Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1989): Holding; A search of a passenger on a bus is not unreasonable simply because the search takes place on a bus. The search is reasonable if, under all the circumstances, the suspect felt free to decline the officers' request for a search and leave the sce
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. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity.
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with issues involving the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the case establishes a firm line in cases where police conduct search and seizure without a warrant. The court ruled that, while it is legal for authorities to target and approach a person based on their ...
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) - search valid if police reasonably believe consent given by owner; Florida v. Bostick (1991) - not "free to leave" but "free to decline" on bus; Florida v. Jimeno (1991) - can request officer to limit scope of search; Ohio v. Robinette (1996) - do not have to inform motorist is free to go; United States v.
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases.After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches ...
More than five months after Miles McGlashan was taken off life support, authorities announced this week that the Uber driver who shot the 19-year-old passenger last year in Hollywood won’t be ...
The Williams Rule is based on the holding in the Florida state case of Williams v. State [1] in which relevant evidence of collateral crimes is admissible at jury trial when it does not go to prove the "bad character" or "criminal propensity" of the defendant but is used to show motive, intent, knowledge, modus operandi, or lack of mistake.
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!