Michael Bradley v. Jack Reno, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that state suppression ruling did not have preclusive effect when the state defendant was subsequently 11 acquitted and no longer able to appeal the ruling
• noting that “swaying, losing [one’s] balance and failing to follow basic instructions” are “signs of intoxication”
• collecting cases for the proposition “that when an acquittal prevents a criminal defendant from appealing a ruling, the ruling has no preclusive force”
• “[I]n gauging the reasonableness of an officer’s acts, a ... court should of course consider what a ... trial court thought of them.”
• “[I]n gauging the reasonableness of an officer’s acts, a . . . court should of course consider what a . . . trial court thought of them.”
• “A state judge’s finding of probable cause suggests, even if it does not prove, that the officer behaved reasonably in thinking he had probable cause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).