green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
32.0 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wilkes v. De Pinto
he one occurrence which seems to distinguish 'seizures' from casual contacts between police and citizens is when the defendant is asked to accompany the police or agents to a place to which the defendant had not planned to go.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Campbell
he one occurrence which seems to distinguish 'seizures' from casual contacts between police and citizens is when the defendant is asked to accompany the police or agents to a place to which the defendant had not planned to go.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Harold Evan Grant
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
he one occurrence which seems to distinguish 'seizures' from casual contacts between police and citizens is when the defendant is asked to accompany the police or agents to a place to which the defendant had not planned to go.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Camacho
Cf. United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989) (“[T]he one occurrence which seems to distinguish ‘seizures’ from casual contacts between police *183 and citizens is when the defendant is asked to accompany the police or agents to a place which the defendant had not planned to go”); Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 (defendant was forced back onto the sidewalk). 7.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry v. Bordley
Cf. United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989) *113 ("[T]he one occurrence which seems to distinguish ‘seizures' from casual contacts between police and citizens is when the defendant is asked to accompany the police or agents to a place which the defendant had not planned to 9 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jacobs v. Village of Ottawa Hills
See, e.g., United States v. Erwin, 155 F.3d 818, 823 (6th Cir.1998) (en banc) (citing Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 , 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)) (“[a] law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment merely by approaching an individual, even when there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and asking him whether he is willing to answer some questions.”); United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1989) (“an officer may approach a traveller [sic] and request to speak to him, and may continue that conversation up to the point t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anderson
Ms. Anderson’s consent “ ‘must be proven by clear and positive testimony....’ ” U.S. v. Gilbert, 829 F.Supp. 900, 905 (E.D.Mich.1993) (Zatkoff, J.) (quoting U.S. v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hardeman
Furthermore, defendant Hardeman’s consent “ ‘must be proven by clear and positive testimo-ny_’” U.S. v. Gilbert, 829 F.Supp. 900, 905 (E.D.Mich.1993)(Zatkoff, J.)(quoting U.S. v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Louis White
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The government correctly asserts that it need only show that White "associated himself with, and in some sense attempted to help bring about, the result sought." See United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 152 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard Anthony Aloi, Cross-Appellee
(2×)
United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151-52 (6th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Rose
United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989); United States v. Coleman, 628 F.2d 961, 963 (6th Cir.1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gilbert
In addition, defendant Gilbert’s consent “must be proven by clear and positive testimony----” United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1989) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jaime Soto, Also Known as Leonel Guerra
(2×)
United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1324 (9th Cir.1992) (detention at border checkpoint; defendant not threatened, screamed at, or struck, and no evidence of psychological coercion); see also United States v. Jackson, 901 F.2d 83, 84 (7th Cir.1990) (defendant appeared outside occupied house with hands in pockets; officers sought permission to search pockets, never displayed weapons); United States v. Moreno, 897 F.2d 26, 33 (2d Cir.) (defendant appre hended in public area, not abused or threatened, no weapons displayed, consent requested after brief detention), cert. denied, 497 U…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Yonatan Teffera, A/K/A Tony Johnson
Torres v. United States, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 138 , 121 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992); United States v. Martin, 920 F.2d 345, 347-48 (6th Cir.1990) (aiding and abetting conviction upheld where evidence included the fact that, as two defendants made their way through the airport, the alleged aider and abettor was “constantly watching” the other defendant’s activities from behind), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2038 , 114 L.Ed.2d 122 (1991); Poston, 902 F.2d at 95-96 (sufficient evidence to convict on lookout theory where the defendant, after dropping off a friend who was to make a drug sale, d…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Curtis Jennings
United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wendall Nicholson
United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1324 (9th Cir.1992) (detention at border checkpoint; defendant not threatened, screamed at, or struck, and no evidence of psychological coercion); see also United States v. Jackson, 901 F.2d 83, 84 (7th Cir.1990) (defendant appeared outside occupied house with hands in pockets; officers sought permission to search pockets, never displayed weapons); United States v. Moreno, 897 F.2d 26, 33 (2d Cir.) (defendant apprehended in public area, not abused or threatened, no weapons displayed, consent requested after brief detention), cert. denied, 497 U.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Elizabeth Chalkias (91-3528) Hendrick Gil (91-3783) and Mercedes Rodriguez (91-3773)
Questions posed to a criminal defendant on cross-examination are prejudicial only if “the challenged questioning contributed to the jury’s determination of guilt.” United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 153 (6th Cir.1989) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 25-26 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 829 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ricardo Sotolongo
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Where there is a "swearing contest" between the defendant's testimony and that of a police officer, "we see no justification for disturbing the finding of the trial judge, whose opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor renders his judgment as to their credibility superior to that of any appellate tribunal." Garcia, 866 F.2d at 151-52
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terry L. Garvey
See United States v. Cooke, 915 F.2d 250 (6th Cir.1990) (affirming voluntary consent where plain-clothed officer explained, prior to his request to search, that he was "assigned to the airport to enforce the drug laws"); United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989) ("[a]bsent coercive or intimidating behavior which negates the reasonable belief that compliance is not compelled ...' there has been no seizure") (quoting United States v. Collis, 766 F.2d 219, 221 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 (1985)). 15 Nor do we find the subsequent actions by the officers in violation of t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eddie Louis Taylor
(2×)
See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. at 501 , 103 S.Ct. at 1326 (suspect seized when, among other things, officers asked him to accompany them to a police room and retained possession of his ticket and driver’s license); United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989) (“the one occurrence which seems to separate ‘seizures’ from casual contacts between police and citizens is when the defendant is asked to accompany the police or agents to a place to which the defendant had not planned to go”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Byfield, and Ranceford Drake
United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nited States of America v. Richard A. Wakefield
United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989). 27 The government argues that contrary to the district court's legal conclusion that defendant was subjected to a Terry stop, the district judge's factual findings are consistent with the alternate legal conclusion that the encounter was voluntary and consensual.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wayne Byfield
Cf. United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 152 (6th Cir.1989) (defendant’s hand signals to drug courier in airline terminal coupled with association between defendant and courier provided “more than enough” evidence to convict under aiding and abetting theory).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Henry Moore, Jr.
A finding of probable cause by the district court will not be set aside unless "clearly erroneous." See United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989). 17 At the time defendant was chased by Detective Zaller, handcuffed, and placed under arrest, the Detectives were aware of the following incriminating factors: (1) the area of the King-Kennedy Projects was known by the Detectives to be an area of prolific drug trafficking; (2) defendant fit the description provided to the Detectives by various independent sources of an individual dealing drugs in the area of the King-Kennedy Projects…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Peter Stewart and Winsome Andrea Johnson
A finding that reasonable suspicion to stop or probable cause to arrest existed will not be set aside unless, under the totality of the circumstances, the district court's findings of fact were "clearly erroneous." See United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 , ----, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585 (1989) (totality of the circumstances must be considered when determining reasonable suspicion or probable cause). 13 Under the facts of this case, it is clear that the DEA officers had a "reasonable suspicion" that Stewart was engaged in criminal…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Orji Adiwe & Nonso Onugha
United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1989). 18 Examination of the instant case reveals that the circumstances of the initial contacts were not coercive.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Andrew Matthew Winfrey, Jr.
(2×)
United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lavonda Lynn Webster
(2×)
Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Dog Owners Ass'n v. Dade County, Fla.
U.S. v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 149 (6th Cir.1989)
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Birdsong
See United States v. Chalkias, 971 F.2d 1206, 1213 (6th Cir.1992) (stating that challenged questions were prejudicial only if they “contributed to the jury’s determination of guilt”) (quoting United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 153 (6th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Steven G. Campbell
(2×)
See United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989) ("[T]he one occurrence which seems to distinguish `seizures' from casual contacts between police and citizens is when the defendant is asked to accompany the police or agents to a place to which the defendant had not planned to go."). 27 In INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 , 104 S.Ct. 1758 , 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984), the Supreme Court noted that "interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure." Moreover, this court has previously held th…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul
See United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151-52 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Houston
See United States v. Garcia and Wolfe, 866 F.2d 147, 152 (6th Cir.1989) (defendant claimed evidence insufficient to prove constructive possession or knowledge of cocaine, but “because [he] chose to testify, the jury had an opportunity to judge his credibility, and was entitled to consider any lack of credibility in reaching its verdict”); see also United States v. Cotton, 770 F.2d 940, 945 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Tyler, 758 F.2d 66, 69 (2d Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Terrill A. Walker, Also Known as Bishop
See United States v. Riazco, 91 F.3d 752, 754-55 (5th Cir.1996) (holding that a driver and a passenger in a rental car who did not rent the car, were not listed as authorized drivers on the rental agreement, and did not have permission of the renter to drive it lacked a protected Fourth Amendment right and thus could not challenge evidence produced by a search because they lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of priva- United States v. Pino, 855 F.2d 357, 360-61 (6th Cir.1988) (holding that a passenger in a rental car who was not listed on the rental agreement as an approved driver did…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lisa Timmons and Eddie Lee Timmons
"To be found guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal venture, a defendant must associate himself with the venture in a manner whereby he participates in it as something that he wishes to bring about and seeks by his acts to make succeed." United States v. Knox, 839 F.2d 285, 294 (6th Cir.1988) (applying 18 U.S.C. § 2 ); see United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147 (6th Cir.1989). 9 Lisa Timmons argues that the evidence at trial showed, at most, that she was merely present at the crime scene and that she may have had knowledge that a crime was being committed.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Freddie Mans
Accord United States v. Pino, 855 F.2d 357, 361 (6th Cir.1988), modified, 866 F.2d 147 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1090 , 110 S.Ct. 1160 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1063 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Deondra D. Gray (91-1242) Frank Johnson (91-1262) Lonnie L. Griffin (91-1265)
See United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989) (no justification for disturbing factual finding of district court where we are presented with a "swearing contest ... between the defendant's testimony and that of a police officer").
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jose Alberto Perez
See United States v. Pino, 855 F.2d 357, 361 (6th Cir.1988), amended, 866 F.2d 147 (6th Cir.1989) (adding a concurring opinion by Jones, J.), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1160 (1990); Pepple, 707 F.2d at 263 . 12 In the case at bar the district court found that Officer Lombardi had probable cause to believe that the defendant had violated Ky.Rev.Stat. 189.300.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Walter George Strickland, Jr.
See United States v. Pino, 855 F.2d 357, 361 (6th Cir.1988) (similarly distinguishing Smith), opinion amended, 866 F.2d 147 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1160 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1063 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sene
See Salgado, 250 F.3d at 446 ; see also United States v. Garcia, 866 F.2d 147, 151-52 (6th Cir.1989) (noting that the opportunity of the trial court to assess witness credibility is superior to that of the appellate court).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Victor Suarez and Rogelio Campos
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498-99 (1983) (investigative detention must be supported by reasonable articulable suspicion and "must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop."); see also United States v. Pino, 855 F.2d 357, 361, 363 (6th Cir. 1988), amended, 866 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom, Llera v. United States, 493 U.S. 1090 (1990) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerry Blackwell
(2×)
See also Garcia, 866 F.2d at 150 (an officer may approach a traveller and request to speak to him, and may continue that conversation up to the point that a reasonable person would no longer feel free to go).
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Osvaldo Ramon PINO (87-6129), Silverio Juan Llera (87-6130), Defendants-Appellants
v.
Osvaldo Ramon PINO (87-6129), Silverio Juan Llera (87-6130), Defendants-Appellants
87-6129, 87-6130.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 16, 1989.
866 F.2d 147
Jones, Lively, Brown.
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
ORDER
Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that the opinion in this case filed August 31, 1988, 855 F.2d 357, be amended by adding the special concurring opinion as follows:
“JONES, CIRCUIT JUDGE Concurring. While I join the majority, I find it necessary to emphasize the limited scope of our decision in this ease. In particular, as I read Judge Brown’s opinion, the sole basis for our approval of the initial stop of Pino’s automobile is our determination that the district court’s finding as to the actual reason for the stop (the traffic violation) is not clearly erroneous. Likewise, the majority’s approval of Pino’s arrest appears to be founded solely upon the conclusion that the district court’s decision as to the basis for the arrest (the arresting officer’s legitimate conclusion that Pino would not appear in court) is not clearly erroneous. Finally, I do not read the majority opinion to express any view on the constitutional permissibility of basing stops and/or arrests on ‘profiles’ containing racial characteristics. On the basis of this understanding, I concur in the majority’s decision.”