6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2021 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Maryland v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2002This is because the “possibility of a violent encounter stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop.” Id. at 414 , 117 S.Ct. at 886 , 137 L.Ed.2d at 47 . 2002This is because the “possibility of a violent encounter stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop.” Id. at 414 , 117 S.Ct. at 886 , 137 L.Ed.2d at 47 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Frygreen2 sentences2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc 2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zubizaretagreen2 sentences2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc 2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc 2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc 2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Estes
green
2 sentences2021After 7 the district court affirmed the magistrate court’s judgment on intermediate appeal, Estes appealed to this Court, which addressed the issue of whether an officer’s “testimony concerning his visual estimate of the speed of [a vehicle], standing alone, was insufficient to prove the speeding violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 346 , 223 P.3d at 288 . 2021After 7 the district court affirmed the magistrate court’s judgment on intermediate appeal, Estes appealed to this Court, which addressed the issue of whether an officer’s “testimony concerning his visual estimate of the speed of [a vehicle], standing alone, was insufficient to prove the speeding violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 346 , 223 P.3d at 288 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Ali
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 368 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. McAfee
green
2 sentences2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc 2007See State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 651 , 51 P.3d 461, 465 (Ct.App.2002) (“the officer’s comments that followed after the speeding warning were not a sociable exchange____”); State v. Gomez, 136 Idaho 480, 482 , 36 P.3d 832, 834 (Ct.App.2001) (defendant was seized, the state conceded, when the detective ordered him to “hang up the phone ... [because] I need to talk to you about a warrant.”); State v. Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823, 827 , 839 P.2d 1237, 1241 (Ct.App.1992) (discussing seizure which occurred in McAfee, 116 Idaho at 1008 , 783 P.2d at 875 , when officers, after awaking McAfee, direc | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.