Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. [1] The case was decided a year after the court had held in Gideon v.
In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.The police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop because nervous, evasive behavior, like fleeing a high crime area upon noticing police officers, is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion to justify a stop.
Escobedo then petitioned to the Illinois Supreme Court (where the conviction was affirmed) and then to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court agreed to hear it and the case was titled Escobedo v. Illinois. The case was heard on April 29, 1964. Barry L. Kroll argued for Escobedo with Donald M. Haskell, and James R. Thompson argued for ...
Neither is Illinois, since the Illinois Second District Appellate Court Decision in People v. Fernandez, 2011 IL App (2d) 100473, which specifically states that section 107-14 is found in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, not the Criminal Code of 1961, and governs only the conduct of police officers. There is no corresponding duty in the ...
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.
Police officers cannot detain someone on the street just because that person acts furtively to avoid contact with them, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
These precedents have allowed police to retain personal property without clear legal grounds, effectively stripping people of their property rights merely because they were arrested. The D.C ...
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 ...