Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
"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.
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) — sobriety checkpoints; Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) — "as long as police do not convey a message, etc" Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) — plain view doctrine — incentive to frisk; Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996)Whren v. United States ...
A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. [1] [2] Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk.
Stallworth's arrest is just the latest in a series of false arrests in Alabama that have stemmed from a misinterpretation of the state's 2006 "stop and identify law," which allows police, when ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726
(Reuters) -Republican attorneys general from 14 U.S. states, led by Arkansas and Indiana, have filed suit to challenge the Federal Communications Commission's decision to impose a cap on the ...
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us