Crook v. Tull

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no longer an “inadvertency” requirement under the State Constitution with respect to “drugs, weapons, and other items dangerous in themselves” (quotation omitted)
• explaining that the initial intrusion which afforded the view of the item must have been lawful, meaning the intrusion must have been justified by a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).