United States v. Darwin Jay Copeland Anthony Antoine Hartwell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• assuming without deciding that the defendant’s parking violation justified his initial detention
• declining to distinguish between parking and moving violations for constitutional purposes partly because the parking violation at issue was “set forth under the general traffic laws of the Michigan Vehicle Code”
• “[A]n officer can effect a stop based upon a driver’s failure to comply with Michigan’s parking regulations . . . .”
• “This court has held that evidence that has the tendency to demonstrate a defendant’s consciousness of wrongdoing is admissible to establish the defendant’s guilt.”
• errors at trial subject to harmless-error review under Rule 52(a)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).