Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re J.O.R

4 Citing cases

  1. In re A.J.

    63 A.3d 562 (D.C. 2013)   Cited 9 times
    Finding no custody based in part on the brevity of the encounter where the suspect “knew that his companion had been immediately released upon providing corroboration of his account, and he had no reason to doubt that he would be treated in the same manner”

    We stated that “[a]lthough W.R. was taken into custody for truancy, rather than a criminal offense, the search is valid ‘because custodial seizures on any ground inherently pose a danger.’ ” Id. at 821 (quoting In re J.O.R., 820 A.2d 546, 548 (D.C.2003)). We also rejected W.R.'s claim that “the District of Columbia's truancy scheme is unconstitutional because truancy is not a criminal felony or misdemeanor.”

  2. J. O. R. v. Columbia

    540 U.S. 934 (2003)

    Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 820 A. 2d 546.

  3. Butler v. United States

    102 A.3d 736 (D.C. 2014)   Cited 11 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that officer had probable cause to arrest and conduct warrantless search of defendant based on strong odor of "fresh" marijuana emanating from vehicle because "appellant was the sole occupant of the vehicle, thus making it more likely that any marijuana present was either on his person or within his exclusive control" and smell of fresh marijuana "makes it more likely that appellant was presently in possession of marijuana."

    Under Knowles, then, the search-incident-to-arrest exception is rooted in the existence of an arrest—in Robinson 's phrasing, “the fact of custodial arrest,” 414 U.S. at 236, 94 S.Ct. 494—not in the existence of probable cause to arrest. See also In re J.O.R., 820 A.2d 546, 547–48 (D.C.2003) (upholding the search of J.O.R.'s coat pockets as “valid under Robinson,” even though police were taking J.O.R. into custody under a neglect order and not for a crime, because the danger to police officers “flows from their prolonged exposure ... while taking the person into custody and transporting him, and not from the ground for the arrest”). The Supreme Court affirmed this reasoning in Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 177, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 170 L.Ed.2d 559 (2008), stating that a search incident to arrest “enables officers to safeguard evidence, and, most critically, to ensure their safety during ‘the extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into custody and transporting him to the police station,’ ” id. (quoting Robinson, 414 U.S. at 234–35, 94 S.Ct. 467), and further stating that because “[o]fficers issuing citations do not face the same danger,” under Knowles, “they do not have the same authority to search,” id.

  4. In re W.R.

    52 A.3d 820 (D.C. 2012)   Cited 3 times
    Upholding warrantless search of minor who was in custody on suspicion of truancy

    In In re J.O.R., we observed that a search conducted during a custodial arrest is permissible, not only because of the risk that evidence may be destroyed, but because of the danger to the police officers involved. 820 A.2d 546, 547–48 (D.C.2003) (citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973)). The danger to the police officers “flows from their prolonged exposure ... and not from the ground for arrest.”