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 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Florida v. Bostickgreen2 sentences2010As we noted in G.M., "[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a `seizure' has occurred." 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 ("The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules."). [6] In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a 2010As we noted in G.M., "[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a `seizure' has occurred." 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 ("The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules."). [6] In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a | 1 | 2 |
Bostick v. Stategreen2 sentences2010As we noted in G.M., “[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a ‘seizure’ has occurred.” 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 (“The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules.”). 6 In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a ho 2010As we noted in G.M., "[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a `seizure' has occurred." 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 ("The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules."). [6] In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Sewn Newtongreen2 sentences2010In United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 669-72 (2d Cir.2004), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted some confusion in its precedent regarding how the question of whether a suspect was "free to leave,” the seizure test under Mendenhall , interacted with the issue of custody. 2010In United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 669-72 (2d Cir.2004), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted some confusion in its precedent regarding how the question of whether a suspect was "free to leave," the seizure test under Mendenhall , interacted with the issue of custody. | 1 | 1 |
Golphin v. Stategreen2 sentences2010As we noted in G.M., “[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a ‘seizure’ has occurred.” 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 (“The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules.”). 6 In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a ho 2010As we noted in G.M., "[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a `seizure' has occurred." 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 ("The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules."). [6] In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a | 1 | 1 |
Baggett v. Stategreen1 sentence2008This case is more analogous to Baggett v. State, 849 So.2d 1154, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), where the second district reversed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Robinette
green
2 sentences2010As we noted in G.M., "[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a `seizure' has occurred." 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 ("The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules."). [6] In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a 2010As we noted in G.M., "[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a `seizure' has occurred." 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 ("The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules."). [6] In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a | 1 | 2010–2010 |
GM v. State
green
2 sentences2010As we noted in G.M., “[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a ‘seizure’ has occurred.” 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 (“The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules.”). 6 In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a ho 2010As we noted in G.M., "[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a `seizure' has occurred." 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 ("The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules."). [6] In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Drayton
green
2 sentences2010As we noted in G.M., "[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a `seizure' has occurred." 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 ("The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules."). [6] In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a 2010As we noted in G.M., "[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a `seizure' has occurred." 19 So.3d at 978 (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Bostick, 501 U.S. at 439 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ); see also Golphin, 945 So.2d at 1183 ("The seizure analysis has not traditionally permitted the establishment of bright line rules."). [6] In Bostick , the Supreme Court rejected a | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Tunya Reginera Poitier
green
2 sentences2010The court cited the case of United States v. Poitier, 818 F.2d 679 (8th Cir.1987), in which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that two travelers in an airport had been subjected to an unconstitutional seizure. 2010The court cited the case of United States v. Poitier, 818 F.2d 679 (8th Cir.1987), in which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that two travelers in an airport had been subjected to an unconstitutional seizure. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2010By contrast, during a voluntary interview at a police station in which the atmosphere is more formal and the citizen may already be aware that he or she is suspected of criminal activity, the reading of Miranda rights may serve as intended, i.e., as a protective measure placing the citizen on guard “that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 469 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 2010By contrast, during a voluntary interview at a police station in which the atmosphere is more formal and the citizen may already be aware that he or she is suspected of criminal activity, the reading of Miranda rights may serve as intended, i.e., as a protective measure placing the citizen on guard "that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 469 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Mendenhall
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 1073 (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 , 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980)). 2010Id. at 1073 (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 , 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Florida v. Royer
green
2 sentences1987Accordingly, the endless variations in facts and circumstances of each case make it "unlikely that the courts can reduce to a sentence or a paragraph a rule that will provide unarguable answers... ." Id. 103 S.Ct. at 1329 . 1987Accordingly, the endless variations in facts and circumstances of each case make it "unlikely that the courts can reduce to a sentence or a paragraph a rule that will provide unarguable answers... ." Id. 103 S.Ct. at 1329 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Dodd
green
1 sentence1983State v. Dodd, 396 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), aff'd on other grounds, 419 So.2d 333 (Fla. 1982). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Dodd
green
1 sentence1983State v. Dodd, 396 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), aff'd on other grounds, 419 So.2d 333 (Fla. 1982). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.