Chrysler Corp. v. Clark Climate Control Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “warning was defective because it omitted reference to Defendant’s right to have an attorney present during questioning, i.e. at the present time”
• holding the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied when law enforcement officers relied on subsection 2702(c)(4) of the Stored Communications Act to obtain real-time, cell-site location information
• emphasizing \the violent shooting of [a store] clerk in the face at point blank range\ to support the finding of an exigent circumstance supporting voluntary disclosure
• denying motion to suppress based on warrantless cellphone GPS pinging, data from cellular providers pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(4), where the defendant’s location was already being staked out and discovery was inevitable even absent the cellphone GPS pinging data
• probable cause and exigent circumstances justified detective's application for cell phone pinging under 18 U.S.C. § 2702
• probable cause and exigent circumstances justified detective's application for cell phone pinging under 18 U.S.C. § 2702

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).