Properties (59)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:applicationNumber |
18-50729
|
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
18-50729
|
| gptkbp:citedBy |
No. 18-50729
|
| gptkbp:controversy |
defendant's position
government's position |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_Court_of_Appeals
|
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
2020
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Cantu
|
| gptkbp:impact |
civil rights
law_enforcement_practices |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Judge_Smith
gptkb:Judge_Johnson gptkb:Judge_Jones |
| gptkbp:keyPeople |
unpublished opinion
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
search and seizure
reasonable suspicion Fourth_Amendment_rights |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
public defender
prosecutor |
| gptkbp:location |
gptkb:Texas
|
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
public policy
public safety social justice community impact civil rights movements legal interpretation constitutional law individual rights judicial review legal challenges legal reforms civil liberties legal precedents due process legal standards law enforcement training constitutional amendments community relations legal advocacy criminal procedure rights of the accused court rulings judicial activism police conduct judicial precedent law enforcement accountability constitutional protections evidence admissibility search warrant requirements stop and frisk policies Fourth_Amendment_interpretation |
| gptkbp:outcome |
affirmed
|
| gptkbp:party |
gptkb:United_States
Cantu |
| gptkbp:precedent |
established_Fourth_Amendment_standards
|
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Terry_v._Ohio
gptkb:Illinois_v._Wardlow gptkb:Florida_v._Bostick |