COY

v.

IOWA

Citator

Cited By

• COY v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1988)
  …e the witnesses was not impaired by the screen, there was no violation of the Confrontation Clause. It also rejected the due process argument, on the ground that the screening procedure was not inherently prejudicial. We noted probable jurisdiction, 483 U. S. 1019 (1987). II The Sixth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right “to he confronted with the witnesses against him.” This language “comes to us on faded parchment,” California v. Green, 399 U. S. 149, 174 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring), with a…
• California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1988)
  …uperior Court was correct in dismissing the charges against respondents. 182 Cal. App. 3d, at 735, 227 Cal. Rptr, at 542.1 The California Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. We granted certiorari, 483 U. S. 1019, and now reverse. ) — I I — C The warrantless search and seizure of the garbage bags left at the curb outside the Greenwood house would violate the Fourth Amendment only if respondents manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbag…
• Earnestine Hill v. McINTYRE, 884 F.2d 271 (6th Cir. 1989)
  …e against an officer who obtains an invalid search warrant by making, in his affidavit, material false statements either knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth. Donta v. Hooper, 774 F. 2d 716, 718 (6th Cir.1985) (per curiam), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1019, 107 S.Ct. 3261, 97 L.Ed.2d 760 (1987). This standard originates in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), a suppression case in which the Supreme Court defined the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee in the context of se…