Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Day

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided January 8, 2010No. 08-5231Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDavis, Circuit Judge

Officers Costa and Slader, uniformed, armed security officers clothed with broad law enforcement authority by, and subject to pervasive regulation under, Virginia law, detained Appellee Mario Day at gunpoint, handcuffed him, searched his car and his person, and interrogated him, and thereby collected critical evidence for the *690government in its prosecution of Day. The majority expansively concludes, nevertheless, that the officers’ actions were not “fairly attributable” to the Commonwealth. See Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Beck v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982

37 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