Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Schmerber v. California"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Mandarax m (rm {{DYKnom}} (self nom)) |
imported>Notecardforfree (Added review Egleston (MBTA station)) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
--> | --> | ||
* ... that some scholars fear the [[United States Supreme Court]]'s ruling in '''''[[Schmerber v. California]]''''' will one day be used to justify the involuntary [[Thought identification|mind reading]] of criminal suspects? | * ... that some scholars fear the [[United States Supreme Court]]'s ruling in '''''[[Schmerber v. California]]''''' will one day be used to justify the involuntary [[Thought identification|mind reading]] of criminal suspects? | ||
| − | + | :* ''Reviewed'': [[Egleston (MBTA station)|Egleston]] | |
:* | :* | ||
<small>5x expanded by [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]). Self-nominated at 09:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC).</small> | <small>5x expanded by [[User:Notecardforfree|Notecardforfree]] ([[User talk:Notecardforfree|talk]]). Self-nominated at 09:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC).</small> | ||
Revision as of 07:00, 3 July 2015
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Schmerber v. California
- ... that some scholars fear the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Schmerber v. California will one day be used to justify the involuntary mind reading of criminal suspects?
- Reviewed: Egleston
5x expanded by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 09:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
- 16px Absolutely fascinating article and hook to back it up. 5X expansion within date, quality referencing and prose, length and QPQ satisfactory. Excellent piece of work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
