SCOTUSBlog: Argument recap: Pushing the hypotheticals in Naverette

SCOTUSBlog: Argument recap: Pushing the hypotheticals in Naverette by Lyle Denniston:

A rule of thumb for a Fourth Amendment hearing at the Supreme Court: if the hypotheticals get extreme enough, even a lawyer trying to make a simple, “bright line” argument is going to have to concede something. That happened to all three lawyers who appeared on Tuesday afternoon as the Court heard the case of Navarette v. California.

This is a case about anonymous tips to police and whether the officers can act on them if they don’t independently see a crime being committed. From all indications, a tip by itself may not be enough — except in extreme situations where the potential threat really gets dire.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.