United States v. Barner
666 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 51 timesHolding that once a parole officer received information that, "if true, would have constituted criminal parole violations ... the ensuing search satisfied the reasonable relationship requirement ... because it was performed in direct response to information that [the parole officer] obtained and that she had a duty to investigate further"
U.S. v. Harrell
530 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 24 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 07-10238. Argued and Submitted March 11, 2008. Filed June 30, 2008. Daniel J. Broderick, Federal Defender, Sacramento, CA, for the defendant-appellant. McGregor W. Scott, United States Attorney, Sean C. Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-0047-LKK. Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, MELVIN BRUNETTI, and RAYMOND
Matter of Search Warrant
124 Misc. 2d 897 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984) Cited 9 timesFinding that "[c]ourts retain an inherent authority to decide questions concerning an allegedly unreasonable use of their process," that "property seized pursuant to a search warrant technically remains in the custody of the court," and that "the District Attorney or property clerk possesses the property only as an officer of the court, subject to the court's direction and disposition"