Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9791 - 9800 of 83778 for simple case search/1000.
Search results 9791 - 9800 of 83778 for simple case search/1000.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Because Gilbertson and Kone were on probation, officers searched the motel room pursuant to WIS. STAT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1069322 - 2026-01-27
. Because Gilbertson and Kone were on probation, officers searched the motel room pursuant to WIS. STAT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1069322 - 2026-01-27
[PDF]
State v. Christine M. Hill
door and entered Hill’s residence. After a search of the house, the officers found Hill on a bed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13007 - 2017-09-21
door and entered Hill’s residence. After a search of the house, the officers found Hill on a bed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13007 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
, they met with Kimble, who let them search most of her home. When officers asked to search
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=657753 - 2023-05-23
, they met with Kimble, who let them search most of her home. When officers asked to search
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=657753 - 2023-05-23
Ronald A. Keith, Sr. v. State
and subjected him to strip searches, random urinalysis, random room searches, and other acts of control beyond
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2245 - 2005-03-31
and subjected him to strip searches, random urinalysis, random room searches, and other acts of control beyond
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2245 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
violated ordinance § 7.01(8), and under “Description of Violation” it stated, “[F]ailure to allow search
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59760 - 2011-02-07
violated ordinance § 7.01(8), and under “Description of Violation” it stated, “[F]ailure to allow search
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59760 - 2011-02-07
[PDF]
State v. Donald R. Goldsworthy
on Goldsworthy’s postconviction motion.1 On May 28, 1994, police officers obtained a search warrant, entered
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11211 - 2017-09-19
on Goldsworthy’s postconviction motion.1 On May 28, 1994, police officers obtained a search warrant, entered
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11211 - 2017-09-19
State v. Donald R. Goldsworthy
postconviction motion.[1] On May 28, 1994, police officers obtained a search warrant, entered Goldsworthy’s home
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11211 - 2005-03-31
postconviction motion.[1] On May 28, 1994, police officers obtained a search warrant, entered Goldsworthy’s home
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11211 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
was obtained pursuant to an illegal search and seizure. We agree and reverse. BACKGROUND ¶2 Wilson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=140075 - 2017-09-21
was obtained pursuant to an illegal search and seizure. We agree and reverse. BACKGROUND ¶2 Wilson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=140075 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
motion mainly challenging the support for and issuance of the search warrant. The court denied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174085 - 2017-09-21
motion mainly challenging the support for and issuance of the search warrant. The court denied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174085 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
to suppress because the evidence was obtained pursuant to an illegal search and seizure. We agree and reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140075 - 2015-04-20
to suppress because the evidence was obtained pursuant to an illegal search and seizure. We agree and reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140075 - 2015-04-20