Legal Opinion

District of Columbia v. M. E. K.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 15, 1979No. 79-203PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FERREN, Associate Judge:

This interlocutory government appeal presents one question: whether the government established probable cause based on an informant’s tip under the two-pronged test set forth in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 413, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). The informant’s “veracity” is uncontested. The motions judge found, however, that the “basis of knowledge” prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test had not been met because the arresting officers, upon arriving at the scene, had not observed…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Spinelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Rushing v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1977
  4. Banks v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1973
  5. Rutledge v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Goldston v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Henighan v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
  3. In re C.L.W.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Goldston v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Henighan v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981

1 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