exigency requirement (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

exigency requirement in District of Columbia

6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Matter of BKCgreen
dc · 1980 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991See generally In re B.K.C., 413 A.2d 894, 902-04 (D.C.1980).

1991See generally In re B.K.C., 413 A.2d 894, 902-04 (D.C.1980).

22
United States v. Caraballogreen
ca2 · 2016 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017Caraballo, 831 F.3d at 106 .

2017See id. at 106 (”[T]he fact that the question of the degree of privacy that adheres to these sorts of information, to date, divides those Circuit courts that have spoken to the issue reinforces the conclusion that the intrusion here was not to an established, core privacy value.”). .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Joseph Bonner, United States of America v. James Turner green
cadc · 1989
2 sentences

1998While the trial judge at one point speculated that Robinson might have heard the footsteps of "children running,” he did not imply that hearing a video game played—an activity often engaged in by children—diminished Robinson’s reason to suspect from the footsteps and silence that entry was being deliberately delayed. . "[T]he officers had secured a warrant, eliminating that element of the exigency requirement designed to ensure that the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause is not eroded by an exigency too quickly perceived by those called upon to serve on the firing line.” Bonner, 277 U.S.App.D.C

1998While the trial judge at one point speculated that Robinson might have heard the footsteps of "children running,” he did not imply that hearing a video game played—an activity often engaged in by children—diminished Robinson’s reason to suspect from the footsteps and silence that entry was being deliberately delayed. . "[T]he officers had secured a warrant, eliminating that element of the exigency requirement designed to ensure that the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause is not eroded by an exigency too quickly perceived by those called upon to serve on the firing line.” Bonner, 277 U.S.App.D.C

21993–1998
Washington v. United States green
dc · 1991
2 sentences

1995"The purpose of the exigency exception is to protect officers, bystanders, and identified evidence, and to secure suspects; it is not to facilitate exploration, or obtainment of evidence to verify mere suspicions.” Washington, supra, 585 A.2d at 170 .

1995"The purpose of the exigency exception is to protect officers, bystanders, and identified evidence, and to secure suspects; it is not to facilitate exploration, or obtainment of evidence to verify mere suspicions.” Washington, supra, 585 A.2d at 170 .

11995–1995
Sabbath v. United States green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

1993Finally, the court noted that by obtaining a search warrant the officers had “eliminat[ed] that element of the exigency requirement designed to ensure that the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause is not eroded by an exigency too quickly perceived by those called upon to serve on the firing line.” Id. 277 U.S.App.D.C. at 278 , 874 F.2d at 828 .

1993Finally, the court noted that by obtaining a search warrant the officers had "eliminat[ed] that element of the exigency requirement designed to ensure that the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause is not eroded by an exigency too quickly perceived by those called upon to serve on the firing line." Id. 277 U.S.App.D.C. at 278 , 874 F.2d at 828 .

11993–1993

Where else courts name it

TX 75 (2001–2025) PA 28 (1922–2024) OH 26 (2006–2026) MA 25 (1975–2025) NJ 20 (2006–2025) FL 18 (1975–2025) OR 17 (1955–2022) IN 17 (2002–2025) CA 15 (1922–2026) IA 14 (1981–2021) ID 14 (1971–2023) MN 12 (2000–2017) NY 12 (1851–2026) WI 11 (1976–2022) IL 10 (1980–2023) MD 9 (1994–2019) NM 8 (2004–2025) NV 6 (1997–2018) DC 6 (1991–2017) VA 5 (2003–2024) SC 5 (2014–2020) CO 4 (1984–2026) CT 4 (1980–2025) MO 4 (1981–2010) UT 4 (1990–2025) MS 4 (2004–2024) NH 4 (1985–2018) LA 4 (2000–2018) MI 4 (1912–2020) SD 3 (2001–2014) RI 3 (1984–2002) AZ 3 (2003–2018) NC 3 (2015–2017) WA 3 (2007–2016) ND 3 (2015–2026) TN 3 (2008–2016) ME 2 (1969–1983) GA 2 (1988–1999) NE 2 (2015–2017) HI 2 (2017–2021) AL 2 (2006–2006) VI 2 (2012–2015) KS 2 (2011–2020) DE 2 (1980–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check