Ads
related to: arizona judicial conduct search casecourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona (in case citations, D. Ariz.) is the U.S. district court that covers the state of Arizona. It is under the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District was established on June 20, 1910, pending Arizona statehood on February 14, 1912. [1]
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable "searches" and "seizures." The Court first ruled that when the police officer moved the stereo equipment to record the serial numbers, he conducted a Fourth Amendment "search," unrelated to the initial reason the police were in Hicks's apartment, to search for weapons and the person who fired the bullet through the floor of the apartment.
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.
"Justice in all cases shall be administered openly..." [1] Arizona: Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Canon III a 7 "A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law." [3] Arkansas: Const. Art 11 § 13
Argument: Oral argument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Holding; The Arizona Supreme Court's holding that Lynch v.Arizona was not a significant change in the law is an exceptional case where a state-court judgment rests on such a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of a state-court procedural rule that the decision is not adequate to foreclose review of the federal claim.