Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Arizona v. Johnson , 555 U.S. 323 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.
The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963). [2] The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant. [3]
Arizona police estimate 30 people were injured when, they said, a 73-year-old man drove into the building of the lodge he was trying to leave. 30 people injured in alleged drunk driving incident ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Preservation of breath samples in DUI cases not required under the Due Process Clause: New York v. Quarles: 467 U.S. 649 (1984) Miranda rights Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council: 467 U.S. 837 (1984) Judicial review of the interpretation of statutes by government agencies: Clark v. C.C.N.V. 468 U.S. 288 (1984) Right to sleep in ...
The Court noted in a supplemental opinion that the case law it had relied on was all focused on Miranda warnings, not confessions, and there was other case law that said involuntary confessions could never be harmless. [1] The Court therefore ordered a new trial. The state of Arizona appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The majority takes comfort in the lack of evidence of ‘an epidemic of unnecessary minor-offense arrests’." Reasoning beyond the case of a misdemeanor arrest for a seatbelt-law violation, Justice O'Connor’s dissenting court opinion further cautions: "The Court’s error, however, does not merely affect disposition of this case.