Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Ramsey (1977)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by StudiesWorld (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
United States v. Ramsey (1977)
[edit]- ... that, according to the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to searches at the border? Source: University of Chicago Law Review - "The Supreme Court has held that border searches constitute such an exceptional circumstance; the historical practice of warrantless searches and their acceptance at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted indicate that border searches are inherently "reasonable," and thus exempt from the fourth amendment's probable cause and warrant requirements."
Created by DannyS712 (talk). Self-nominated at 09:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC).
Barely passes by on size, and has one unreferenced sentence. Also this ref [1] is dead and even if not, it seems unreliable (student paper sharing site?). Date, neutrality, hook, copyvio check are ok. Please expand a bit, at least, just to explain the context of the case (who is Ramsey, did the case end up with any verdicts other than the ruling discussed here, etc.). Ping me when the ref is added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
- @Piotrus: ref added, I'll try to work on expanding it --DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Is this good to go? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Almost, but I think quimbee is not a reliable source. Can you find a better source for it? I'll go to WP:RSN and ask others if we should remove all refs to quimbee from Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I only use it for a fact that also has another source - I can remove it if you want, but I think its better to have it in --DannyS712 (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Upon further review, the site claims to be "Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students." I guess we can leave it be. GTG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
