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 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1972–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rivera-Corraliza v. Puig-Moralesgreen2 sentences2025This "test is a carefully-drawn screen that we—and all courts—must jealously protect, lest this particular warrantless-search exception destroy the Fourth Amendment" ( Rivera-Corraliza v Morales , 794 F3d 208, 217 [1st Cir 2015]). 2025This "test is a carefully-drawn screen that we—and all courts—must jealously protect, lest this particular warrantless-search exception destroy the Fourth Amendment" ( Rivera-Corraliza v Morales , 794 F3d 208, 217 [1st Cir 2015]). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of America v. Julius Gravesgreen1 sentence2013The balancing test to be applied where, as here, the petitioner complains of a warrantless search in violation of his privacy rights is: “(1) the nature of the privacy interest involved; (2) the character and degree of the governmental intrusion; and (3) the nature and immediacy of the government’s needs” (United States v Amerson, 483 F3d 73, 83-84 [2d Cir 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jones
green
1 sentence2013Defendant, however, relies on the decisions of the United State Supreme Court in United States v Jones (565 US —, 132 S Ct 945 [2012]) and the New York Court of Appeals in People v Weaver ( 12 NY3d 433 [2009]) to support his contention that the pinging of his cell phone constituted an unreasonable search in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Weaver
green
1 sentence2013Defendant, however, relies on the decisions of the United State Supreme Court in United States v Jones (565 US —, 132 S Ct 945 [2012]) and the New York Court of Appeals in People v Weaver ( 12 NY3d 433 [2009]) to support his contention that the pinging of his cell phone constituted an unreasonable search in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Place
green
1 sentence1990The Thomas court distinguished Place (supra) and other canine sniff cases, reasoning that a defendant has a greater expectation of privacy in the contents of his apartment than in the contents of luggage that has been placed in the custody of a common carrier. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Karmun v. Commissioner
green
1 sentence1990Wheelings v United States, 474 US 819 ) which held that a dog sniff at a dwelling is a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Miller v. United States
green
1 sentence1972This is particularly well expressed in Miller v. United States ( 357 U. S. 301, 313 , supra [1958]), where the court said: “We are duly mindful of the reliance that society must place for achieving law and order upon the enforcing agencies of the criminal law. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.