Ramos v. White

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that inadvertency requirement “continues to protect the possessory interests conferred on our citizens by” state constitution
• declining to abandon inadvertence requirement of plain view exception to warrant requirement under art. 14, as Supreme Court did under Fourth Amendment
• declining to abandon the inadvertence requirement of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement under Article 14 as the Supreme Court did under the Fourth Amendment
• declining to abandon the inadvertence requirement of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement under Article 14 as the Supreme Court did under the Fourth Amendment
• retaining inadvertence requirement under art. 14 of Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
• “inadvertence requirement means only that the police lacked probable cause to believe, prior to the search, that specific items would be discovered during the search”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).