Legal Opinion

United States v. Acosta

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided September 5, 2007No. Docket 05-1284-cr(L), 05-1514-cr(XAP)PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WESLEY, Circuit Judge:

Joseph Carvajal argues his conviction should be overturned, claiming the evidence presented against him at trial was obtained in violation of the knock-and-announce rule under the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109. Before oral argument, but after Carvajal filed his brief, the Supreme Court held in Hudson v. Michigan, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006), that although a police officer’s failure to abide by the knock-and-announce rule may violate an individual’s right to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Wilson v. LayneSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Hudson v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  5. Miller v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Roger Trent v. Steven WadeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2015
  2. Parker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  3. Hourin v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2017
  4. United States v. DanielczykDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2011
  5. Kyle-Labell v. Selective Serv. Sys.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2019

26 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