Download File === https://urluso.com/2sMLC7
the court's more recent opinions have clarified the distinction between the two types of cases. in pennsylvania v. mimms, for example, the court held that a police officer may not conduct a routine traffic stop on the basis of a minor traffic violation, even when the stop is based on the officer's subjective belief that the driver may be intoxicated. but it also reaffirmed the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, holding that the officer's subjective intentions are irrelevant, and that a police officer may stop a vehicle based on a minor traffic violation, even when the officer lacks any suspicion that the driver is engaged in illegal activity, as long as the stop is based on an objectively justifiable reason. the supreme court has recognized the problem, and has taken steps to limit its severity. in virginia v. moore, for example, the court held that officers may not initiate a traffic stop simply because the driver makes a turn without signaling, even when the officer has no reason to suspect that the driver is engaged in any illegal activity. similarly, in whren, the court held that officers may not initiate a stop simply because they believe that an individual has committed a minor traffic offense, even when the officer has no reason to suspect that the individual is engaged in any illegal activity. in 2007, the arizona supreme court endorsed whren by ruling that police can stop a car based on probable cause to believe that an occupant has committed a traffic violation, even if the police stop the car for no reason. in that case, police pulled over a vehicle for having an obstructed rear license plate. they arrested the driver for a window tint violation, searched the car and discovered drug paraphernalia, and then arrested the driver for possession of drug paraphernalia. the driver challenged the stop and arrest, but the court held that the stop and arrest were lawful under whren. arizona has now joined a handful of states, including georgia, indiana and south carolina, that have adopted the view that there is no constitutional problem with police stopping a car for any traffic violation that they witness. (source: arizona daily sun)
98329e995e
https://open.firstory.me/story/cldot24rn0esr01t4bqs9040v https://open.firstory.me/story/cldot24rn0esr01t4bqs9040v https://open.firstory.me/story/cldot5x340esx01t4at414nq9 https://open.firstory.me/story/cldot0jy70rph01tj2gmg6fma https://open.firstory.me/story/cldot4vsf0esv01t484lq0zxk