Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
First Circuit· 1/11/2006

United States v. Almeida

Citations

  • 434 F.3d 25
  • 2006 WL 51406

How courts have described this case

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

  • observing that the deterrence rationale for the exclusionary rule has minimal force \if the evidence would have been discovered lawfully\ (citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444)
  • noting that “the government must demonstrate, to a high degree of -7- probability, that the evidence would have been discovered”
  • observing that the deterrence rationale for the exclusionary rule has minimal force “if the evidence would have been discovered lawfully” (citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501)
  • noting that where “officers would have eventually seized the drugs by arresting Almeida (as 21 they had planned to do before questioning him), they had little incentive to try to obtain the crack through unconstitutional means when a lawful means was readily available.”
  • “The inevitable discovery exception recognizes that, if the evidence would have been discovered lawfully, ‘the deterrence rationale has so little basis that the evidence should be received.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Torruella, Campbell, Howard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named United States v. Almeida

8 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.