Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
One is the "Consent to Search" law which requires an officer to inform someone they have the right to deny a search and to make sure that person understands that right. The other is the "NYPD ID" law, which requires the officer, in certain situations, to hand out business cards with their name, rank, badge number and command.
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.
Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure states that requests for any unallowable purpose need unanimous consent, and a single objection defeats consent, unless the organization's laws or the assembly's usual practices allow otherwise. An example might be a request to have a nonmember address the body.
In United States labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, [1] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability status).
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled that in a case involving a consent search, although knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary, the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to refuse consent under the Fourth ...
Earlier this year, during hundreds of hours of discussion, our vast knowledge of and extensive experience dealing with Ohio’s parental consent laws were key factors that shaped and defined Issue 1.
In criminal procedure, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD or ACOD) allows a court to defer the disposition of a defendant's case, with the potential that the defendant's charge will be dismissed if the defendant does not engage in additional criminal conduct or other acts prohibited by the court as a condition of the ACD.
The last image we have of Patrick Cagey is of his first moments as a free man. He has just walked out of a 30-day drug treatment center in Georgetown, Kentucky, dressed in gym clothes and carrying a Nike duffel bag.