Legal Opinion

People v. Mendoza-Balderama

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 24, 1999No. 98-SA460PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens and their homes “against unreasonable searches and seizures.”1 The “‘touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.’ ” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (quoting Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991)). Thus, a trial court, called upon to review the conduct of the police in the course of a challenged search, must determine whether the police acted in a manner that was “unreasonable.” The “fact specific reasonableness inquiry,” Robinette,…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Illinois v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. People v. PittsSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  2. People v. Miranda-OlivasSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
  3. People v. KaiserSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
  4. People v. RamosSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  5. People v. BosticColorado Court of Appeals · 2006

33 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