Tenth Circuit· 9/21/2009
United States v. Roach
Citations
- 582 F.3d 1192
- 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20916
- 2009 WL 2989182
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding an affidavit did not establish probable cause to search a home but applying the good-faith exception because the affidavit established a minimal nexus
- explaining that an affidavit must show “a nexus between . . . suspected criminal 17 activity and the place to be searched” (omission in original) (quoting United States v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1225, 1228 (10th Cir. 2005)
- “[A]n officer with reasonable knowledge of the law might have concluded, until today, that Roach’s decade-long involvement in gang-related crimes logically meant that he would continue to be involved in such crimes and to retain evidence of them at his residence.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lucero, Ebel, Tymkovich
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- A.M. Ex Rel. F.M. v. HolmesTenth Circuit· 2016-07-25· cited 258×
- United States v. Yeley-DavisTenth Circuit· 2011-01-20· cited 113×
- United States v. BurkeTenth Circuit· 2011-02-02· cited 93×
- United States v. FlesherCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 2014-07-08· cited 83×
- United States v. KamaheleTenth Circuit· 2014-04-08· cited 56×
- United States v. CampbellTenth Circuit· 2010-05-10· cited 52×
- United States v. Avitia-GuillenTenth Circuit· 2012-06-06· cited 42×
- United States v. VannTenth Circuit· 2015-01-16· cited 41×
- United States v. HaymondTenth Circuit· 2012-03-06· cited 37×
- United States v. ChavezTenth Circuit· 2020-09-30· cited 35×
- United States v. BanksTenth Circuit· 2018-03-06· cited 33×
- Adamscheck v. American Family Mutual InsuranceTenth Circuit· 2016-03-29· cited 32×
- United States v. BarajasTenth Circuit· 2013-03-04· cited 26×
- Storagecraft Technology Corp. v. KirbyTenth Circuit· 2014-03-11· cited 24×
- United States v. StarksTenth Circuit· 2022-05-27· cited 24×
- United States v. BurkhartTenth Circuit· 2010-04-23· cited 18×
- State v. AlthausCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 2013-08-02· cited 18×
- United States v. SanchezTenth Circuit· 2013-08-05· cited 12×
- United States v. VillanuevaTenth Circuit· 2016-05-02· cited 12×
- United States v. DuranTenth Circuit· 2019-10-09· cited 10×
Cites
42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 21,376×
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court· 1983-06-08· cited 16,716×
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court· 1984-09-18· cited 9,230×
- Franks v. DelawareSupreme Court· 1978-06-26· cited 8,679×
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court· 1999-03-23· cited 8,651×
- United States v. Lavern Hankey, AKA Poo, OpinionNinth Circuit· 2000-02-18· cited 496×
- United States v. Frank Locascio, and John GottiSecond Circuit· 1993-10-08· cited 495×
- Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande Western RailroadTenth Circuit· 2000-06-12· cited 232×
- United States v. PerrineTenth Circuit· 2008-03-11· cited 199×
- United States v. WinderTenth Circuit· 2009-02-24· cited 162×
- United States v. DanhauerTenth Circuit· 2000-10-23· cited 161×
- United States v. David Scott ZimmermanThird Circuit· 2002-01-04· cited 160×
- United States v. Martedis McPhearsonSixth Circuit· 2006-11-27· cited 154×
- United States v. Larry M. McDonaldTenth Circuit· 1991-05-31· cited 152×
- United States v. Walt Anthony Sturmoski, A/K/A Anthony W. WilliamsTenth Circuit· 1992-06-03· cited 152×
- United States v. HarrisEleventh Circuit· 1994-05-11· cited 139×
- United States v. PoeTenth Circuit· 2009-03-03· cited 133×
- United States v. James Frederick RowlandTenth Circuit· 1998-06-02· cited 132×
- United States v. Matthew Wayne TomeTenth Circuit· 1995-07-31· cited 122×
- United States v. BashamTenth Circuit· 2001-10-22· cited 115×
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.