Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) - search valid if police reasonably believe consent given by owner; 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.
Osborne v. Ohio: 495 U.S. 103 (1990) states have the power to ban possession of child pornography without violating the First Amendment: Stewart v. Abend: 495 U.S. 207 (1990) rights of the successor of a copyright interest Grady v. Corbin: 495 U.S. 508 (1990) double jeopardy and subsequent prosecutions Taylor v. United States: 495 U.S. 575 (1990)
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts slammed what he described as “dangerous” talk by some officials about ignoring federal court rulings, using an annual report weeks before President ...
As decided in Ohio v. Robinette (1996), after an officer returns the driver's identification, there is no requirement that the officer inform the driver of his or her freedom to leave; therefore, although the encounter has changed to a consensual encounter, questioning can continue, including a request to search the vehicle. [34]
Seven in 10 violent crimes reported to police departments across Ohio in 2022 went unsolved, ranking Ohio the third worst state in the country. ... But cops aren't making arrests in most of the cases.
In August, a 27-year-old Canton, Ohio resident, Allexis Telia Ferrell, was arrested for allegedly killing a cat and eating it, according to a copy of the police report, police body camera videos ...
In cases such as Lee v. United States, Lopez v. United States, and Hoffa v. United States, the courts have ruled that evidence found in searches based on consent obtained by an undercover officer or as an informer to be admissible. A party other than the defendant can, in some limited cases, grant consent.