western/cincinnati v. Zerby

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that observed violations provide the “quantum of individualized suspicion” necessary to ensure that police discretion is sufficiently constrained
• holding that, absent reasonable suspicion, \detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license\ is a Fourth Amendment violation
• holding that random spot checks were not narrowly tailored to the purpose of ensuring an adequate amount of insurance coverage
• holding that randomly seizing an automobile to check for driver’s license and registration without any suspicion of wrongdoing is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment
• concluding that the Fourth Amendment prevented police officers from conducting roving patrol stops of vehicles to cheek license and registration information unless they possessed reasonable, articulable suspicion
• holding that an officer may stop a vehicle if the vehicle or occupant is subject to seizure for violation of the law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).