Template:Did you know nominations/Totality of the circumstances


 * 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 Montanabw (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Totality of the circumstances

 * ... that commentators believe recent United States Supreme Court decisions have created "drug-dog and drunk-driving exceptions to the totality-of-the-circumstances approach"?


 * Reviewed: Francis Putnam Burns

Created by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 20:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook fact is quoted from an essay by a Professor of Law. The article is neutral and uses legal terminology, but I doubt that it raises any copyright issues. My concern is with the use of "commentators" for a single view, so I suggest ALT1
 * ALT1 ... that recent United States Supreme Court decisions may have created "drug-dog and drunk-driving exceptions to the totality-of-the-circumstances approach"?Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT1 is fine with me (and I have struck the original so that the original will not be selected), though I should note that I cited two other scholars who suggested that Prado Navarette v. California created an exception to the traditional totality approach when police officers receive anonymous tips about drunk drivers. In any event, thank you very much for taking the time to review this article! I very much appreciate your eye for detail. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good, lets go with ALT1 then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)