UNITED STATES

v.

MOORE

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

• Dominguez v. State, 616 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
  …his truck at a Border Patrol checkpoint included consent to a dog sniff because drug detection dogs were being openly used and were visible to defendant when he gave consent. In United States v. Richards, 500 F. 2d 1025 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 924, 95 S.Ct. 1118, 43 L.Ed.2d 393 (1975), defendant consented to a search of his belongings on an airplane he piloted. Although the opinion reports that a drug detection dog was used, defendant did not challenge use of the drug detection dog. The moti…
• United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1976)
  …sed on the totality of the circumstances, one of which was the illegality of the arrest, the court held Watson’s consent to search had been coerced and hence was not a valid ground for the warrantless search of the automobile. We granted certiorari. 420 U. S. 924 (1975). II A major part of the Court of Appeals’ opinion was its holding that Watson’s warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. Although it did not expressly do so, it may have intended to overturn the conviction on the independent ground…
• Bertram Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
  …pplication of a criminal statute generally is resolved in favor of the accused. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-48, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971); United States v. Moore, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 505 F. 2d 426, 427 (1974), cert. granted, 420 U.S. 924, 95 S.Ct. 1116, 43 L.Ed.2d 392 (1975). Perhaps the combination of these authorities is the true- basis of the Court’s erosion of the rule against mistakes of law. However, as is discussed in note 14 infra, the provisions of § 2520 are saved from un…