Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { ?s ?p "Bailey v. United States, (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. A 6-3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police chased his vehicle after he fled from his house just before it was to be searched. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence. Stephen Breyer dissented. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the conviction. It accepted the government's argument that the Court's 1981 holding in Michigan v. Summers that persons in the immediate vicinity of a search can be detained while the search was being executed was broad enough to cover the pursuit and detention of a defendant who had left the scene in a vehicle. Kennedy's opinion held that it did not, since once Bailey had driven away none of the law-enforcement interests the earlier holding identified were involved. Scalia said that the only thing that mattered was that the vehicle was no longer in the immediate vicinity, and that balancing tests created confusion. Breyer argued that the police did, in fact, have those interests despite Bailey's departure by vehicle."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Bailey_v._United_States_(2013) abstract "Bailey v. United States, (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. A 6-3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police chased his vehicle after he fled from his house just before it was to be searched. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence. Stephen Breyer dissented. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the conviction. It accepted the government's argument that the Court's 1981 holding in Michigan v. Summers that persons in the immediate vicinity of a search can be detained while the search was being executed was broad enough to cover the pursuit and detention of a defendant who had left the scene in a vehicle. Kennedy's opinion held that it did not, since once Bailey had driven away none of the law-enforcement interests the earlier holding identified were involved. Scalia said that the only thing that mattered was that the vehicle was no longer in the immediate vicinity, and that balancing tests created confusion. Breyer argued that the police did, in fact, have those interests despite Bailey's departure by vehicle.".