Eighth Circuit· 3/26/2012

United States v. Clutter

Citations

674 F.3d 980
2012 WL 987325
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6139

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that seizure of defendant’s computers while he was in jail “did not meaningfully interfere with his possessory interests”
concluding that a warrantless seizure of the defendant’s computers “did not meaningfully interfere with his possessory interests” because he was in jail and so not in possession of the computers at the time of the seizure
recognizing that “[f]or most people, their computers are their most private spaces”
holding that the defendant’s father [a former policeman] had common authority over the defendant’s computers inside the family home such that he could consent to their seizure even if he did not have common authority over the contents of the computers
which in turn quoted Place , the Supreme Court case the balancing test originates from
upholding temporary seizure to secure warrant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wollman, Loken, Melloy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.