State v. Boyington

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the evidence should not be suppressed because, although there had been an earlier Fourth Amendment violation, the police officer’s actions did not suggest flagrant police misconduct, as evidenced by the fact that their subsequent investigative activities were lawful
• holding that the evidence should not be suppressed because, although there had been an earlier Fourth Amendment violation, the police officer's actions did not suggest flagrant police misconduct, as evidenced by the fact that their subsequent investigative activities were lawful
• “[E]very curtilage determination is distinctive and stands or falls on its own unique set of facts.” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).