Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Although it was acknowledged that passengers present less risk in terms of traffic accidents, more people in a vehicle increases risk to the officer in the event of violence. Furthermore, even though there appears to be less probable cause behind ordering a passenger out than a driver, the only major change in circumstances is the person being ...
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.
"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.
As a passenger in a vehicle, Brendlin could not affirmatively submit until the vehicle was stopped on the side of the road. Third, the California Supreme Court resisted the conclusion the Court drew because it feared that occupants of cars merely stuck in traffic would also be "seized" under a contrary holding.
In that incident, an Ohio Central Railroad train comprising 97 cars and stretching for 1.2 miles slid off the rails, although they were empty at the time so leaked no cargo and no one was hurt.
While the specifics of stop-and-identify statutes and ordinances vary, a significant number of states and local jurisdictions have enacted such laws. [23] In New York, courts have limited the effects of Terry by creating a four-level continuum of intrusion, each of which requires its own level of suspicion. [ 24 ]
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!
Case history; Prior: United States v. Drayton, 231 F.3d 787 (11th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 534 U.S. 1074 (2002).: Holding; Police officers who questioned and searched passengers on a bus did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the passengers consented to the search and the passengers were free to exit the bus