United States v. Daniel Ocampo, Theodoro Hernandez, Jose Otero, and Nicholas Munoz-Velasquez

How courts have described this case

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

• in the seizure context, finding that “the agent’s use of a flashlight did not keep the cash in the bag from being in ‘plain view’”
• \Prior to arresting him the agents merely halted (Otero's) movements and asked him to identify himself. No guns were drawn before the agents identified him. These actions were consistent with the limited investigative stop sanctioned in Terry v. Ohio ....\
• “Prior to arresting him the agents merely halted [Otero’s] movements and asked him to identify himself. No guns were drawn before the agents identified him. These actions were consistent with the limited investigative stop sanctioned in Terry v. Ohio .... ”
• “[A] court, in conducting a hearing to determine the legality of a warrantless search or seizure, is not bound by strict rules of evidence . . . .” (citing United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172–74 (1974))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).