Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1951 - 1960 of 83278 for case search.
Search results 1951 - 1960 of 83278 for case search.
[PDF]
NOTICE
of his right to refuse a request that he consent to a search. The court denied that motion without
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27417 - 2014-09-15
of his right to refuse a request that he consent to a search. The court denied that motion without
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27417 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
a protective search for weapons in a particular case. (Quotations and citations omitted.) ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=53160 - 2010-08-09
a protective search for weapons in a particular case. (Quotations and citations omitted.) ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=53160 - 2010-08-09
[PDF]
NOTICE
a protective search for weapons in a particular case. (Quotations and citations omitted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53160 - 2014-09-15
a protective search for weapons in a particular case. (Quotations and citations omitted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53160 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
deemed an unlawful search and suppressed as evidence. The court later signed a subpoena from the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=305386 - 2020-11-17
deemed an unlawful search and suppressed as evidence. The court later signed a subpoena from the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=305386 - 2020-11-17
State v. Cain Wiskow
suppression motion because a warrantless search of his room violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3949 - 2005-03-31
suppression motion because a warrantless search of his room violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3949 - 2005-03-31
State v. Steven G. Loveday
in not granting his motion to suppress evidence.[1] I. This case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11407 - 2005-03-31
in not granting his motion to suppress evidence.[1] I. This case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11407 - 2005-03-31
State v. Gerald D. Barr
to the officer’s search, thereby purging the taint of any unlawful curtilage entry, and because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6566 - 2005-03-31
to the officer’s search, thereby purging the taint of any unlawful curtilage entry, and because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6566 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
on the evidence obtained through the execution of a search warrant at Selk’s apartment. Selk moved to suppress
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133828 - 2015-01-28
on the evidence obtained through the execution of a search warrant at Selk’s apartment. Selk moved to suppress
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133828 - 2015-01-28
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the execution of a search warrant at Selk’s apartment. Selk moved to suppress the evidence on grounds
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=133828 - 2017-09-21
the execution of a search warrant at Selk’s apartment. Selk moved to suppress the evidence on grounds
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=133828 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Edward Garrett
2001 WI App 240 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 00-3183-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3307 - 2017-09-19
2001 WI App 240 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 00-3183-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3307 - 2017-09-19