and parallel to that provided by the federal constitution.... [[Image here]] ... [TJhis Court historically has interpreted Wyoming's search and seizure provision as forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures and has said the question of whether a search or seizure was reasonable was one of law to be decided from all the circumstances. [Vasquez, 990 P.2d at 484 .] Beyond this general reasonableness standard, and the warrant requirement specifically me 2007However, using federal law as a guide, states may also conclude that the scope of the protection provided by their constitution is the same as and parallel to that provided by the federal constitution. . . . . . . . . . . [T]his Court historically has interpreted Wyoming's search and seizure provision as forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures and has said the question of whether a search or seizure was reasonable was one of law to be decided from all the circumstances. [ Masquez, 990 P.2d at 484 .] Beyond this general reasonableness standard, and the warrant requirement specifically men | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Troudtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| S. Myron Klarfeld v. United States of America United States District Court United States Marshalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mcmorris v. Aliotogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Flood v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dharminder Vir Sen v. The State of Wyominggreen | 1 | 1 |
| DAY v. the STATE.green | 1 | 1 |
| Custer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State of Washington v. Lanny Lee Griffithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Gillespiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Myron Martize Woods v. The State of Wyominggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Connor Timothy Corrigan Phippen v. The State of Wyominggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ellisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Guillengreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Shrumgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Warwickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ramirezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Caleb Aaron Campbellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| O'BOYLE v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mungergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rideout v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pena v. State
green
2 sentences2023E.g., Fenton v. State, 2007 WY 51, ¶ 2 , 154 P.3d 974, 975 (Wyo. 2007) (quoting Pena v. State, 2004 WY 115, ¶ 29 , 98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo. 2004)); see also Fuller, ¶ 10, 481 P.3d at 1133. [¶17] Officer Warren and the other officers entered Mr. Woods’ home without any type of warrant to effectuate a warrantless arrest because they had probable cause to believe Mr. Woods committed a misdemeanor crime. 2007Consent and the existence of exigent circumstances are two of the exceptions to the warrant requirement." Pena v. State, 2004 WY 115 , ¶ 29, 98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo.2004); Meadows v. State, 2003 WY 37, ¶ 24 , 65 P.3d 33, 40 (Wyo. 2003). | 9 | 2005–2023 |
Carroll v. United States
green
2 sentences2008We assume that, by the "Carroll doctrine," the prosecutor was referring to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as recognized in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). 2008We assume that, by the "Carroll doctrine," the prosecutor was referring to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as recognized in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). | 3 | 1998–2009 |
Mincey v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2004The motion to suppress was denied. [¶28] Pena contends that there is neither a trained investigator nor a crime scene exception to the warrant requirement as decided in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), and Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 , 120 S.Ct. 7 , 145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999). 2004The motion to suppress was denied. [¶28] Pena contends that there is neither a trained investigator nor a crime scene exception to the warrant requirement as decided in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), and Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 , 120 S.Ct. 7 , 145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999). | 3 | 1983–2004 |
Colorado v. Bertine
green
2 sentences2025Alexander v. State, 2023 WY 127, ¶ 13 , 540 P.3d 232, 236 (Wyo. 2023); Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 13 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo. 2004). “[I]nventory searches are . . . a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 , 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 , 93 L. 2025Alexander v. State, 2023 WY 127, ¶ 13 , 540 P.3d 232, 236 (Wyo. 2023); Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 13 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo. 2004). “[I]nventory searches are . . . a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 , 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 , 93 L. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2022Mickelson, 906 P.2d at 1022 (“[E]fforts to establish consent via post hoc colloquy with the owner ran afoul of the proposition that such action must be ‘justified at its inception . . . .’”) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)); see also Shrum, 908 F.3d at 1232 (“The initial legality of a [search] turns on the facts and circumstances known to the police at the time of the [search] rather than on facts and circumstances subsequently discovered.”); State v. Ellis, 210 P.3d 144, 153 (Mont. 2009) (“[T]o be valid and qualify as an exception to the wa 2022Mickelson, 906 P.2d at 1022 (“[E]fforts to establish consent via post hoc colloquy with the owner ran afoul of the proposition that such action must be ‘justified at its inception . . . .’”) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)); see also Shrum, 908 F.3d at 1232 (“The initial legality of a [search] turns on the facts and circumstances known to the police at the time of the [search] rather than on facts and circumstances subsequently discovered.”); State v. Ellis, 210 P.3d 144, 153 (Mont. 2009) (“[T]o be valid and qualify as an exception to the wa | 2 | 2022–2024 |
Payton v. New York
green
2 sentences2023Mickelson II, 906 P.2d at 1023 (citing Payton, 445 U.S. at 589–90); Allen, 813 F.3d at 88–89. 2023Mickelson II, 906 P.2d at 1023 (citing Payton, 445 U.S. at 589–90); Allen, 813 F.3d at 88–89. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Silverman v. United States
green
2 sentences2023Ed. 2d 94 (2001) (“[A]ny physical invasion of the structure of the home, ‘by even a fraction of an inch,’ was too much . . . and there is certainly no exception to the warrant requirement for the officer who barely cracks open the front door and sees nothing but the nonintimate rug on the vestibule floor.” (citing Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512 , 81 S. Ct. 679 , 5 L. 2023Ed. 2d 94 (2001) (“[A]ny physical invasion of the structure of the home, ‘by even a fraction of an inch,’ was too much . . . and there is certainly no exception to the warrant requirement for the officer who barely cracks open the front door and sees nothing but the nonintimate rug on the vestibule floor.” (citing Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512 , 81 S. Ct. 679 , 5 L. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Santana
green
2 sentences2023At oral argument, however, the State asserted that the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement applied, citing to United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 , 96 S. Ct. 2406 , 49 L. 2023At oral argument, however, the State asserted that the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement applied, citing to United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 , 96 S. Ct. 2406 , 49 L. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Allen
green
2 sentences2023Mickelson II, 906 P.2d at 1023 (citing Payton, 445 U.S. at 589–90); Allen, 813 F.3d at 88–89. 2023Mickelson II, 906 P.2d at 1023 (citing Payton, 445 U.S. at 589–90); Allen, 813 F.3d at 88–89. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Dickeson v. State
green
2 sentences2020Dickeson, 843 P.2d at 611 . 2002Dickeson, 843 P.2d at 613 . | 2 | 2002–2020 |
Horton v. California
green
2 sentences2004Some of these boxes had pictures such as a marijuana leaf on them and a marijuana leaf on a wooden box was, according to Trooper Guen-ther, "commonly associated" with such a stash box." The wooden box's incriminating *995 character was therefore immediately apparent and Trooper Guenther had probable cause to seize the wooden box. [T19] For the same reasons, we also find that Trooper Guenther had probable cause to search the wooden stash box. 7 The "seizure" of a container pursuant to the plain view doctrine "does not compromise the interest in preserving the privacy of its contents because it 2004Some of these boxes had pictures such as a marijuana leaf on them and a marijuana leaf on a wooden box was, according to Trooper Guen-ther, "commonly associated" with such a stash box." The wooden box's incriminating *995 character was therefore immediately apparent and Trooper Guenther had probable cause to seize the wooden box. [T19] For the same reasons, we also find that Trooper Guenther had probable cause to search the wooden stash box. 7 The "seizure" of a container pursuant to the plain view doctrine "does not compromise the interest in preserving the privacy of its contents because it | 2 | 2001–2004 |
Flippo v. West Virginia
green
2 sentences2004The motion to suppress was denied. [¶28] Pena contends that there is neither a trained investigator nor a crime scene exception to the warrant requirement as decided in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), and Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 , 120 S.Ct. 7 , 145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999). 2004The motion to suppress was denied. [¶28] Pena contends that there is neither a trained investigator nor a crime scene exception to the warrant requirement as decided in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), and Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 , 120 S.Ct. 7 , 145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Jones v. State green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| City of L. A. v. Patel green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Dillon Wayne Fuller v. The State of Wyoming green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Bryan Robinson v. The State of Wyoming green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| California v. Carney green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Cady v. Dombrowski green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Missouri v. McNeely green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Javorina v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Bustos v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Allison green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Maryland v. Dyson green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Michigan v. Clifford green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Chimel v. California red | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| In re Skolnick green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| South Dakota v. Opperman green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| United States v. Ross green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Arkansas v. Sanders red | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Gore v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.