United States v. Clarence Kenneth Gorman

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the “‘reason to believe’ standard . . . embodies the same standard of reasonableness inherent in probable cause”
• holding that the district court properly excluded the nearly 10-month period between defendant’s filing of a motion to exclude evidence and the defendant’s entering of a guilty plea even though the court never ruled on the suppression motion
• explaining that the “‘reason to believe’ standard . . . embodies the same standard of reasonableness inherent in probable cause”
• holding “that the ‘reason to believe’ . . . standard of Payton . . . should be read to entail the same protection and reasonableness inherent in probable cause”
• finding error when the district court “equated the 'reason to believe’ standard ... with ‘reasonable suspicion’ instead of probable cause”
• stating that “the ‘reason to believe’ standard is far from clear”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).