green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
28.6 score
“the momentary delay occasioned by the bags' removal from the conveyor belt was insufficient to constitute a meaningful interference with . . . possessory interest in his bags. as a result, the agents' action did not constitute a seizure.”
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Hill
But see United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir.1988) (expectation of privacy does not extend to airspace around luggage); United States v. Goldstein, 635 F.2d 356, 361-62 (5th Cir.1981), reh’g denied, 640 F.2d 385 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962 , 101 S.Ct. 3111 , 69 L.Ed.2d 972 (1981). 5 .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Augustine DeMoss
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the momentary delay occasioned by the bags' removal from the conveyor belt was insufficient to constitute a meaningful interference with . . . possessory interest in his bags. as a result, the agents' action did not constitute a seizure.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Martinez
A canine sniff of the outside of a vehicle is not a search, United States v. Dovali-Avilia, 895 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 1988)), and accordingly during the time necessary to investigate normal immigration matters, border agents may conduct a canine sniff to search for drugs or concealed aliens so long as “conducting the sniff does not prolong the purpose of the stop,” Tello, 924 F.3d at 787 (first citing United States v. Ventura, 447 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2006); and then citing Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 357 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joshua Roberts
See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853, 869-70 (6th Cir.2004) (determining that diversion of package for brief investigation “did not constitute a ... seizure”); United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 916 (5th Cir.1988) (holding that the “momentary delay” caused by the removal of defendant’s bags from a convey- or belt “was insufficient to constitute a meaningful interference with [defendant’s] possessory interest in his bags”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Saunders
“Reasonable and articulable suspicion is not required before the police may use a canine trained in drug detection to sniff the air about an enclosure believed to contain drugs.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 1, 6 , 421 S.E.2d 877, 880 (1992) (citing United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 1988), and United States v. Lewis, 708 F.2d 1078, 1080 (6th Cir. 1983)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Keith A. Va Lerie
(4×)
See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 990 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Ward, 144 F.3d 1024, 1031-32 (7th Cir.1998); and United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 916 (5th Cir.1988). 28 To be fair to the appellee in this case, the record is not well developed on the issue of whether the removal of the luggage from the bus would have resulted in any delay in its ultimate delivery.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Keith A. Va Lerie
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 990 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Ward, 144 F.3d 1024, 1031-32 (7th Cir. 1998); and United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 916 (5th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Davis
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 916 (5th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wallace v. State
Place, 462 U.S. 696 , 103 S.Ct. 2637 ; United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Demoss
See United States v. Johnson, 990 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir.1993) (concluding that there is no seizure where the detention of luggage "in no way interfered with his travel, or frustrated his expectations with respect to his luggage"); England, 971 F.2d at 421 (concluding that detaining mail and subjecting it to dog sniff does not amount to seizure until packages are "delayed by their detention"); United States v. Riley, 927 F.2d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir.1991) (dictum) (stating that handling luggage and exposing it to a narcotics-detecting dog while the luggage was still in possession of a third part…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Quiroz
(2×)
The entire process of removing the luggage from the cart, taking *815 it from one office to the other, and having the dog sniff it, was completed prior to the time the luggage would have been placed on the airplane”); United States v. Graham, 982 F.2d 273 , (8th Cir.1992) (following Harvey ; no Fourth Amendment violation where police moved suitcase from overhead luggage rack to the aisle of bus to facilitate a dog sniff); United States v. England, 971 F.2d 419 (9th Cir.1992) (rejecting defendant’s argument that a seizure occurs any time mail is detained: “we need not consider whether the…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kevin C. Ward
(2×)
See LaFrance, 879 F.2d at 5-6 ; United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 916 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eugene Nicholson, Jr.
In United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 915 (5th Cir.1988), the Fifth Circuit concluded that defendant had “no reasonable expectation that his luggage would not be moved or handled.” In Lovell , officers suspected that defendant, an airline passenger,. was smuggling drugs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nicholson
In United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 915 (5th Cir. 1988), the Fifth Circuit concluded that defendant had “no reasonable expectation that his luggage would not be moved or handled.” In Lovell, officers suspected that defendant, an airline passenger, was smuggling drugs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Peters
See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 990 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Brown, 884 F.2d 1309, 1311 (9th Cir.1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 1025 , 110 S.Ct. 732 , 107 L.Ed.2d 750 (1990); United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 916 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Espinoza-Santill
(2×)
United States v. Mendez, 27 F.3d 126 , 129 n. 4 (citing United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir.1988)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lashawn Y. McDonald
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
The question before the court therefore is whether McDonald had a reasonable expectation of privacy that her luggage, left exposed on an overhead rack of a Greyhound bus, would not be touched or felt by others. 16 In a factual circumstance similar to McDonald's case, the Sixth Circuit has held that passengers have an expectation of privacy in the contents of their luggage, but that expectation does not extend to the exterior of luggage placed on overhead racks because such items are "accessible to others in the normal flow of traffic on the bus." United States v. Guzman, 75 F.3d 1090, 1095 (6t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Manuel Garcia
(2×)
We believe that defendant had a reasonable expectation when he checked his bags that “the contents of that luggage [would] not be exposed in the absence of consent or a legally obtained warrant.” United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 912 (5th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mendez
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir.1988). 5 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McDonald
U.S. v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir.1988); see also U.S. v. Rivera, 825 F.2d 152, 158 (7th Cir.1987) (canine sniffing of luggage does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment), ce rt. denied, sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert Ryles, Jr.
See United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc); cf. United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir.1988) (airspace around luggage transported on common carrier not protected zone of privacy under Fourth Amendment).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. v. Ryles
See United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc); cf. United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 1988) (airspace around luggage transported on common carrier not protected zone of privacy under Fourth Amendment).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ricky Lynn Daniel
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir.1988) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Cancel
United States v. Lovell, 849 F. 2d 910, 915-916 (5th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 914 (5th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fifty Three Thousand Eighty-Two Dollars in U.S. Currency
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913-14 (5th Cir.1988) (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward Soldal v. County of Cook
(2×)
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 915-16 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Garcia, 849 F.2d 917, 919 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Brown, 884 F.2d 1309, 1311 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Victor Dovali-Avila
See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 , 103 S.Ct. 2637 , 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983); United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir.1988); and cases cited.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca5 1989
The time sequence thus is similar to that in Green, Brand, and Roberts 21 See United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 915 (5th Cir.1988) 22 In defining "probable cause" in this context, the Supreme Court has observed that it "merely requires that the facts available to the officer would 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief,' Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 ... (1925), that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true tha…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wright
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
This was precisely the investigatory method employed by Border Patrol agents in United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 911 (5th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Oscar Javier Garcia
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 912-13 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael B. Karman
(2×)
“We have recently held, however, that a Border Patrol agent’s removal of a suspect’s bag from an airport baggage area conveyor belt, his squeeze of the bag to procure a scent, and his subsequent sniff of that bag constituted neither a seizure nor a search.” United States v. Garcia, 849 F.2d 917, 919 (1988) (citing United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jaquez
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 912-13 (5th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hahn
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gutierrez
“We have recently held, however, that a Border Patrol agent’s removal of a suspect’s bag from an airport baggage area conveyor belt, his squeeze of the bag to procure a scent, and his subsequent sniff of that bag constituted neither a seizure nor a search.” United States v. Garcia, 849 F.2d 917, 919 (5th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 912-13 (5th Cir.1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. German Espinosa Roman
See Garcia, at 919; United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 912-13 (5th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sawyer
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 912-13 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Melissa Ann Harvey, United States of America v. Lisa Marie Flagella
(2×)
See United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 916 (5th Cir.1988) (no seizure occurred when DEA agents removed bags from conveyor belt); see also United States v. Riley, 927 F.2d 1045 , 1048 n. 4 (8th Cir.1991) (dictum) (court suggests exposing "checked baggage to a trained sniffing dog may be no seizure at all").
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Geronimo Muniz-Melchor
(6×)
See id. at 913 (citing with approval United States v. Viera, 644 F.2d 509, 510-11 (5th Cir.) (" '[S]ome investigative procedures designed to obtain incriminating evidence from the person are such minor intrusions upon privacy and integrity that they are not generally considered searches or seizures subject to the safeguards of the fourth amendment.' ") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 867 , 102 S.Ct. 332 , 70 L.Ed.2d 169 (1981)).
cited
Cited "see"
Crowder v. Sinyard
See United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 915 (5th Cir.1988). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Allen Thomas Cagle
See United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 915 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Garcia, 849 F.2d 917, 919 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Bartelt
(2×)
See United States v. Viera, 644 F.2d 509, 510-11 (5th Cir.1981) (holding that where government agents prepare bags by pressing lightly with the hands and slowly circulating the air, this does not constitute a search); see also United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 915 (5th Cir.1988) (noting where Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents touched and compressed the sides of defendant's bags to force air out of them to facilitate a canine sniff, this did not amount to a search).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Bartelt
See United States v. Viera, 644 F.2d 509, 510-11 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that where govern- ment agents prepare bags by pressing lightly with the hands and slowly circulating the air, this does not constitute a search); see also United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 915 (5th Cir. - 8 - 1988) (noting where Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents touched and compressed the sides of defendant's bags to force air out of them to facilitate a canine sniff, this did not amount to a search).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lindo v. State
Id. at 1292 ; see also United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Ortega
Id.; see also United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bond
By placing his bag in the overhead bin, Bond knowingly exposed it to the public and, therefore, did not have a reasonable expectation that his bag would not be handled or manipulated by others. 2 See McDonald, 100 F.3d at 1327 (holding that officer’s manipulation of bags on the overhead rack of a Greyhound bus was not a search because the defendant “did not have a legitimate expectation that her luggage left in such a place would not be handled by others.”); U.S. v. Guzman, 75 F.3d 1090, 1095 (6th Cir.1996) (holding that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Antonio Guzman
See also United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 915 (5th Cir.1988) (holding that removal of defendant’s suitcases from airline conveyer belt and subsequent compression and smelling of bags was not search based on facts that “agents’ actions ... occurred in a semi-public baggage area in the airport after [defendant] entrusted the handling of his bags to a common carrier” and that defendant “had no reasonable expectation that his luggage would not be moved or handled”); United States v. Rem, 984 F.2d 806, 812 (7th Cir.) (“Furthermore, it is generally recognized that the privacy int…
EXXON CORPORATION, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CHICK KAM CHOO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
v.
CHICK KAM CHOO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
86-2428.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 1, 1988.
Joseph C. Blanks, Beaumont, Tex., for defendants-appellants., James Patrick Cooney, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Clark, Gee, Per Curiam, Reavley.
Published
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:Obedient to the mandate of the Supreme Court, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1684, 100 L.Ed.2d 127 (1988), we vacate the trial court’s judgment, as well as ours affirming it, 817 F.2d 307, (5th Cir.1987), and remand the cause to that court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion above.
VACATED AND REMANDED.