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.
6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1975–1990 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Domingo S. Canieso and Siu Tsien Chougreen2 sentences1990Ed. 2d 637 (1969); see also State v. Ruscoe, supra, 229 ; State v. Delmonaco, supra, 340-41 ; State v. Ralston, 7 Conn. App. 660, 672 , 510 A.2d 1346 (1986). “ ‘When a tip not meeting the Aguilar test has generated police investigation and this has developed sufficient corroboration . . . the tip, even though not qualifying under Aguilar, may be used to give such additional color as is needed to elevate the information acquired by police observation above the floor required for probable cause.’ ” (Citation omitted.) State v. Gomez, supra, 807; see also United States v. Caniesa, 470 F.2d 1224, 1990Ed. 2d 637 (1969); see also State v. Ruscoe, supra, 229 ; State v. Delmonaco, supra, 340-41 ; State v. Ralston, 7 Conn. App. 660, 672 , 510 A.2d 1346 (1986). “ ‘When a tip not meeting the Aguilar test has generated police investigation and this has developed sufficient corroboration . . . the tip, even though not qualifying under Aguilar, may be used to give such additional color as is needed to elevate the information acquired by police observation above the floor required for probable cause.’ ” (Citation omitted.) State v. Gomez, supra, 807; see also United States v. Caniesa, 470 F.2d 1224, | 3 | 3 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1977The design of the two-pronged Aguilar test is to assure that probable cause for the issuance of the warrant will be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate and not by “ ‘the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.’ Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948).” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415 . 1977The design of the two-pronged Aguilar test is to assure that probable cause for the issuance of the warrant will be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate and not by “ ‘the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.’ Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948).” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences1984See also Note, The Informer’s Tip as Probable Cause for Search or Arrest, 54 CornellL.Rev. 958, 967 (1969).” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1231 (2d Cir. 1972); see State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L. 1984See also Note, The Informer’s Tip as Probable Cause for Search or Arrest, 54 CornellL.Rev. 958, 967 (1969).” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1231 (2d Cir. 1972); see State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernalgreen2 sentences1984See also Note, The Informer’s Tip as Probable Cause for Search or Arrest, 54 CornellL.Rev. 958, 967 (1969).” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1231 (2d Cir. 1972); see State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L. 1984See also Note, The Informer’s Tip as Probable Cause for Search or Arrest, 54 CornellL.Rev. 958, 967 (1969).” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1231 (2d Cir. 1972); see State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L. | 1 | 1 |
Gomez v. Idahogreen2 sentences1984See also Note, The Informer’s Tip as Probable Cause for Search or Arrest, 54 CornellL.Rev. 958, 967 (1969).” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1231 (2d Cir. 1972); see State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L. 1984See also Note, The Informer’s Tip as Probable Cause for Search or Arrest, 54 CornellL.Rev. 958, 967 (1969).” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1231 (2d Cir. 1972); see State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L. | 1 | 1 |
Valenzuela v. Georgiagreen2 sentences1984See also Note, The Informer’s Tip as Probable Cause for Search or Arrest, 54 CornellL.Rev. 958, 967 (1969).” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1231 (2d Cir. 1972); see State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L. 1984See also Note, The Informer’s Tip as Probable Cause for Search or Arrest, 54 CornellL.Rev. 958, 967 (1969).” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1231 (2d Cir. 1972); see State v. Gomez, 101 Idaho 802 , 623 P.2d 110 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 963 , 102 S. Ct. 503 , 70 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rene Ramirezgreen2 sentences1975United States v. Ramirez, 279 F.2d 712, 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 850 , 81 S. Ct. 95 , 5 L. 1975United States v. Ramirez, 279 F.2d 712, 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 850 , 81 S. Ct. 95 , 5 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Charles Albert Mulligangreen2 sentences1975United States v. Mulligan, 488 F.2d 732, 735 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 930 , 94 S. Ct. 2640 , 41 L. 1975United States v. Mulligan, 488 F.2d 732, 735 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 930 , 94 S. Ct. 2640 , 41 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Aurelio Lopez-Ortiz, John David Kopp and Danny Ray Postongreen2 sentences1975Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 114 ; Spinelli v. United States, supra; United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 492 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir.), reh. denied, 494 F.2d 1296 ; People v. Hendricks, 25 N.Y.2d 129, 133 , 250 N.E.2d 323 . 1975Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 114 ; Spinelli v. United States, supra; United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 492 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir.), reh. denied, 494 F.2d 1296 ; People v. Hendricks, 25 N.Y.2d 129, 133 , 250 N.E.2d 323 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Warren Thompsongreen2 sentences1975Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 113-14 ; Spinelli v. United States, supra, 416; United States v. Thompson, 495 F.2d 165, 168 (D.C. 1975Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 113-14 ; Spinelli v. United States, supra, 416; United States v. Thompson, 495 F.2d 165, 168 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spinelli v. United States
red
2 sentences1977The design of the two-pronged Aguilar test is to assure that probable cause for the issuance of the warrant will be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate and not by “ ‘the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.’ Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948).” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415 . 1977The design of the two-pronged Aguilar test is to assure that probable cause for the issuance of the warrant will be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate and not by “ ‘the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.’ Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948).” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415 . | 2 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Ralston
green
2 sentences1990Ed. 2d 637 (1969); see also State v. Ruscoe, supra, 229 ; State v. Delmonaco, supra, 340-41 ; State v. Ralston, 7 Conn. App. 660, 672 , 510 A.2d 1346 (1986). “ ‘When a tip not meeting the Aguilar test has generated police investigation and this has developed sufficient corroboration . . . the tip, even though not qualifying under Aguilar, may be used to give such additional color as is needed to elevate the information acquired by police observation above the floor required for probable cause.’ ” (Citation omitted.) State v. Gomez, supra, 807; see also United States v. Caniesa, 470 F.2d 1224, 1990Ed. 2d 637 (1969); see also State v. Ruscoe, supra, 229 ; State v. Delmonaco, supra, 340-41 ; State v. Ralston, 7 Conn. App. 660, 672 , 510 A.2d 1346 (1986). “ ‘When a tip not meeting the Aguilar test has generated police investigation and this has developed sufficient corroboration . . . the tip, even though not qualifying under Aguilar, may be used to give such additional color as is needed to elevate the information acquired by police observation above the floor required for probable cause.’ ” (Citation omitted.) State v. Gomez, supra, 807; see also United States v. Caniesa, 470 F.2d 1224, | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Roberts v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1975United States v. Ramirez, 279 F.2d 712, 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 850 , 81 S. Ct. 95 , 5 L. 1975United States v. Ramirez, 279 F.2d 712, 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 850 , 81 S. Ct. 95 , 5 L. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
McDaniel v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California
green
2 sentences1975United States v. Ramirez, 279 F.2d 712, 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 850 , 81 S. Ct. 95 , 5 L. 1975United States v. Ramirez, 279 F.2d 712, 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 850 , 81 S. Ct. 95 , 5 L. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
United States v. Lopez-Ortiz
green
2 sentences1975Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 114 ; Spinelli v. United States, supra; United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 492 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir.), reh. denied, 494 F.2d 1296 ; People v. Hendricks, 25 N.Y.2d 129, 133 , 250 N.E.2d 323 . 1975Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 114 ; Spinelli v. United States, supra; United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 492 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir.), reh. denied, 494 F.2d 1296 ; People v. Hendricks, 25 N.Y.2d 129, 133 , 250 N.E.2d 323 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board
green
2 sentences1975United States v. Mulligan, 488 F.2d 732, 735 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 930 , 94 S. Ct. 2640 , 41 L. 1975United States v. Mulligan, 488 F.2d 732, 735 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 930 , 94 S. Ct. 2640 , 41 L. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Hendricks
green
2 sentences1975Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 114 ; Spinelli v. United States, supra; United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 492 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir.), reh. denied, 494 F.2d 1296 ; People v. Hendricks, 25 N.Y.2d 129, 133 , 250 N.E.2d 323 . 1975Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 114 ; Spinelli v. United States, supra; United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 492 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir.), reh. denied, 494 F.2d 1296 ; People v. Hendricks, 25 N.Y.2d 129, 133 , 250 N.E.2d 323 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.