Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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. 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. Drayton (2002) - police do not have to advise you of rights before search
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
Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) — passenger compartment of car Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado , 466 U.S. 210 (1984) — "free to continue working"
Pages in category "Florida state case law" The following 16 pages are in this category, out of 16 total. ... Code of Conduct; Developers; Statistics; Cookie statement;
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United ...
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!
Smith v. Turner; Norris v. Boston, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283 (1849), [1] were two similar cases, argued together before the United States Supreme Court, which decided 5–4 that states do not have the right to impose a tax that is determined by the number of passengers of a designated category on board a ship and/or disembarking into the State.