INS v. Delgado

8 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Merit Decision: Court Okay’s Terry Stop of Lone Individual Near Sound of Recent Gunshots Fired. State v. Hairston.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanMay 8, 2019

    Second, the assessment must raise a suspicion that a particular individual is engaged in wrongdoing.)INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) (A reasonable person is aware that he or she may refuse to leave when questioned by police and is aware that the mere act of questioning does not constitute a detention for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.)United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (Police officers may take reasonable steps necessary to protect their safety and maintain the status quo.)United States v. Hardnett, 804 F.2d 353, 357 (6th Cir.1986) (A show of force during a reasonable suspicion stop does not convert the stop into an arrest.)

  2. What’s On Their Minds: The Contours of a Terry Stop. State of Ohio v. Jaonte Hariston.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanFebruary 8, 2019

    Second, the assessment must raise a suspicion that a particular individual is engaged in wrongdoing.)INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) (A reasonable person is aware that the mere act of questioning does not constitute a detention for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.)State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (The propriety of an investigative stop by a police officer must be viewed in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances. When considering the totality of the circumstances, the officer must rely on specific and articulable facts which would lead a reasonable officer to conclude a temporary stop is necessary.)State v. Batchili, 2007-Ohio-2204 (The reasonableness of a detention is based on the circumstances as a whole and may not be examined individually for unreasonableness.

  3. Oral Argument Preview: The Contours of a Terry Stop. State of Ohio v. Jaonte Hariston.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanJanuary 21, 2019

    Second, the assessment must raise a suspicion that a particular individual is engaged in wrongdoing.)INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) (A reasonable person is aware that the mere act of questioning does not constitute a detention for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.)State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (The propriety of an investigative stop by a police officer must be viewed in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances. When considering the totality of the circumstances, the officer must rely on specific and articulable facts which would lead a reasonable officer to conclude a temporary stop is necessary.)State v. Batchili, 2007-Ohio-2204 (The reasonableness of a detention is based on the circumstances as a whole and may not be examined individually for unreasonableness.

  4. Search and Seizure - Terry Stop -- What Constitutes a Seizure

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    The question is not whether the passenger would feel free to leave; the question is whether the passenger would feel free to decline the invitation. Compare, INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984). The court must make a case-by-case determination of whether there was, in fact, a seizure.

  5. A Ruling's Message: Break the Ties that Bind

    Atlanta's John Marshall Law SchoolTimothy O'NeillAugust 11, 2005

    Has the officer violated the concededly innocent driver's Fourth Amendment rights?To answer this, I would first note that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the Fourth Amendment "is designed to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals." INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 215 (1984). I would then note that the Fourth Amendment literally protects against unreasonable seizures.

  6. Capital Defense Weekly, June 21, 2004

    Capital Defense NewsletterJune 21, 2004

    (b)The officer’s conduct did not violate Hiibel’sFourth Amendmentrights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment.INSv.Delgado,466 U.S. 210, 216. Beginning withTerryv.Ohio,392 U.S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further.

  7. Capital Defense Weekly, May 12, 2003

    Capital Defense NewsletterMay 12, 2003

    Even "an initially consensual encounter . . . can be transformed into a seizure or detention within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 215, 80 L. Ed. 2d 247, 104 S. Ct. 1758 (1984); see Hayes, supra, at 815-816 ("At some point in the investigative process, police procedures can qualitatively and quantitatively be so intrusive with respect to a suspect's freedom of movement and privacy interests as to trigger the full protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments"). It cannot seriously be suggested that when the detectives began to question Kaupp, a reasonable person in his situation would have thought he was sitting in the interview room as a matter of choice, free to change his mind and go home to bed.Nor is it significant, as the state court thought, that the sheriff's department "routinely" transported [*10] individuals, including Kaupp on one prior occasion, while handcuffed for safety of the officers, or that Kaupp "did not resist the use of handcuffs or act in a manner consistent with anything other than full cooperation."

  8. Capital Defense Weekly, June 17, 2002

    Capital Defense NewsletterJune 16, 2002

    Officer Hoover’s position at the front of the bus also does not tip the scale to respondents, since he did nothing to intimidate passengers and said or did nothing to suggest that people could not exit. See INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 219. Finally, Lang’s testimony that only a few passengers refuse to cooperate does not suggest that a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter.