This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
United States v. Ross: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|issues=Was the 4th Amendment to the [[United States Constitution]] against unreasonable searches and seizures violated? | |issues=Was the 4th Amendment to the [[United States Constitution]] against unreasonable searches and seizures violated? | ||
|arguments=Ross argued that even if police had reason to believe that he had narcotics in his car, the police lacked the authority to search the bag in his car's trunk. | |arguments=Ross argued that even if police had reason to believe that he had narcotics in his car, the police lacked the authority to search the bag in his car's trunk. | ||
|holding=The Supreme Court upheld Ross's conviction. | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 12:35, September 20, 2022
| United States v. Ross | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 1, 1982 |
| Appealed from | DC Court of Appeals |
Facts
DC police officer were told a man named "Bandit" Ross was selling illegal drugs from his car northwest of Washington DC.
The informant told police that he had bought drugs from Ross, and there were more narcotics in Ross's Chevrolet Malibu car.
With the information from the tipster, police found heroin in a closed paper bag in the trunk of Ross's car.Issues
Was the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures violated?
Arguments
Ross argued that even if police had reason to believe that he had narcotics in his car, the police lacked the authority to search the bag in his car's trunk.
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld Ross's conviction.
