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 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Illinois v. Krullgreen1 sentence2016See Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 347 (1987) (discussing federal exclusionary rule). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Williams, 726 S.W.2d at 101 (holding search of defendant’s person valid because arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for previously observed parking violation); State v. Morales, 322 S.W.3d 297 , 299–300 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (upholding search yielding narcotics paraphernalia based on previously obtained probable cause to arrest defendant for Transportation Code violations). 2015See Williams, 726 S.W.2d at 101 (holding search of defendant’s person valid because arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for previously observed parking violation); State v. Morales, 322 S.W.3d 297 , 299–300 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (upholding search yielding narcotics paraphernalia based on previously obtained probable cause to arrest defendant for Transportation Code violations). | 1 | 1 |
McQuarters v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Because we agree with the Department, we decline to address whether the evidence produced objectively reasonable suspicion of a transportation code violation. 6 and had “cross[ed] the left lane stripe nearest to the center median twice.” 58 S.W.3d 250, 253 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. JLgreen2 sentences2002Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 266, 270 , 120 S. Ct. 1375, 1378 (2000); Guevara v. State , 6 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). 2002Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 266, 270 , 120 S. Ct. 1375, 1378 (2000); Guevara v. State , 6 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Guevara v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 266, 270 , 120 S. Ct. 1375, 1378 (2000); Guevara v. State , 6 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Freeman, Corey Thomas
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 292 . 2020Id. at 292 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Morales
green
2 sentences2015See Williams, 726 S.W.2d at 101 (holding search of defendant’s person valid because arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for previously observed parking violation); State v. Morales, 322 S.W.3d 297 , 299–300 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (upholding search yielding narcotics paraphernalia based on previously obtained probable cause to arrest defendant for Transportation Code violations). 2015See Williams, 726 S.W.2d at 101 (holding search of defendant’s person valid because arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for previously observed parking violation); State v. Morales, 322 S.W.3d 297 , 299–300 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (upholding search yielding narcotics paraphernalia based on previously obtained probable cause to arrest defendant for Transportation Code violations). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jesse Thomas Sutherland v. State
green
1 sentence2014Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 663 -66 (citing Sutherland, 436 S.W.3d 28 ; State v. Villarreal, No. 13-13-00253-CR, — S.W.3d -, 2014 WL 1257150 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Jan. 23, 2014, pet. granted)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Daniel James Weems v. State
green
1 sentence2014Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 663 -66 (citing Sutherland, 436 S.W.3d 28 ; State v. Villarreal, No. 13-13-00253-CR, — S.W.3d -, 2014 WL 1257150 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Jan. 23, 2014, pet. granted)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. David Villarreal
green
1 sentence2014Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 663 -66 (citing Sutherland, 436 S.W.3d 28 ; State v. Villarreal, No. 13-13-00253-CR, — S.W.3d -, 2014 WL 1257150 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Jan. 23, 2014, pet. granted)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Erdman v. State
green
2 sentences2004In her motion to suppress, Woehst relied primarily on Erdman v. State, 861 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). 3 However, Woehst also relied on the effect of the officer’s Transportation Code violation regarding the statutory consequences of refusing a breath test and, particularly, the influence that the violation had on Woehst’s decision to refuse to take the breath test. 2004In her motion to suppress, Woehst relied primarily on Erdman v. State, 861 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). 3 However, Woehst also relied on the effect of the officer’s Transportation Code violation regarding the statutory consequences of refusing a breath test and, particularly, the influence that the violation had on Woehst’s decision to refuse to take the breath test. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.