6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Colorado v. Bertinegreen2 sentences2010See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 79-80 (Colo.1995). 2010See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 79-80 (Colo.1995). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hausemangreen2 sentences2012Id. at 1182 . "'An officer's hope of finding incriminating evidence during an otherwise valid [inventory] search does not, without more, indicate a pretextual motive for [the search]'" Id. at 1185 (alteration added) (quoting People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d at 79 ). 2010See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 79-80 (Colo.1995). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Richard Colby Parr and Vincent Rendarogreen2 sentences1993See, e.g., United States v. Showalter, 858 F.2d 149, 153 (3d Cir.1988) (questioning whether a court may authorize a search of a seized home without a showing of probable cause); Ladson, 774 F.2d at 440 (holding that “exigent circumstances” is the only warrant exception for searches of private homes and refusing to use inventory search exception “as a bootstrap to undermine the Fourth Amendment protections afforded the sanctity of the home” where police inventoried home seized under forfeiture statute); United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796, 813-14 (11th Cir.1983) (same); 5100 Whitaker Ave., 727 1992United States v. Ladson, 774 F.2d 436 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796 (11th Cir.1983). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. John Nathaniel Ladson and Eunice Mae Olivergreen2 sentences1993See, e.g., United States v. Showalter, 858 F.2d 149, 153 (3d Cir.1988) (questioning whether a court may authorize a search of a seized home without a showing of probable cause); Ladson, 774 F.2d at 440 (holding that “exigent circumstances” is the only warrant exception for searches of private homes and refusing to use inventory search exception “as a bootstrap to undermine the Fourth Amendment protections afforded the sanctity of the home” where police inventoried home seized under forfeiture statute); United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796, 813-14 (11th Cir.1983) (same); 5100 Whitaker Ave., 727 1992United States v. Ladson, 774 F.2d 436 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796 (11th Cir.1983). | 1 | 2 |
Moody v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2019Our analysis of this exception differs from the district court’s, see Moody v. People, 159 P.3d 611, 615 (Colo. 2007) (noting that “appellate courts have the discretion to affirm decisions . . . on any basis . . . even though they may be on grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court”), and renders this claim irrelevant. 11 C. | 1 | 1 |
Pineda v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2012Id. 10 We previously applied the inventory search exception in Pineda. 2012Id. at 1182 . "'An officer's hope of finding incriminating evidence during an otherwise valid [inventory] search does not, without more, indicate a pretextual motive for [the search]'" Id. at 1185 (alteration added) (quoting People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d at 79 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Valdezgreen1 sentence2010See People v. Valdez, 969 P.2d 208,211 (Colo.1998) (“When the controlling facts are undisputed, the legal effect of those facts constitutes a question of law which is subject to de novo review.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John Showaltergreen1 sentence1993See, e.g., United States v. Showalter, 858 F.2d 149, 153 (3d Cir.1988) (questioning whether a court may authorize a search of a seized home without a showing of probable cause); Ladson, 774 F.2d at 440 (holding that “exigent circumstances” is the only warrant exception for searches of private homes and refusing to use inventory search exception “as a bootstrap to undermine the Fourth Amendment protections afforded the sanctity of the home” where police inventoried home seized under forfeiture statute); United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796, 813-14 (11th Cir.1983) (same); 5100 Whitaker Ave., 727 | 1 | 1 |
South Dakota v. Oppermangreen2 sentences1993In light of the “traditionally drawn [] distinction between automobiles and homes or offices in relation to the Fourth Amendment,” Opperman, 428 U.S. at 367 , 96 S.Ct. at 3096 , courts generally have been reluctant to extend the application of the inventory search exception to intrusions into private residences. 1993In light of the “traditionally drawn [] distinction between automobiles and homes or offices in relation to the Fourth Amendment,” Opperman, 428 U.S. at 367 , 96 S.Ct. at 3096 , courts generally have been reluctant to extend the application of the inventory search exception to intrusions into private residences. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Premises Known as 5100 Whitaker Avenuegreen1 sentence1993See, e.g., United States v. Showalter, 858 F.2d 149, 153 (3d Cir.1988) (questioning whether a court may authorize a search of a seized home without a showing of probable cause); Ladson, 774 F.2d at 440 (holding that “exigent circumstances” is the only warrant exception for searches of private homes and refusing to use inventory search exception “as a bootstrap to undermine the Fourth Amendment protections afforded the sanctity of the home” where police inventoried home seized under forfeiture statute); United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796, 813-14 (11th Cir.1983) (same); 5100 Whitaker Ave., 727 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Countermangreen2 sentences1984See People v. Counterman, 192 Colo. 152 , 556 P.2d 481 (1976). 1984See People v. Counterman, 192 Colo. 152 , 556 P.2d 481 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. United States Currency in the Amount of $324,225.00green1 sentence1993See, e.g., United States v. Showalter, 858 F.2d 149, 153 (3d Cir.1988) (questioning whether a court may authorize a search of a seized home without a showing of probable cause); Ladson, 774 F.2d at 440 (holding that “exigent circumstances” is the only warrant exception for searches of private homes and refusing to use inventory search exception “as a bootstrap to undermine the Fourth Amendment protections afforded the sanctity of the home” where police inventoried home seized under forfeiture statute); United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796, 813-14 (11th Cir.1983) (same); 5100 Whitaker Ave., 727 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Florida v. Wells
green
2 sentences1993Wells, 495 U.S. at 3-4 , 110 S.Ct. at 1634-35 ; Bertine, 479 U.S. at 375 , 107 S.Ct. at 743 ; Opperman, 428 U.S. at 372, 376 , 96 S.Ct. at 3098, 3100 . 1993Wells, 495 U.S. at 3-4 , 110 S.Ct. at 1634-35 ; Bertine, 479 U.S. at 375 , 107 S.Ct. at 743 ; Opperman, 428 U.S. at 372, 376 , 96 S.Ct. at 3098, 3100 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.