Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rose v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided August 5, 1993No. 91-CF-499Published

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

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API