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 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simms v. Seamangreen1 sentence2013The police meet the immediately apparent requirement if, [up] on discovery, they have probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 397-98. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Montgomery
green
2 sentences2002The police meet the immediately apparent requirement if, [up]on discovery, they have probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 , 706 , 759 A.2d 995 (2000). 2002The police meet the immediately apparent requirement if, [up]on discovery, they have probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 , 706 , 759 A.2d 995 (2000). | 2 | 2001–2002 |
State v. Eady
green
2 sentences2018"The immediately apparent requirement of the plain view exception is satisfied if, at the time of discovery of the contraband or evidence, there is probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eady , supra, 249 Conn. at 439 , 733 A.2d 112 ."[Our Connecticut courts] consistently have held that [t]he quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause exceeds mere suspicion, but is substantially less than that required for conviction.... 2018"The immediately apparent requirement of the plain view exception is satisfied if, at the time of discovery of the contraband or evidence, there is probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eady , supra, 249 Conn. at 439 , 733 A.2d 112 ."[Our Connecticut courts] consistently have held that [t]he quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause exceeds mere suspicion, but is substantially less than that required for conviction.... | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2018While probable cause requires more than mere suspicion ... the line between mere suspicion and probable cause necessarily must be drawn by an act of judgment formed in light of the particular situation and with account taken of all the circumstances." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown , supra, 279 Conn. at 521 , 903 A.2d 169 . 2018While probable cause requires more than mere suspicion ... the line between mere suspicion and probable cause necessarily must be drawn by an act of judgment formed in light of the particular situation and with account taken of all the circumstances." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown , supra, 279 Conn. at 521 , 903 A.2d 169 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Arizona v. Hicks
green
2 sentences2000Arizona v. Hicks, [ 480 U.S. 321, 324-27 , 107 S. Ct. 1149 , 94 L. 2000Arizona v. Hicks, [ 480 U.S. 321, 324-27 , 107 S. Ct. 1149 , 94 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.