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.
10 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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 |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2006In Walker , our supreme court stated that "the investigative stop exception of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a police officer to conduct a brief investigative stop if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, result in the conclusion that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent." Walker, 881 So.2d at 826 (¶ 10) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). ¶ 18. 2006In Walker , our supreme court stated that "the investigative stop exception of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a police officer to conduct a brief investigative stop if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, result in the conclusion that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent." Walker, 881 So.2d at 826 (¶ 10) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). ¶ 18. | 4 | 6 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2006In Walker , our supreme court stated that "the investigative stop exception of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a police officer to conduct a brief investigative stop if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, result in the conclusion that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent." Walker, 881 So.2d at 826 (¶ 10) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). ¶ 18. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Perezgreen1 sentence1982Many recent decisions, both state and federal, have recognized that "important legitimate governmental interests may override the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement when official conduct is prompted by the motive of preserving life and reasonably appear[s] to be necessary for that purpose." United States v. Perez, 440 F. Supp. 272, 288 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jeffers
green
2 sentences2015United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 , 72 S.Ct. 93, 95 , 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951). 2015United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 , 72 S.Ct. 93, 95 , 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2004McKee also alleges he was never advised of his Miranda rights as required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). ¶ 8. 2004McKee also alleges he was never advised of his Miranda rights as required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). ¶ 8. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mincey v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1981Mincey v. State of Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). 1981Mincey v. State of Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.