Sierra-Hernandez v. United States

Justices Stewart and Marshall dissenting from the Court’s denial of writs of certiorari and contending that the Court should resolve the circuit split on this issue[.] | Justices Stewart and Marshall dissenting from the Court’s denial of writs of certiorari and contending that the Court should resolve the circuit split on this issue | “We perceive no error in the prosecution’s use of leading questions before the grand jury.” | J. Stewart and J. Marshall dissenting from denial of certiorari because of a difference among the courts of appeals on the admissibility of grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(5) | J. Stewart and J. Marshall dissenting from denial of certiorari because of a difference among the courts of appeals on the admissibility of grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(5) | “standards of reliability should not prevent appropriate police action when a victim of a crime immediately has contacted the police” | Justices Stewart and Marshall dissenting from the Court’s denial of writs of certiorari and contending that the Court should resolve the circuit split on this issue. | “Unlike a person who makes an anonymous phone call . .. the informant was in a position to be held accountable for his intervention. The reliability of the information was thus increased.” | Justices Stewart and Marshall dissenting from the Court’s denial of writs of certiorari and contending that the Court should resolve the circuit split on this issue | reasonable suspicion established based on anonymous tip corroborated only by observations of innocent details | denial of petitions for writs of certiorari, Stewart, J. dissenting | denial of petitions for writs of certiorari, Stewart, J. dissenting | unidentified individual told border patrol agent that a specifically described truck had just loaded with marijuana at a canebrake, agent knew canebrake to have been site of past smuggling activity and found the truck nearby--held sufficient to justify investigatory stop of truck | unidentified individual told border patrol agent that a specifically described truck had just loaded with marijuana at a canebrake, agent knew canebrake to have been site of past smuggling activity and found the truck nearby — held sufficient to justify investigatory stop of truck | “[Although the informant did not identify himself by name, he would have been available for further questioning if the agent had judged the procedure appropriate. Unlike a person who makes an anonymous telephone call, this informant confronted the agent directly.” | search beneath hood within scope of suspect's general consent | Stewart, Justice, dissenting from a denial of certiorari