ticket violation (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

ticket violation in Idaho

6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2022 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Idaho 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Rodriguez v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 2015 · cited in 6 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2018–2022
2 sentences

2022As a result, the Supreme Court held “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures” because “[a] seizure justified only by a police- observed traffic violation . . . ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably 6 required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Id. at 350 (alterations in original) (quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 ).

2022As a result, the Supreme Court held “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures” because “[a] seizure justified only by a police- observed traffic violation . . . ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably 6 required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Id. at 350 (alterations in original) (quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 ).

26
Illinois v. Caballesgreen
scotus · 2005 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022
2 sentences

2022As a result, the Supreme Court held “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures” because “[a] seizure justified only by a police- observed traffic violation . . . ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably 6 required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Id. at 350 (alterations in original) (quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 ).

2022As a result, the Supreme Court held “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures” because “[a] seizure justified only by a police- observed traffic violation . . . ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably 6 required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Id. at 350 (alterations in original) (quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 ).

24

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Where else courts name it

OH 99 (1996–2026) IL 14 (2004–2024) TX 14 (1980–2024) CA 11 (1991–2026) VA 10 (2015–2026) IN 9 (2015–2024) MI 7 (2016–2026) PA 7 (1997–2026) ID 6 (2018–2022) KY 5 (2018–2026) MD 4 (1999–2025) NY 4 (1912–2024) GA 4 (2015–2020) IA 3 (2017–2021) WI 3 (2021–2025) NJ 3 (2020–2021) ME 3 (2017–2025) AZ 2 (2017–2021) SD 2 (2018–2025) NC 2 (2018–2026) MA 2 (1998–2008) KS 2 (2018–2022) CO 2 (2016–2021) OR 2 (2018–2021) UT 2 (2017–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check