Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The cases range from street stop-and-frisks to traffic stops in which pat-down searches could be conducted on the driver or passengers. In Michigan v. Long, [21] the Supreme Court ruled that car compartments could be constitutionally searched if an officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. The compartments are ...
"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.
In the early morning hours of November 27, 2001, a Sutter County deputy sheriff and his partner, who was a cadet at the time, stopped a car in which Bruce Brendlin was riding. The car's registration had expired, but the owner had applied for a renewal, and a valid temporary registration permit was properly affixed to the car. Nevertheless, the ...
WASHINGTON — Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said Tuesday that his office has made a criminal referral in response to the recent train derailment over the border in East Palestine, Ohio, and the ...
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!
Adding mobile IDs to the list of approved voter identification forms would require a law change. "Right now, it's not a use-case. We're not suggesting that it happen, we're not against it happening.
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that absent exigency, the warrantless search of a passenger's container capable of holding the object of a search for which there is probable cause is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it is justified under the automobile exception as an effect of the car.