From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Californians v. California

U.S.
Oct 7, 1968
393 U.S. 1 (1968)

Summary

In Terry v. Ohio, 393 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court held that “the police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has reasonable suspicion... that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,' even if the officer lacks probable cause.

Summary of this case from United States v. Young

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 605.

Decided October 7, 1968.

Appeal dismissed.

Doris Brian Walker for appellants.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Charles A. Barrett, Assistant Attorney General, and Clayton P. Roche, Deputy Attorney General, for appellees.


The appeal is dismissed. California is on the eve of a national election. Millions of ballots are being printed and in a few hours the absentee ballots will be sent out of State. Whatever may be the merits of the controversy, the shortness of time and the complicated task of preparing and distributing the ballots make it very doubtful if any effective relief would be possible.


Summaries of

Californians v. California

U.S.
Oct 7, 1968
393 U.S. 1 (1968)

In Terry v. Ohio, 393 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court held that “the police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has reasonable suspicion... that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,' even if the officer lacks probable cause.

Summary of this case from United States v. Young
Case details for

Californians v. California

Case Details

Full title:CALIFORNIANS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE IN NOVEMBER ET AL. v . CALIFORNIA ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 7, 1968

Citations

393 U.S. 1 (1968)

Citing Cases

People v. Bivens

Because no bright-line rule exists, People v. Timmsen, 2016 IL 118181, ¶ 18, we owe officers and the public…

Boston v. Harris Cnty.

Police officers may stop and briefly detain an individual for investigative purposes based on specific and…