Ad
related to: case law on identifying passengers on train in ohio county airport
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for a trained police dog to sniff a person's luggage or property in a public place.
"Stop and identify" laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording [37] [38] [39] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
(The Center Square) – The U.S. Department of Justice told the Drug Enforcement Administration to suspend consensual searches at airports and other mass transit facilities after hearing about ...
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions.
Ohio had a shot at $400 million in passenger rail money back in 2011, but then-Governor John Kasich opted to send the money back to the federal government, saying the trains were too expensive and ...
Based on Mendenhall case, a law enforcement officer publicly approaching an individual and asking such individual questions is not a violation of the individual's Fourth Amendment rights. As long as the officer does not imply that compliance is mandatory, the officer may question or ask to examine the identification of an individual. [13]