enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

    Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.

  3. Terry stop - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

    The Terry stop operates under the assumption that although stop-and-frisk is an intrusion, the potential harm from weapons outweighs it. [16] The cases following Terry expanded the power of the police. While the original case was concerned with armed violence and firsthand observation by officers, Adams v.

  4. Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

    In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court established that it is constitutional for police to temporarily detain a person based on "specific and articulable facts" that establish reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed.

  5. Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

    The Court in Terry v. Ohio stated, "the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the action taken was appropriate." Therefore, the officer had the authority to arrest Mimms under the charges because he had observed the bulge under the jacket.

  6. List of landmark court decisions in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court...

    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime and frisk the suspect for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous without violating the Fourth Amendment. Mancusi v.

  7. Reasonable suspicion - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

    Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that in United States law is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch ' "; [1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", [2] and the suspicion must be associated with the ...

  8. Yost questions extending private company receiving state ...

    www.aol.com/news/yost-questions-extending...

    (The Center Square) – Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is at odds with state business groups over state liquor sale profits funneled to a private, nonprofit organization for economic development.

  9. Illinois v. Wardlow - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Wardlow

    The Illinois Appellate Court reversed Wardlow’s conviction, concluding that the gun should have been suppressed because Officer Nolan did not have reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigative stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 287 Ill. App. 3d 367, 678 N. E. 2d 65 (1997). [1]