BELL

v.

COLORADO

Citator

Cited By (34 total)

• Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1980)
  …. C. 354, 357, 389 F. 2d 305, 308 (1967); United States v. Brown, 150 U. S. App. D. C. 113, 114, 463 F. 2d 949, 950 (1972). See also Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291 (1973); United States v. Gorman, 355 F. 2d 151, 160 (CA2 1965) (dictum), cert. denied, 384 U. S. 1024 (1966).6 III Having found no error in the lower courts’ refusal to suppress the evidence challenged by petitioner, we believe that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kentucky should be, and the same hereby is, Affirmed. At petitioner’s trial,…
• Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1979)
  …nt to that arrest. See Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 763 (1969). It should not matter, of course, whether the arrest precedes the search or vice versa. See, e. g., United States v. Gorman, 355 [*106] F. 2d 151, 159 (CA2 1965), cert. denied, 384 U. S. 1024 (1966) ; Holt v. Simpson, 340 F. 2d 853, 856 (CA7 1965). As already noted, I believe it error to analyze this case as if the police were under an obligation to act within one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement, yet this is precisel…
• Bailey v. United States, 389 F.2d 305 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
  …. Even if the formal arrest was not made until after the search, the search will be upheld so long as there is probable cause for an arrest before the search is begun. See United States v. Gorman, 2 Cir., 355 F. 2d 151, 159-160 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1024, 86 S.Ct. 1962, 16 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1966). Accepting the Government’s concession, the question then is whether there was probable cause for an arrest when Officer Stone first approached appellants’ ear. We think that there was. Probable cause is a p…

  ← 1 / 2 →