green
Positive treatment
58.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Welch
United States v. Perkins, 850 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2017), and we review de novo a “probable cause determination in a case with a redacted affidavit,” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 706 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Albert Peter Macasaet III v. State of Alaska
LaFave, Search and Seizure § 4.7(a), at 812 (6th ed. 2024) (collecting cases and explaining that warrants that are executed outside the time limit provided by the court are unconstitutional if the probable cause upon which they are based has dissipated). 44 See id.; McCavitt, 185 N.E.3d at 1213 (“A search of digital data that takes several years may be reasonable as long as the search ends before trial and does not exceed the scope of the original search warrant.”). 45 Cornel v. Hawaii, 37 F.4th 527 , 533 (9th Cir. 2022); United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (“T…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Albert Peter Macasaet III v. State of Alaska
LaFave, Search and Seizure § 4.7(a), at 812 (6th ed. 2024) (collecting cases and explaining that warrants that are executed outside the time limit provided by the court are unconstitutional if the probable cause upon which they are based has dissipated). 44 See id.; McCavitt, 185 N.E.3d at 1213 (“A search of digital data that takes several years may be reasonable as long as the search ends before trial and does not exceed the scope of the original search warrant.”). 45 Cornel v. Hawaii, 37 F.4th 527, 533 (9th Cir. 2022); United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elizabeth Cornel v. State of Hawaii
But “[t]he mere lapse of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.” United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir. 1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Volodymyr Kvashuk
But the “mere passage ‘of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.’” United States v. Flores, 802 F.3d 1028, 1043 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir. 1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Miles Nichols
United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Nguyen
“The mere lapse of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness,” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir. 1988), and “in light of the particular facts of [this] case,” a three month delay between the initial download and the search did not make the warrant stale, United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (finding no staleness where 3 there was a ten month delay combined with attestations similar to the instant case regarding child pornography collectors). 3.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Conklin
E.g., United States v. Stefonek, 179 F.3d 1030, 1034 (7th Cir.1999); George, 975 F.2d at 77-78 ; United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707-08 (9th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Citlalli Flores
The mere passage “of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kinder (Christopher) v. State
United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Trace Thoms
Because a “district court must suppress evidence seized under a warrant when an affiant has knowingly or recklessly included false information in the affidavit,” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.1988) (emphasis added), and the good faith exception did not apply, the district court granted the motion to suppress.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ali
Where a warrant targets documentary materials *34 such as business records, for example, staleness presents less of a concern because these “are the type of records typically found to be maintained over long periods of time.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 , 478 n. 9, 96 S.Ct. 2737 , 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976)); see United States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir.1996) (noting that although “the crime had taken place 14 months before” the affidavit was sworn, this span of time “did not eliminate the likelihood that t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Grant, III
Cf. United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988) (concluding that five-month-old information regarding the presence of marijuana cultivation equipment in the defendant’s home was not stale because “marijuana cultivation is a long-term crime and the affidavit includes an experienced DEA agent’s opinion that cultivators often keep the equipment at their residences between growing seasons”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kim Cousins
“The mere lapse of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Foster, 711 F.2d 871, 878 (9th Cir.1983)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Clarence Holmes
United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Tracy Ruth Bickford, s/k/a Tracey Bickford
However, we review de novo “whether misstatements and omissions are material to the finding of probable cause.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Larry Edward Turner, Jr.
However, we review de novo “whether misstatements and omissions are material to the finding of probable cause.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth of Virginia v. David William Bickford
However, we review de novo “whether misstatements and omissions are material to the finding of probable cause.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Rigby
See United States v. Bowman, 215 F.3d 951, 964 (9th Cir.2000) (“A search warrant is not stale where there is sufficient basis to believe, based on a continuing pattern or other good reasons, that the items to be seized are still on the premises.” (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988) (“The mere lapse of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thoms
(2×)
United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.1988). 23 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. County of Los Angeles
United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Walton
United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stadnisky
The informant made statements against his or her own penal interest, which are considered “sufficiently credible to support a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 706 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stadnisky
The informant made statements against his or her own penal interest, which are considered “sufficiently credible to support a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 706 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Michael J. Conyngham
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Roque-Rodriguez
See id. (“One may properly infer that ... records of the criminal activity will be kept for some period of time.”); United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988) (“The mere lapse of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Garcia-Zambrano
See United States v. Allerheiligen, 221 F.3d 1353 (table), 2000 WL 1055487 , at **3-1 (10th Cir.2000) (unpublished); United States v. Elkins, 300 F.3d 638, 649 (6th Cir.2002); United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bosley
Lyghts’ statements were unusually detailed and apparently based on firsthand knowledge, see United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 1475, 1480 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam), and corroborated by independent police investigation, see United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 706 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
A.H. v. Government of the Virgin Islands
See, e.g., United States v. Austin, No. 92-10486, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 26624 , at *7-8 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 1993) (unpublished) (finding that information provided to the police by an admitted drug user was nonetheless credible because subsequent investigation confirmed the statements); cf. United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 706 (9th Cir. 1988) (upholding probable cause finding based on coconspirator’s statements, which were corroborated by independent police investigation).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 2004
See Pitts, 6 F.3d at 1369-70 (holding that four-month lapse between crack sale involving defendant in different location and affidavit was not enough to render information stale where affidavit supported inference that defendant was "more than a one-time drug seller"); United States v. Greany, 929 F.2d 523, 525 (9th Cir.1991) (evaluating staleness "in light of the particular facts of the case and the nature of the criminal activity and property sought" and holding that "[w]hen the evidence sought is of an ongoing criminal business," even a two-year lapse may not render information stale); Unit…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fernandez
See Pitts, 6 F.3d at 1369-70 (holding that four-month lapse between crack sale involving defendant in different location and affidavit was not enough to render information stale where affidavit supported inference that defendant was “more than a one-time drug seller”); United States v. Greany, 929 F.2d 523, 525 (9th Cir.1991) (evaluating staleness “in light of the particular facts of the case and the nature of the criminal activity and property sought” and holding that “[w]hen the evidence sought is of an ongoing criminal business,” even a two-year lapse may not render information …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gary
The district court’s finding that the officer did not intentionally or recklessly seek to mislead the issuing judge is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. .See United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cortez-Moran
United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 706 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Webb, Dennis L.
See generally United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562, 568 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988); In re Search Warrant Dated July 4, 1977, 667 F.2d 117, 135-36 (D.C.Cir.1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Campbell
United States v. Bertrand, 926 F.2d 838, 842 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.1988)). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rosa
However, “ ‘[t]he mere lapse of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.’ ” United States v. Pitts, 6 F.3d 1366, 1369 (9th Cir.1993), quoting United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tydingco
However, “ ‘[t]he mere lapse of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.’ ” United States v. Pitts, 6 F.3d 1366, 1369 (9th Cir.1993), quoting United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Allerheiligen
Whether misstatements and omissions are material to a finding of probable cause is subject to de novo review.” United States v. Dozier , 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). a.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Patscheck
See United States v. Van Damme, 48 F.3d 461, 465-67 (9th Cir.1995) (suppressing evidence not in plain view because the attachment describing the items to be seized was not attached to the warrant at the time of the search); United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 75-76 (2d Cir.1992) (holding portion of warrant invalid because language authorizing officers to search for “ ‘any other evidence relating to the commission of a crime,’ ” failed to limit the executing officer’s discretion); United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707-08 (9th Cir.1988) (holding portion of warrant invalid when w…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Danny Lee Kyllo
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Kyllo now challenges this decision. 6 Standard of Review “A district court must suppress evidence seized under a warrant when an affiant has knowingly or recklessly included false information in the affidavit.” See United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Extradition of Powell
Powell also cites to U.S. v. Whitworth, 856 F.2d 1268, 1280 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting Stanert) and U.S. v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.1988), which generally stand for the same proposition, but are more directed to the standard required of a “criminal defen *956 dant” (emphasis added) seeking a Franks Hearing. c.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kyllo
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“A district court must suppress evidence seized under a warrant when an affiant has knowingly or recklessly included false information in the affidavit.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 927 , 109 S.Ct. 312 , 102 L.Ed.2d 331 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Guitterez
The Government also asserts that the defendant was involved in an ongoing drug business: Although “staleness arguments lose much of their force”-where the affidavit indicates “a widespread, firmly entrenched, and ongoing narcotics operation”, United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 927 , 109 S.Ct. 312 , 102 L.Ed.2d 331 (1988), the evidence cited by the Government for this proposition pertains to Torres, not to the defendant.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nikolay Senchenko
United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Demers
See United States v. Snow, 919 F.2d 1458, 1460 (10th Cir. 1990) (timeliness depends on nature of criminal activity, length of activity, and nature of property to be seized); United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir. 1988) (mere passage of substantial amount of time is not controlling); Andresen v. State, 331 A.2d 78, 106 (Md.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Robert Smith
Nevertheless, a defendant may challenge a facially valid search warrant when it contains "deliberate or reckless omissions of fact that tend to mislead." United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 927 (1988). 20 A defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing upon a "substantial showing that the affiant intentionally or recklessly omitted facts required to prevent technically true statements in the affidavit from being misleading." United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775, 781 (9th Cir.), modified, 769 F.2d 1410 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Douglas LACY, Defendant-Appellant
(2×)
However, “[t]he mere lapse of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.” United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald D. HALL, Defendant-Appellee
ANALYSIS If the defendant establishes perjury or reckless disregard of the concealment of material information by a preponderance of evidence, and with the concealed material provided, the resulting evidence is insufficient to establish probable cause, then “the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause were lacking.” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 156 , 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Javier Valencia-Hernandez, United States of America v. Antonio Mendoza
(2×)
"The determination of whether misstatements or omissions are knowing or reckless or merely negligent is a factual inquiry but it is guided by cases in which this court has found reckless disregard by an affiant." United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 927 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard John Schmidt, Jr.
The district court's finding that the false statement was intentional or reckless is reviewed for clear error, United States v. Dozier, 844 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 927 (1988); the conclusion that the false statement was not sufficient to negate a finding of probable cause is reviewed de novo.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James Joseph OWENS, Defendant-Appellant
v.
James Joseph OWENS, Defendant-Appellant
84-5015.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 19, 1988.
Nelson, Boochever, Reinhardt.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER
The United States Supreme Court, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 reversed our decision that admission of Foster’s identification statement made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation violated the Confrontation Clause and Fed.R. Evid. 802. The Supreme Court did not address the requirements of Fed.R.Evid. 602 which reads in part:
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony.
Because it is not clear that the district court ruled on Owens’ continuing Rule 602 objection after the testimony at trial failed to correspond with the prosecutor’s offer of proof, we remand. The district court is requested to rule on that objection in light of the trial testimony.
We find no merit to Owens’ appeal from the district court’s denial of his pretrial motion to substitute counsel, an issue which we did not previously address because of our initial reversal of Owens’ conviction on other grounds. The district court adequately inquired into Owens’ complaint and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Hudson v. Rushen, 686 F.2d 826 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 916, 103 S.Ct. 1896, 77 L.Ed. 2d 285 (1983); United States v. Mills, 597 F.2d 693 (9th Cir.1979).
This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the United States Supreme Court’s decision and this Order.