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 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2013“In considering the legality of the search of appellant’s [apartment], this court can consider all relevant evidence of record, including that adduced at the suppression hearing as well as at trial.” (Citations omitted.) Jones v. State, 187 Ga. App. 421, 422-423 ( 370 SE2d 784 ) (1988). [W]hile an officer must generally have a search warrant or consent to enter a home to make an arrest, [under the exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement,] an officer can enter a home to arrest a suspect when he or she has followed the suspect there in “hot pursuit.” State v. Nichols, 225 Ga. A 2013“In considering the legality of the search of appellant’s [apartment], this court can consider all relevant evidence of record, including that adduced at the suppression hearing as well as at trial.” (Citations omitted.) Jones v. State, 187 Ga. App. 421, 422-423 ( 370 SE2d 784 ) (1988). [W]hile an officer must generally have a search warrant or consent to enter a home to make an arrest, [under the exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement,] an officer can enter a home to arrest a suspect when he or she has followed the suspect there in “hot pursuit.” State v. Nichols, 225 Ga. A | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2013“In considering the legality of the search of appellant’s [apartment], this court can consider all relevant evidence of record, including that adduced at the suppression hearing as well as at trial.” (Citations omitted.) Jones v. State, 187 Ga. App. 421, 422-423 ( 370 SE2d 784 ) (1988). [W]hile an officer must generally have a search warrant or consent to enter a home to make an arrest, [under the exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement,] an officer can enter a home to arrest a suspect when he or she has followed the suspect there in “hot pursuit.” State v. Nichols, 225 Ga. A 2013“In considering the legality of the search of appellant’s [apartment], this court can consider all relevant evidence of record, including that adduced at the suppression hearing as well as at trial.” (Citations omitted.) Jones v. State, 187 Ga. App. 421, 422-423 ( 370 SE2d 784 ) (1988). [W]hile an officer must generally have a search warrant or consent to enter a home to make an arrest, [under the exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement,] an officer can enter a home to arrest a suspect when he or she has followed the suspect there in “hot pursuit.” State v. Nichols, 225 Ga. A | 2 | 2 |
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2013“A suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place by escaping to a private place.” (Footnote omitted.) Anderson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 428, 433 (4) ( 594 SE2d 669 ) (2004). 2013“A suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place by escaping to a private place.” (Footnote omitted.) Anderson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 428, 433 (4) ( 594 SE2d 669 ) (2004). | 2 | 2 |
Alvarado v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Alvarado v. State, 271 Ga.App. 714, 715-716 (1), 610 S.E.2d 675 (2005) (noting that "`the need for the exigent circumstance doctrine is particularly compelling in narcotics cases'"). 2008See Alvarado v. State, 271 Ga.App. 714, 715-716 (1), 610 S.E.2d 675 (2005) (noting that "`the need for the exigent circumstance doctrine is particularly compelling in narcotics cases'"). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shaw v. State
green
2 sentences1986In short, the conduct that enabled (the officers) to observe the interior of (the vehicles) was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.’ Texas v. Brown [ 460 U. S. 730 ] (103 SC 1535, 1542, 75 LE2d 502) (1983).” Shaw v. State, 253 Ga. 382 ( 320 SE2d 371 ) (1984). *248 (b) We also hold that to the extent that the opening of the door and photographing of the ashes constituted a warrantless search and/ or seizure, this was justified by the exigencies of the case. 1986In short, the conduct that enabled (the officers) to observe the interior of (the vehicles) was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.’ Texas v. Brown [ 460 U. S. 730 ] (103 SC 1535, 1542, 75 LE2d 502) (1983).” Shaw v. State, 253 Ga. 382 ( 320 SE2d 371 ) (1984). *248 (b) We also hold that to the extent that the opening of the door and photographing of the ashes constituted a warrantless search and/ or seizure, this was justified by the exigencies of the case. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Texas v. Brown
green
1 sentence1986In short, the conduct that enabled (the officers) to observe the interior of (the vehicles) was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.’ Texas v. Brown [ 460 U. S. 730 ] (103 SC 1535, 1542, 75 LE2d 502) (1983).” Shaw v. State, 253 Ga. 382 ( 320 SE2d 371 ) (1984). *248 (b) We also hold that to the extent that the opening of the door and photographing of the ashes constituted a warrantless search and/ or seizure, this was justified by the exigencies of the case. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.