holding that the Fourth Amendment "permits a police officer to detain an individual stopped for jaywalking only the time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification from the violator and to execute a traffic citation."

holding that police officer was justified in detaining an individual who was stopped for jaywalking only during the time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification and to execute a traffic citation, and that when the officer had completed those functions but continued to detain the individual for the purpose of running a warrant check, without reasonable grounds to be suspicious that there might be a warrant outstanding against him, the “continued detention was unreasonable, and its fruits, therefore, were properly suppressed”

holding jaywalker for warrant check unreasonable without reason to suspect there may be outstanding warrant

finding that an individual stopped for jaywalking may be detained "only the time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification from the violator and to execute a traffic citation"

finding that an individual stopped for jay-walking may be detained "only the time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification from the violator and to execute a traffic citation."

finding that an individual stopped for jay-walking may be detained "only the time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification from the violator and to execute a traffic citation."

finding Fourth Amendment violation where pedestrian stopped for jaywalking continued to be detained for a warrants check after pedestrian was issued a citation, and where no reasonable suspicion supported seizure for check of outstanding warrants

finding Fourth Amendment violation where pedestrian stopped for jaywalking continued to be detained for a warrants check after pedestrian was issued a citation, and where no reasonable suspicion supported seizure for check of outstanding warrants

finding Fourth Amendment violation where pedestrian stopped for jaywalking continued to be detained for a warrants check after pedestrian was issued a citation, and where no reasonable suspicion supported seizure for check of outstanding warrants

finding that an individual stopped for jay-walking may be detained "only the time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification from the violator and to execute a traffic citation"

concluding that action of police in stopping jaywalker, issuing a citation, and thereafter holding jaywalker for a warrant check, without reason to suspect that there may be an outstanding warrant, was unreasonable

In United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), we held that a police officer's knowledge that a man was subject to an outstanding bench warrant, which he acquired only after unlawfully seizing the man, did not retroactively render the seizure of that man "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.

In United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), we held that a police officer's knowledge that a man was subject to an outstanding bench warrant, which he acquired only after unlawfully seizing the man, did not retroactively render the seizure of that man "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.

In United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), we held that a police officer's knowledge that a man was subject to an outstanding bench warrant, which he acquired only after unlawfully seizing the man, did not retroactively render the seizure of that man "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.

noting that the Fourth Amendment "permits a police officer to detain an individual stopped for jaywalking only the time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification from the violator and to execute a traffic citation"

noting that the Fourth Amendment requires the length and scope of such a stop be "strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible"

In United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1973), police officers observed Luckett cross a street against a traffic light, drove up to him and waived him to the car and questioned him about the possible jaywalking.

In Luckett, 484 F.2d at 91, the court required suppression of the counterfeit money orders seized following the improper detention for a warrants check.

In United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89, 90 (9th Cir. 1973), two city police officers in Gardena, California observed a man cross a street, at 12:30 a.m., against a traffic light.

In United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1973), police officers detained the defendant to run a warrant check after citing him for jaywalking.