United States v. Anthony Tyrone Anderson (90-5313) and Michael Wayne McNeil (90-5507)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding \that knowledge of the precise crime committed is not necessary to a finding of probable cause provided that probable cause exists showing that a crime was committed by the defendants\
• acknowledging that “a suspect’s lying to law enforcement . . . in conjunction with other facts establishing a reasonable suspicion” would “justify a man of reasonable caution in finding probable cause”
• holding “that knowledge of the precise crime committed is not necessary to a finding of probable cause provided that probable cause exists showing that a crime was committed by the defendants”
• holding in a case under the ACCA that an enhanced sentence was proper because “Anderson was convicted of violating Tennessee’s burglary statute,” which, as the court noted, “contains all of the[] elements” outlined in Taylor
• “Just as a subjective belief by the arresting officer would not establish probable cause where none existed, a subjective belief by the arresting officer cannot destroy probable cause where it exists.”
• “[K]nowledge of the precise crime committed is not necessary to a finding of probable cause provided that probable cause exists showing that a crime was committed by the defendants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).