Rose v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1DissentWagner, Associate Judge
The majority’s determination that it should not decide this case on the merits raises an important question: whether the government’s litigating position relieves this court of its obligation to conduct a de novo review of a motion to suppress evidence, as we have heretofore, applying relevant case precedents. The majority answers this question in the affirmative, albeit under a discretionary standard. The position the court takes is contrary to well established legal principles. The result is that the court not only overturns what, in my opinion, is a correct judgment, it also departs from…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.