Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
"Stop and identify" laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording [37] [38] [39] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v.
A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. [1] [2] Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk.
Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), as an example of a "stop and identify" statute the Court had voided on vagueness grounds. In Hiibel , the Court held that a Nevada law [ 7 ] requiring persons detained upon reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime to state their name to a peace officer did not violate the ...
California law enforcement is in the midst of a culture war, as experts inside and outside the system question a commonly used police interrogation method that they say can lead to false ...
Law enforcement agencies across California have routinely made data they collect from automated license plate readers available to federal and out-of-state police departments, despite guidance ...
California law states police can only search your phone under these conditions.
Hiibel didn't specifically hold that a peace officer cannot require identification, even in a place without a "stop-and-identify" law. The mention that California's "stop-and-identify" law was voided in Kolender v. Lawson has figured prominently in many analyses. However, at least two post-Kolender cases in California, People v.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us