First Circuit· 9/9/2005
United States v. Smith
Citations
- 423 F.3d 25
- 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19489
- 2005 WL 2178824
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding “mere physical limitations on an individuals movement, not created by police, are insufficient to turn an encounter with police into a restraint of liberty”
- finding that no seizure occurred in a case with facts similar to the case herein considered
- explaining that seizure analysis must be based on the totality of the circumstances
- finding no seizure where officers approached the defendant from both sides, telephone pole was directly in front of defendant, and wall directly behind
- finding seizure can occur without physical restraint if compliance is coerced and not voluntary
- attempting to flee and struggling with officers indicates no submission to police authority
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Selya, Hill, Lynch
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. Garcia-CantuCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2008-05-07· cited 791×
- United States v. MaherFirst Circuit· 2006-07-06· cited 140×
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Kansas· 2007-03-16· cited 101×
- United States v. SilvaFirst Circuit· 2009-01-23· cited 84×
- United States v. DessesaureFirst Circuit· 2005-11-30· cited 56×
- United States v. EspinozaFirst Circuit· 2007-06-13· cited 56×
- United States v. WilliamsSixth Circuit· 2010-08-06· cited 53×
- United States v. FieldsFirst Circuit· 2016-05-13· cited 45×
- United States v. AmFirst Circuit· 2009-04-21· cited 43×
- Lockhart-Bembery v. SauroFirst Circuit· 2007-08-09· cited 42×
- United States v. FordFirst Circuit· 2008-11-05· cited 40×
- United States v. ParkerFirst Circuit· 2008-11-26· cited 35×
- United States v. TanguayFirst Circuit· 2019-03-08· cited 35×
- United States v. WatermanThird Circuit· 2009-06-24· cited 34×
- United States v. Tiru-PlazaFirst Circuit· 2014-09-09· cited 33×
- United States v. HollowayFirst Circuit· 2007-08-31· cited 27×
- United States v. TaylorFirst Circuit· 2007-12-21· cited 21×
- United States v. DapolitoFirst Circuit· 2013-04-11· cited 20×
- United States v. Bruno MancariSeventh Circuit· 2006-09-01· cited 14×
- United States v. JonesD. Massachusetts· 2009-01-21· cited 9×
Cites
38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 37,942×
- Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1996-06-10· cited 7,197×
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court· 1983-03-23· cited 6,728×
- United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court· 1980-06-30· cited 6,313×
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court· 1991-06-20· cited 4,435×
- United States v. ArvizuSupreme Court· 2002-01-15· cited 3,936×
- California v. Hodari D.Supreme Court· 1991-04-23· cited 3,670×
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. DelgadoSupreme Court· 1984-04-17· cited 1,950×
- Thompson v. KeohaneSupreme Court· 1995-11-29· cited 1,729×
- Michigan v. ChesternutSupreme Court· 1988-06-13· cited 1,499×
- United States v. DraytonSupreme Court· 2002-06-17· cited 1,084×
- United States v. HernandezTenth Circuit· 1996-08-30· cited 219×
- In Re Extradition of Curtis Andrew Howard. United States of America v. Curtis Andrew HowardFirst Circuit· 1993-06-30· cited 165×
- United States v. Cortez AverySixth Circuit· 1997-11-03· cited 164×
- United States v. SantosTenth Circuit· 2005-04-06· cited 162×
- United States v. Sylvester Townsend and David GreenSixth Circuit· 2002-09-27· cited 120×
- United States v. YoungFirst Circuit· 1997-01-23· cited 119×
- United States v. James A. McKinesEighth Circuit· 1991-05-17· cited 110×
- United States v. CardozaFirst Circuit· 1997-10-27· cited 105×
- United States v. James Buchanon (94-3551), William Reed, Jr. (94-3660)Sixth Circuit· 1995-12-14· cited 99×
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.