United States v. William G. Colyer

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a dog sniff at the door of an apartment constituted a search because it detected the contents of a private, enclosed space subject to the heightened expectation of privacy within a dwelling
• questioning correctness of Thomas’s assertion that possessor of contraband “had a legitimate expectation that the contents of his closed apartment would remain private”
• rejecting Thomas because \... the Supreme Court's analyses in Place and Jacobsen indicate that a possessor of contraband can maintain no legitimate expectation that its presence will not be revealed.\
• questioning reasoning of Thomas as incompati- ble with United States Supreme Court cases involving canine sniffs
• questioning reasoning of Thomas as incompatible with United States Supreme Court cases involving canine sniffs
• questioning reasoning of Thomas in concluding that canine sniff of hallway outside sleeper car of train is not search requiring any level of suspicion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).