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 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1976–1992 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lutergreen2 sentences1992We adopted the Gates standard in State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). 1992We adopted the Gates standard in State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Swaimgreen2 sentences1992See State v. Nichaus, 452 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Iowa 1990); Swaim, 412 N.W.2d at 571 . 1992See State v. Nichaus, 452 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Iowa 1990); Swaim, 412 N.W.2d at 571 . | 1 | 2 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences1990Gates, 462 U.S. at 243-46 , 103 S.Ct. at 2234-36 , 76 L.Ed.2d at 551-53 , see United States v. Vaughn, 830 F.2d 1185, 1187 (D.C.Cir.1987) (tip related by informant corroborated by second source); United States v. Laws, 808 F.2d 92, 97 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Gates analysis emphasizes importance of independent police work corroborating details of informant’s story). 1990Gates, 462 U.S. at 243-46 , 103 S.Ct. at 2234-36 , 76 L.Ed.2d at 551-53 , see United States v. Vaughn, 830 F.2d 1185, 1187 (D.C.Cir.1987) (tip related by informant corroborated by second source); United States v. Laws, 808 F.2d 92, 97 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Gates analysis emphasizes importance of independent police work corroborating details of informant’s story). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bousmangreen2 sentences1987We adopted and applied this Gates standard in State v. Bousman, 387 N.W.2d at 610 and State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802, 808 (Iowa 1984). 1987We adopted and applied this Gates standard in State v. Bousman, 387 N.W.2d at 610 and State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802, 808 (Iowa 1984). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Niehausgreen2 sentences1992See State v. Nichaus, 452 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Iowa 1990); Swaim, 412 N.W.2d at 571 . 1992See State v. Nichaus, 452 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Iowa 1990); Swaim, 412 N.W.2d at 571 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Leethaniel Vaughngreen1 sentence1990Gates, 462 U.S. at 243-46 , 103 S.Ct. at 2234-36 , 76 L.Ed.2d at 551-53 , see United States v. Vaughn, 830 F.2d 1185, 1187 (D.C.Cir.1987) (tip related by informant corroborated by second source); United States v. Laws, 808 F.2d 92, 97 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Gates analysis emphasizes importance of independent police work corroborating details of informant’s story). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Glenston P. Lawsgreen1 sentence1990Gates, 462 U.S. at 243-46 , 103 S.Ct. at 2234-36 , 76 L.Ed.2d at 551-53 , see United States v. Vaughn, 830 F.2d 1185, 1187 (D.C.Cir.1987) (tip related by informant corroborated by second source); United States v. Laws, 808 F.2d 92, 97 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Gates analysis emphasizes importance of independent police work corroborating details of informant’s story). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Larry C. Smith, Etc., United States of America v. Marshall Carter, Etc.green2 sentences1986Under the Gates standard, the judge views all the *558 circumstances and determines whether the information when taken as a whole is reliable and provides a basis for concluding there is a fair probability that contraband will be found at a particular place. 462 U.S. at 233, 238-39 , 103 S.Ct. at 2329, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d at 545, 548 ; see United States v. Smith, 462 F.2d 456, 460 (8th Cir.1972) (“The crucial question here, however, is not ... whether the affiant can attest to the reliability or credibility of the second individual, but whether the information furnished by the informant, taken a 1986Under the Gates standard, the judge views all the *558 circumstances and determines whether the information when taken as a whole is reliable and provides a basis for concluding there is a fair probability that contraband will be found at a particular place. 462 U.S. at 233, 238-39 , 103 S.Ct. at 2329, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d at 545, 548 ; see United States v. Smith, 462 F.2d 456, 460 (8th Cir.1972) (“The crucial question here, however, is not ... whether the affiant can attest to the reliability or credibility of the second individual, but whether the information furnished by the informant, taken a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Horstmangreen2 sentences1976See State v. Horstman, supra, 222 N.W.2d at 432 . 1976See State v. Horstman, supra, 222 N.W.2d at 432 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chin Nien Tsang v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University
green
2 sentences1992We adopted the Gates standard in State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). 1992We adopted the Gates standard in State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). | 2 | 1990–1992 |
Mathis v. Hegwood
green
2 sentences1992We adopted the Gates standard in State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). 1992We adopted the Gates standard in State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). | 2 | 1990–1992 |
First Multifund Advisory Corp. v. Williams
green
2 sentences1992We adopted the Gates standard in State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). 1992We adopted the Gates standard in State v. Luter, 346 N.W.2d 802 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). | 2 | 1990–1992 |
State v. Groff
green
2 sentences1984Applying the Gates test and examining the affidavits involved here and all parts of those affidavits including the circumstances and the prior instances recited, we conclude that the issuing judge “had a 'substantial basis for ... concludpng]’ that probable cause existed.” Regarding Luter’s argument that the affidavits contained falsification, we turn to State v. Groff, 323 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa 1982). 1984Applying the Gates test and examining the affidavits involved here and all parts of those affidavits including the circumstances and the prior instances recited, we conclude that the issuing judge “had a 'substantial basis for ... concludpng]’ that probable cause existed.” Regarding Luter’s argument that the affidavits contained falsification, we turn to State v. Groff, 323 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa 1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences1984We there summarized and adopted the holding in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). 1984We there summarized and adopted the holding in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.