State v. Harlan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a seizure occurs when “the officer, by means of crimes of dishonesty.”
• holding that a seizure occurs when “the officer, by means of crimes of dishonesty.”
• noting that the “officer, like any other citizen, had a right to look into the car,” and concluding this was “an innocuous police–citizen encounter that did not implicate the fourth amendment”
• noting that the “officer, like any other citizen, had a right to look into the car” and concluding that this was “an innocuous police–citizen encounter that did not implicate the fourth amendment”
• noting that the “officer, like any other citizen, had a right to look into the car” and concluding that this was “an innocuous police–citizen encounter that did not implicate the fourth amendment”
• noting the officer’s initial observation of the defendant “was an innocuous 6 police-citizen encounter that did not implicate the Fourth Amendment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).