§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. IKEDA (Abated on death of defendant; no oral argument to be heard.)

Appellant’s Petition for Review

16 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Arvizu

    534 U.S. 266 (2002)   Cited 5,293 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court must consider whether all the facts, taken together, warranted further investigation.

  2. Florida v. Royer

    460 U.S. 491 (1983)   Cited 6,692 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government bears the burden of demonstrating reasonable suspicion

  3. Payton v. New York

    445 U.S. 573 (1980)   Cited 7,619 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a New York statute "authoriz[ing] police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest" was "not consistent with the Fourth Amendment"

  4. Maryland v. Pringle

    540 U.S. 366 (2003)   Cited 2,250 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that probable cause existed to arrest all of a vehicle's occupants after police discovered cocaine and money over which no occupant claimed possession

  5. Katz v. United States

    389 U.S. 347 (1967)   Cited 12,447 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth would "ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication"

  6. Maryland v. Buie

    494 U.S. 325 (1990)   Cited 2,346 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, incident to arrest, an officer may conduct a limited protective sweep of those areas of a house in which he reasonably suspects a dangerous person may be hiding

  7. Welsh v. Wisconsin

    466 U.S. 740 (1984)   Cited 1,917 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that some offenses may be so minor as to make it unreasonable for police to undertake searches that would be constitutionally permissible if graver offenses were suspected

  8. People v. Celis

    33 Cal.4th 667 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 412 times
    Holding that a post-arrest protective sweep of the defendant's home was not justified where the officers "had no knowledge of the presence of anyone in defendant's house," reasoning that "[t]he facts known to the officers before they performed the protective sweep fell short of what Buie requires"

  9. U.S. v. Garcia

    997 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 157 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the officers' request to talk, combined with the suspect's affirmative response and step back clearing way for officers' entry, implied consent to enter

  10. People v. Ledesma

    106 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that protective sweep may be executed in connection with probation search if justified by pertinent circumstances

  11. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. I § 13   Cited 1,167 times
    Prohibiting "unreasonable seizures and searches"

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer