Talk:Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion

we discussed this in class today, in actuality it was her 4yr old son standing in the front seat. the cop saw it and stopped her. she said it was unreasonable search an seizure because "how did the cop know he was standing?" well obviously the cop could see the kid standing up with his hands on the dash.

POV

This article gives short shrift to the fact that the woman was putting her children in danger (and had been observed by the same officer doing the same thing) by not buckling them up. Not only is this a clear violation of the law, but would convert even a minor traffic accident into two toddler deaths. Since the article harps incessantly on the officer's behavior, it might be NPOV either to include the facts I've mentioned or merely to tone down the language - it reads like it was written by the woman herself! 74.225.130.13 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the "Facts" section is written with very little non-partisan information and a copious amount of bias. It should be reworded and fixed according to documented fact. 4/16/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.2.136 (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

A check of the Texas Medical Board files appears to show that Dr. Haas' credentials are now in good order. knoodelhed (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis section quality

I tried to use the two journal articles I could find to add some citations to the analysis section, but it was basically impossible. The facts are now about 70% cited, which is a start, but the rest of this article could really use some help. Whoever wrote the analysis: It would be great if you could share your sources with the class, or delete the uncited material. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lago vista sept 24 1997 (2)

I have a scan of a newspaper from the Austin American news paper discussing the case, but I don't know how to upload it. Sorry for any problems this may cause. ------->

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atwater v. City of Lago Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200848/http://www.acgov.org/da/pov/documents/atwater.htm to http://www.acgov.org/da/pov/documents/atwater.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]