objective reasonableness standard (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

objective reasonableness standard in Idaho

6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Florida v. Jimenogreen
scotus · 1991 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1999–2015
2 sentences

2015Id. at 251-52 , 111 S.Ct. at 1803-05 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 302-04 .

2015Id. at 251-52 , 111 S.Ct. at 1803-05 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 302-04 .

12
Isaac Sparks v. Ronald Stutler and Manuel Largaespadagreen
ca7 · 1996 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011“A catheter is more intrusive than a needle but less intrusive than a scalpel, making it hard to classify the procedure under an objective reasonableness inquiry.” Sparks v. Stutter, 71 F.3d 259, 261 (7th Cir. 1995).

11
Graham v. Connorgreen
scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991Graham’s application of an objective reasonableness standard furthers the essential purposes of the fourth amendment — guaranteeing that free citizens are ‘ “secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures” of the person.’ Graham, 109 S.Ct. at 1871 (emphasis added).

1991Graham's application of an objective reasonableness standard furthers the essential purposes of the fourth amendment — guaranteeing that free citizens are `"secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures" of the person.' Graham, 109 S.Ct. at 1871 (emphasis added).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Kyle Nicholas Rios green
idaho · 2016
1 sentence

2025State v. Rios, 160 Idaho 262, 265 , 317 P.3d 316 , 319 (2016).

12025–2025
Burton v. United States green
dc · 1994
1 sentence

2017Id.

12017–2017

Where else courts name it

CA 34 (1996–2026) NJ 31 (1988–2026) OH 22 (1990–2026) TX 14 (1992–2024) MD 13 (1998–2022) NY 12 (1992–2025) KS 11 (1997–2024) NM 11 (1995–2025) WA 9 (2000–2026) VA 8 (2010–2025) CO 8 (1990–2012) MI 7 (1993–2026) IA 7 (2008–2022) GA 6 (1993–2026) ID 6 (1991–2025) IN 6 (1975–2020) CT 6 (1992–2010) LA 6 (1994–2016) OR 6 (2005–2024) FL 6 (1997–2018) AZ 5 (2012–2022) TN 5 (1998–2004) IL 5 (2011–2026) SD 5 (1990–2000) UT 5 (2006–2020) MA 5 (1987–2021) NC 4 (1991–2025) OK 4 (2002–2010) WV 4 (1993–2021) ME 4 (2006–2026) NV 3 (2015–2015) DC 3 (1994–2022) WI 2 (2018–2026) MT 2 (1992–2015) VT 2 (2010–2010) PA 2 (1990–2017) RI 2 (2020–2020)

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