Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The prosecutor must disclose arrest photographs of the defendant when those photos do not match the victim's description. [11] Some state systems have expansively defined Brady material to include many other items, including for example any documents which might reflect negatively on a witness's credibility. [12]
On remand to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the court again reversed on state law grounds. [2] In 2000, on request from Youngblood's attorneys, the police department tested the degraded evidence using new, sophisticated DNA technology. Those results exonerated Youngblood, and he was released from prison in August 2000, and charges were dismissed ...
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.
An Arizona State University football star was arrested on DUI charges after allegedly fatally hitting a 23-year-old woman with his car over the weekend, police said.
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 ...
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 United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Town's motion for summary judgment. [30] The church then appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding the town's ordinance was content neutral. [30] Citing Hill v.
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law-enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless ...