United States v. Ramon Navarro

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[a]lthough Schneckloth terms the issue of consent an issue of fact to be determined from all the circumstances, it does not speak directly to the standard of appellate review”
• noting that “[a]lthough Schneckloth terms the issue of consent an issue of fact to be determined from all the circumstances, it does not speak directly to the standard of appellate review.”
• concluding on the basis of Schneckloth that the court would “review the question of voluntariness ... for clear error because it is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances” (quotation and citation omitted)
• relying on Gates and White, noting that information can be credited where the tip contains specific details about future actions not easily predicted, thus demonstrating “inside information.”
• concluding on the basis of Schneckloth that the court would “review the question of voluntariness . . . for clear error because it is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances” (quotation and citation omitted)
• reviewing challenge to expert testi- mony “that baggies, with the corners cut, were a way of packaging drugs”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).