Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Antoine Jones v. Steve Kirchner

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided August 26, 2016No. 14-5257; Consolidated with 15-5088Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRandolph, Senior Circuit Judge

There are two basic and related reasons why I believe the majority errs in deciding that the defendants violated the Fourth Amendment when they allegedly executed a daytime search warrant at night. The first reason should have been conclusive. It is that collateral estoppel bars Jones’ claim about the timing of the search. In the criminal proceedings leading to Jones’ conviction that very issue was decided against him, not once but several times, because his allegation turned out to be false. The second reason is that the majority’s determination to reach out and decide this constitutional…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Pearson v. CallahanSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  3. Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Wallace v. KatoSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  5. Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980

45 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