{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Kolender v.Lawson Notes - a crime is entitled to continue...

Info icon This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983) There is a guy named Lawson who was arrested 15 times between March 1975 to Jan 1977 (22 months). Was prosecuted twice, convicted once. Civil action to District court for the southern district of California to say penal cold 647 is unconstitutional. Seeks punitive damages. States that it is too vauge, that the law permits a standardless sweep that allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal predilections. There is no standard on what a suspect has to do in order to provide credible and reliable ID. Leaves it to the policemen to satisfy the statues and lets the person go because of absence of probable cause to arrest. People who police thinks is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed
Image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets only at the whim of any police officer who happens to stop that individual under 647. This provides a convient tool for harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials.’ Penal cold was considered unconstitutionally vague . The standards aren’t impossible, but the further precision in the language isn’t impossible or impractical either. So bottom line, penal code was overturned, because there is a lack of due process (in terms of, the people don’t know what kind of “credible and reliable” identification they need to provide. Also the terms reasonable suspicion is a red flag in my mind....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}