United States v. Manuel Flores, United States of America v. Juan Raul Garza

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a portion of the FDPA was inapplicable to the defendant because it was not in effect at the time of his sentencing
• holding that consent to search a vehicle included consent to unscrewing two screws in order to remove vent panels
• holding that police did not exceed scope of general consent by removing two screws and two vent covers from the interior panels of an automobile
• observing that the Constitution requires the trial court to exclude only those jurors “who cannot set aside their own predilections in deference to the rule of law”
• noting that role of appellate court “is not to decide what voir dire procedure is best, but to determine whether the procedure chosen by the district court is sufficient”
• holding search did not exceed scppe of consent where two screws and two vent covers were removed from interior panels of automobile

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).