Case Citator › United States v. Reginald James Causey

United States v. Reginald James Causey

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
834 F.2d 1179
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
1992–1994
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. United States v. Reginald James Causey has two confirmed decisions declining to follow its objective approach to pretextual seizures under the Fourth Amendment, listed below. All 37 flagged citations have been read.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

37 later cases cite United States v. Reginald James Causey; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Reginald James Causey?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The district court declined Causey's purely objective test for a pretextual arrest because it conflicted with controlling Ninth Circuit law.

    United States v. Reeves · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington · filed

    This test has been adopted by the Fifth Circuit. See United States v. Causey, 834 F.2d 1179, 1185 (5th Cir.1987). However, the holding in Causey appears to conflict with the law in the Ninth Circuit as set forth in Williams and Smith. ... If this court were to adopt a pure objective standard, it would not only be in conflict with Williams and Smith, it would effectively eliminate the pretext rule itself.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Washington Court of Appeals declined Causey's purely objective approach to traffic stops while deciding a Fourth Amendment suppression claim.

    State v. Chapin · Washington Court of Appeals · filed

    The first is a "pure objective” approach under which the court inquires only whether the officer was acting pursuant to lawful authority. See, e.g., United States v. Causey, 834 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1987). ... We decline to follow a pure objective approach for two reasons.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Reginald James Causey and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace