17 Cited authorities

Rakas v. Illinois
439 U.S. 128 (1978) Cited 6,383 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"
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,290 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Simmons v. United States
390 U.S. 377 (1968) Cited 6,456 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"
U.S. v. Howell
231 F.3d 615 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,297 times
Holding that evidence on a motion to suppress is needed "only when the moving papers allege facts" that "enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist"
Nardone v. United States
308 U.S. 338 (1939) Cited 1,582 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding once a defendant proves a government search is illegal, the government may avail itself of an opportunity to demonstrate the information came from an independent source and was not a product of the tainted search
U.S. v. Gonzalez, Inc
412 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 155 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding corporate officers of company had reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to conversations made in the small corporate office over which they exercised full access
United States v. Dicesare
765 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 191 times
Holding that sniff test of automobile trunk not a search requiring probable cause
United States v. Walczak
783 F.2d 852 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 175 times
Holding that jurisdiction over a U.S. citizen who violated a federal statute while in Canada was proper under the nationality principle
U.S. v. Buffington
815 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 160 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact that the police stopped the defendants' car, ordered defendants out of the car at gunpoint, and forced them to lie face down on the pavement did not turn the stop into an arrest
U.S. v. Dickerson
166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999) Cited 82 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the admissibility of confessions in federal court is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3501 rather than Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694

USA v. Salyer

17 Cited authorities

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 “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

Holding that defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"

Holding that evidence on a motion to suppress is needed "only when the moving papers allege facts" that "enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist"

Holding once a defendant proves a government search is illegal, the government may avail itself of an opportunity to demonstrate the information came from an independent source and was not a product of the tainted search

Holding corporate officers of company had reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to conversations made in the small corporate office over which they exercised full access

Holding that sniff test of automobile trunk not a search requiring probable cause

Holding that jurisdiction over a U.S. citizen who violated a federal statute while in Canada was proper under the nationality principle

Holding that the fact that the police stopped the defendants' car, ordered defendants out of the car at gunpoint, and forced them to lie face down on the pavement did not turn the stop into an arrest

Holding that the admissibility of confessions in federal court is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3501 rather than Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694