Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Illinois v. Wardlowgreen2 sentences2025"While reasonable suspicion is not a high bar and 'is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop.'" Id. (quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000)). 2024While reasonable suspicion is not a high bar and "is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop." Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2025"This inquiry involves the totality of the circumstances, and '[c]ourts must give due weight to common sense judgments reached by officers in light of their experience and training.'" Id. (alteration by court) (quoting State v. Moore, 415 S.C. 245 , 252- 53, 781 S.E.2d 897, 901 (2016)). 2025"This inquiry involves the totality of the circumstances, and '[c]ourts must give due weight to common sense judgments reached by officers in light of their experience and training.'" Id. (alteration by court) (quoting State v. Moore, 415 S.C. 245 , 252- 53, 781 S.E.2d 897, 901 (2016)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Michael N. Frasier, Jr.green2 sentences2025"While reasonable suspicion is not a high bar and 'is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop.'" Id. (quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000)). 2024This inquiry involves the totality of the circumstances, and "[c]ourts must give due weight to common sense judgments reached by officers in light of their experience and training." State v. Moore, 415 S.C. 245, 252-53 , 781 S.E.2d 897, 901 (2016). 437 S.C. at 635, 879 S.E.2d at 767 (second alteration in original). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Arnold Sherlock and Ronald Charleygreen1 sentence2021Although the United States Supreme Court gave strict standards for complete courtroom closures in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), the majority of jurisdictions have found "that Waller's stringent standard does not apply to partial closures, and have adopted a less demanding test requiring the party seeking the partial closure to show only a 'substantial reason' for the closure." United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94 , 98-99 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349, 1357 (9th Cir. 1989) (establishing a two-part test for partial courtroom closure: (1) whether ther | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Osborne
green
1 sentence2021Although the United States Supreme Court gave strict standards for complete courtroom closures in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), the majority of jurisdictions have found "that Waller's stringent standard does not apply to partial closures, and have adopted a less demanding test requiring the party seeking the partial closure to show only a 'substantial reason' for the closure." United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94 , 98-99 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349, 1357 (9th Cir. 1989) (establishing a two-part test for partial courtroom closure: (1) whether ther | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Waller v. Georgia
green
1 sentence2021Although the United States Supreme Court gave strict standards for complete courtroom closures in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), the majority of jurisdictions have found "that Waller's stringent standard does not apply to partial closures, and have adopted a less demanding test requiring the party seeking the partial closure to show only a 'substantial reason' for the closure." United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94 , 98-99 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349, 1357 (9th Cir. 1989) (establishing a two-part test for partial courtroom closure: (1) whether ther | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.