59 Cited authorities

Illinois v. Gates
462 U.S. 213 (1983) Cited 18,916 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that a warrant may issue only when probable cause exists under the "totality-of-the-circumstances"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,240 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Buck v. Davis
137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) Cited 2,657 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the process of resolving whether a petitioner is entitled to a COA should not devolve into a determination of the merits
United States v. Bagley
473 U.S. 667 (1985) Cited 9,423 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant
United States v. Jones
565 U.S. 400 (2012) Cited 1,857 times 109 Legal Analyses
Holding that installation of a tracking device was "a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted"
United States v. Wade
388 U.S. 218 (1967) Cited 8,065 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated
Utah v. Strieff
136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) Cited 631 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that the exclusionary rule covers both "the primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure," and "evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality"
Escobedo v. Illinois
378 U.S. 478 (1964) Cited 4,237 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a suspect is interrogated with the goal of eliciting incriminating statements and the suspect has not been warned about his or her right to remain silent, the denial of the opportunity to consult with the suspect's attorney is a violation of the Sixth Amendment
Massiah v. United States
377 U.S. 201 (1964) Cited 2,730 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are violated when the government deploys an informant to interrogate the defendant following indictment
California v. Greenwood
486 U.S. 35 (1988) Cited 945 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because they “exposed their garbage to the public”
Section 500.1 - General requirements
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1 Cited 1 times
(a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation

The People, Respondent,v.Otis Boone, Appellant.

59 Cited authorities

Holding that a warrant may issue only when probable cause exists under the "totality-of-the-circumstances"

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that the process of resolving whether a petitioner is entitled to a COA should not devolve into a determination of the merits

Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

Holding that installation of a tracking device was "a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted"

Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated

Holding that the exclusionary rule covers both "the primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure," and "evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality"

Holding that when a suspect is interrogated with the goal of eliciting incriminating statements and the suspect has not been warned about his or her right to remain silent, the denial of the opportunity to consult with the suspect's attorney is a violation of the Sixth Amendment

Holding that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are violated when the government deploys an informant to interrogate the defendant following indictment

Holding that defendants lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because they “exposed their garbage to the public”