United States v. Roy C. Blakeney (90-5664), Kenneth A. Kutnyak (90-5665), and James E. Box (90-6041)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant did not suffer prejudice when the evidence illegally seized was not introduced at trial
• holding that a district court may “analyze and dissect the evidence, as long as the district judge does not distort or add to it”
• concluding that a warrant was overbroad when it described the items for seizure as “jewelry” when the officers had a specific inventory of stolen items from the jewelry store
• concluding that a warrant was overbroad when it described the items for seizure as “jewelry” when the officers had a specific inventory of stolen items from the jewelry store
• holding that police may seize evidence without a warrant if the officer is lawfully on the premises, the discovery is inadvertent, and the incriminating nature of the evidence is immediately apparent
• explaining that appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence is limited to “viewing the record as a whole” citation omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).