Ad
related to: case law on identifying passengers on train in ohio youtube full screen
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In each case, the court ruled against suppressing the evidence. However, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed these rulings. Relying largely on federal precedent, especially Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the "protective search" violated the Fourth Amendment, and thus the "poisonous fruit" of the illegal search must be discarded.
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
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.
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 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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.
The fallout continues from the derailment of a train carrying toxic chemicals near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border earlier this month, as local residents file lawsuits and some cast doubt on official ...
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case which analyzed whether police officers may extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a search with a trained detection dog. [1]