Template:Did you know nominations/Prado Navarette v. California

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Prado Navarette v. California

(

)

... that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 2014 decision that police officers may conduct traffic stops even if they never personally observe a traffic violation?

ALT1:... that Justice Antonin Scalia said a 2014 United States Supreme Court opinion was a "freedom-destroying cocktail"?
Reviewed: Almendralejo

Created by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 22:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. Both hook refs AGF and cited inline. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)