that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures"). And there is no question that, in light of the admitted probable cause to stop Robinette for speeding, Deputy Newsome was objectively justified in asking Robinette to get out of the car, subjective thoughts notwithstanding. Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis." Id., at 813 (quoting Scott v. As we made clear in Whren, "`the fact that officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer's action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.'. 806 (1996) (decided after the Supreme Court of Ohio decided the present case), the subjective intentions of the officer did not make the continued detention of respondent illegal under the Fourth Amendment. We think that under our recent decision in Whren v.In reliance on this ground, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that when Newsome returned to Robinette's car and asked him to get out of the car, after he had determined in his own mind not to give Robinette a ticket, the detention then became unlawful.Briefs of amicus curiae were filed for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Sheryl Gordon McCloud and for the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by W. Gamso filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. Hill of Wyoming and for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., by Fred E. Bursen of Tennessee, Dan Morales of Texas, Jeffrey L. Pine of Rhode Island, Mark Bennett of South Dakota, Charles W. Corbett, Jr., of Pennsylvania, Jeffrey B. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Theodore Kulongoski of Oregon, Thomas W. Mazurek of Montana, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Jeffrey R. Humphrey III of Minnesota, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Joseph P. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts, Frank J. Ieyoub of Louisiana, Andrew Ketterer of Maine, J. Lance of Idaho, Jim Ryan of Illinois, Carla J. Jane Bardy of Delaware, Robert Butterworth of Florida, Margery S. Karas, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Daniel E. ![]() Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, Jeffrey S. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Alabama et al. Ruppert argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent. On the brief were Solicitor General Dalys, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, Paul A. Gornstein argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. ![]() Ingram argued the cause for petitioner, With her on briefs was Mathias H. ![]() If you have enough information and would like to arrange a personal meeting with this attorney, you can use the phone number 8047481221 or other contacts (email, contact form, chat) and make an appointment (initial consultation) at Roseland, VA, 22967, 22967, Roseland (look at google map).Carley J. When checking an attorney named "Mark Burton Robinette", do not miss referrals from friends and family. To make the best and most responsible decisions, take a look at education, experience, Bar information and peer reviews of this lawyer. Punishment, Dui & Dwi, Criminal Defense, Crimes Against Property, Trial, Criminal Lawīrowse the details of Mark Burton Robinette to see if it is a trusted Criminal Law attorney with perfect skills and positive reviews from clients. Mark Burton Robinette is practicing law since 1983 (currently in Roseland) and has over 40 years of practice in
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |