First Circuit· 3/27/1995
United States v. Jose Robles
Citations
- 45 F.3d 1
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that drilling into machine part was a “non-routine” search that required reasonable suspicion
- holding that reasonable suspicion existed where a metal machine part of no commercial value was shipped “from Colombia — a known source country for narcotics” to a residence in the United States at a cost higher than its worth, without insurance
- noting that “benefits received are certainly strong evidence that the principal acquiesced in the agent’s transaction”
- holding, where the government conceded that drilling into metal cylinder was non-routine search, that the search was justified by reasonable suspicion
- \We have little difficulty concluding that drilling a hole into the cylinder was not a routine search.\
- “We have little difficulty concluding that drilling a hole into the cylinder was not a routine search.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Senior', Selya, Campbell, Stahl
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
57 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. Flores-MontanoSupreme Court· 2004-03-30· cited 217×
- United States v. UphamFirst Circuit· 1999-02-12· cited 126×
- United States v. RivasFifth Circuit· 1998-10-02· cited 92×
- United States v. BartelhoFirst Circuit· 1995-12-05· cited 67×
- United States v. WoodsFirst Circuit· 2000-04-27· cited 53×
- United States v. RibeiroFirst Circuit· 2005-02-08· cited 52×
- United States v. Jose Molina-TarazonNinth Circuit· 2002-01-29· cited 46×
- United States v. BlackFirst Circuit· 1996-02-27· cited 44×
- United States v. Julio Cortez-RochaNinth Circuit· 2005-01-20· cited 38×
- United States v. Molina-GomezFirst Circuit· 2015-03-20· cited 33×
- United States v. Dora ChaudhryNinth Circuit· 2005-09-14· cited 26×
- State v. GreenNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2001-07-09· cited 24×
- Hugh Kaufman v. Thomas PerezD.C. Circuit· 2014-03-14· cited 24×
- United States v. De Jesus-VieraFirst Circuit· 2011-08-24· cited 21×
- United States v. SaboonchiD. Maryland· 2014-04-07· cited 19×
- United States v. AntrimFirst Circuit· 2004-11-24· cited 18×
- United States v. PenaD. Massachusetts· 1996-04-29· cited 15×
- United States v. CarpenterFirst Circuit· 2013-11-25· cited 12×
- Lynn B. Hargis v. Allen HargisSupreme Court of Arkansas· 2019-11-07· cited 11×
- United States v. RobertsS.D. Texas· 2000-02-24· cited 5×
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court· 1971-06-21· cited 9,038×
- United States v. RossSupreme Court· 1982-06-01· cited 3,985×
- Texas v. BrownSupreme Court· 1983-04-19· cited 3,147×
- Horton v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1990-06-04· cited 2,923×
- United States v. ChadwickSupreme Court· 1977-06-21· cited 2,561×
- United States v. Montoya De HernandezSupreme Court· 1985-07-01· cited 982×
- United States v. RamseySupreme Court· 1977-06-06· cited 663×
- United States v. Jose A. Garcia, United States v. Pablo H. GarciaFirst Circuit· 1993-02-04· cited 156×
- United States v. Erwin SanchezFirst Circuit· 1991-08-27· cited 111×
- United States v. Bernard Michael McLaughlin United States of America v. David Carl BruceFirst Circuit· 1992-02-18· cited 106×
- United States v. James William GiannettaFirst Circuit· 1990-07-20· cited 91×
- United States v. Allen J. CaggianoFirst Circuit· 1990-03-26· cited 85×
- United States v. Jaime Uricoechea-CasallasFirst Circuit· 1991-10-11· cited 73×
- United States v. Joseph A. ChadwickFirst Circuit· 1976-03-29· cited 58×
- United States v. Joseph RutkowskiFirst Circuit· 1989-06-09· cited 51×
- United States v. Georgette BraksFirst Circuit· 1988-03-11· cited 44×
- United States v. Cardona-SandovalFirst Circuit· 1993-09-30· cited 39×
- United States v. Michael S. BouffardFirst Circuit· 1990-10-31· cited 26×
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.