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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1972–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Durazogreen1 sentence2022(People v. Durazo (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 728, 735 (Durazo) [the determination of reasonableness is “inherently case-specific”].) In sum, the evidence at the suppression hearing established specific and articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion Juan was armed and 20 dangerous. | 1 | 1 |
Herring v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2016(Herring, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 147, fn. 5 ; Robinson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1126 .) The evidence at the suppression hearing established that Manriquez had participated in a probation search at Niccoli’s residence two or three weeks prior to the traffic stop. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leybagreen2 sentences1983The evidence at the suppression hearing, viewed in accordance with the standard of review of denial of a suppression motion (People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ]), established that at approximately 3:30 a.m. on February 9, 1982, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies James Mumby and Larry Boyce detected a strong chemical odor consistent with the odor of phencyclidine on West Calaveras Street, in Altadena. 1983The evidence at the suppression hearing, viewed in accordance with the standard of review of denial of a suppression motion (People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ]), established that at approximately 3:30 a.m. on February 9, 1982, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies James Mumby and Larry Boyce detected a strong chemical odor consistent with the odor of phencyclidine on West Calaveras Street, in Altadena. | 1 | 1 |
Lockridge v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1972(See Lockridge v. Superior Court, 275 Cal.App.2d 612, 622 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 223 ].) The overall problem presented by the contentions of the parties under this head, (see fn. 6, ante, and accompanying text) is, assuming the propriety of attempting , to impeach the averments of the affidavit at the suppression hearing, the use to which the evidence at the suppression hearing may be put. 1972(See Lockridge v. Superior Court, 275 Cal.App.2d 612, 622 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 223 ].) The overall problem presented by the contentions of the parties under this head, (see fn. 6, ante, and accompanying text) is, assuming the propriety of attempting , to impeach the averments of the affidavit at the suppression hearing, the use to which the evidence at the suppression hearing may be put. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2016(Herring, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 147, fn. 5 ; Robinson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1126 .) The evidence at the suppression hearing established that Manriquez had participated in a probation search at Niccoli’s residence two or three weeks prior to the traffic stop. 2016(Herring, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 147, fn. 5 ; Robinson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1126 .) The evidence at the suppression hearing established that Manriquez had participated in a probation search at Niccoli’s residence two or three weeks prior to the traffic stop. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Brendlin
green
1 sentence2014The flagrancy and purposefulness of the police misconduct has been regarded as the most important factor in the attenuation analysis because “‘it is directly tied to the purpose of the exclusionary rule—deterring police misconduct.’” (People v. Brendlin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 262, 271 .) As to this factor, we cannot say the evidence at the suppression hearing showed the police officers concocted S.F.’s arrest or acted in bad faith as a means to search his bedroom. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.