Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Cotterman
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 00:34, 15 March 2012 by imported>Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr
United States v. Cotterman
- ... that U.S v. Cotterman decided that under the border search exception, property presented for inspection at a United States border can be seized and sent elsewhere for further examination?
Created/expanded by Shaonbarman (talk). Nominated by Kaffyne (talk) at 05:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
At time of nomination, qualified based on length and newness: Prose size (text only): 4932 characters (800 words) "readable prose size". Article created by Shaonbarman on March 1, 2012. Plagiarism check shows no concerns: here, here, here, here. Text as it relates to the fact which the hook appears to be pulling from is supported by inline citations. Hook is properly formatted and neutral enough.
Article is not completely supported by inline references. At least one source is a law blog.
Not sure hook is supported by text as "border search exception" is not a phrase that is connected to the text. Text says: "In the majority opinion, Judge Tallman agreed with the Government that border search doctrine allowed property to be transported to secondary site for examination. But, he did also state that the Government cannot seize property and hold it for "weeks, months, years on a whim", and therefore the courts will continue to determine whether searches and seizures are reasonable on a case-to-case basis"
Uncited content that strikes me as big potential BLP violation, including naming names related to child pornography. --LauraHale (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Article has uncited bits that need citations. Big concern as these are likely WP:BLP violations. The proposed hook is not supported by the text. Alt hook needed or text altered to support the hook. --LauraHale (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)