69 Cited authorities

Davis v. U.S.
564 U.S. 229 (2011) Cited 2,254 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[police] searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule"
Herring v. United States
555 U.S. 135 (2009) Cited 2,099 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding that the good-faith exception may apply "when police mistakes are the result of negligence ... rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements"
Rakas v. Illinois
439 U.S. 128 (1978) Cited 6,398 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that the determinative question is "whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place"
Minnesota v. Carter
525 U.S. 83 (1998) Cited 1,663 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a guest lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host's apartment because there was nothing "similar to the overnight guest relationship in Olson to suggest a degree of acceptance into the household"
United States v. Jacobsen
466 U.S. 109 (1984) Cited 3,050 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a legal seizure of a package became illegal when officers conducted a field test on it because the test "affect[ed] respondents' possessory interests ... by destroying a quantity of the powder [thereby] convert[ing] what had been only a temporary deprivation of possessory interests into a permanent one"
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
531 U.S. 32 (2000) Cited 1,061 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that "narcotics-detection" checkpoint lacked sufficient "special need" because its "primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing"
Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479 (1965) Cited 3,313 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding unconstitutional state law that criminalized the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception"
Whalen v. Roe
429 U.S. 589 (1977) Cited 1,727 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that New York's collection of prescription records in a computerized database did not violate patients' and physicians' right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Alderman v. United States
394 U.S. 165 (1968) Cited 2,317 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the victim of a warrantless search may object to the use of its fruits "not because he had any interest in the seized items as 'effects' protected by the Fourth Amendment, but because they were the fruits of an unauthorized search of his house, which is itself expressly protected by the Fourth Amendment"
Illinois v. Krull
480 U.S. 340 (1987) Cited 1,062 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that question of whether statute was unconstitutional was not before the court and that officer's reliance on statute was objectively reasonable and good faith exception applied
Section 164.512 - [Effective 6/25/2024] Uses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity to agree or object is not required
45 C.F.R. § 164.512 Cited 1,303 times 115 Legal Analyses
Approving disclosure to health oversight agency of protected health information to determine eligibility for government benefit programs
Section 1306.04 - Purpose of issue of prescription
21 C.F.R. § 1306.04 Cited 332 times 28 Legal Analyses
Providing that a prescription for a controlled substance "must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice"
Section 1304.04 - Maintenance of records and inventories
21 C.F.R. § 1304.04 Cited 9 times 1 Legal Analyses
Establishing that all required records concerning controlled substances must be maintained for at least two years for inspection and copying by duly authorized DEA officials

LEWIS v. S.C. (MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA)

69 Cited authorities

Holding that "[police] searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule"

Holding that the good-faith exception may apply "when police mistakes are the result of negligence ... rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements"

Holding that the determinative question is "whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place"

Holding that a guest lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host's apartment because there was nothing "similar to the overnight guest relationship in Olson to suggest a degree of acceptance into the household"

Holding that "narcotics-detection" checkpoint lacked sufficient "special need" because its "primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing"

Holding unconstitutional state law that criminalized the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception"

Holding that New York's collection of prescription records in a computerized database did not violate patients' and physicians' right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Holding that question of whether statute was unconstitutional was not before the court and that officer's reliance on statute was objectively reasonable and good faith exception applied

Approving disclosure to health oversight agency of protected health information to determine eligibility for government benefit programs

Providing that a prescription for a controlled substance "must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice"

Establishing that all required records concerning controlled substances must be maintained for at least two years for inspection and copying by duly authorized DEA officials