Talk:Edward C. Lawson

Untitled

Should this article be renamed since it is more about the law case Lawson was involved in and not Lawson himself?

The end of “stop-and-identify” laws

The statement “it represented the end of ‘stop and ID laws’ for the entire United States” is seriously in error. The U.S. Supreme Court voided California Penal Code §647(e) for vagueness, relying on a construction given that law by a California appellate court in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429. Consequently, it did not necessarily invalidate nominally identical laws in other states. And the Court did not rule on Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment considerations, setting the stage for Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada in 2004, which essentially upheld the validity of “stop-and-identify” laws. JeffConrad (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section Subsequent jurisprudence may be overkill for an article about Lawson rather than the case. But the statements about the end of “stop-and-identify” laws should be clarified before that section is removed. I'm trying to think of an approach that doesn't mislead but that also doesn't minimize the significance of Lawson's achievement. It's not that simple, even in California; although the consensus seems to be that the obligation to identify oneself to a peace officer ended with Kolender, there are some who think that failure to present identification is an offense similar to the violation of Nevada law of which Hiibel was convicted, and there are others who think a suspect may be searched for identification if he refuses to provide it. JeffConrad (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edward C. Lawson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very little biographical information, at present (2021)

The article currently tells us nothing about his life… and nothing about his death.

Remarkable for a biographical entry in an encyclopedia.

I presume there's been at least one book published with at least one chapter containing information of this kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BDB3:8D00:C1F5:5A4:DD8C:C641 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know Wikipedia rules so I am writing this in the TALK section and someone else can edit the article. There is Bio information on Mr Lawson here https://alchetron.com/Edward-C-Lawson

It includes a date of death, May 12, 2011 and cause of death pancreatic cancer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.90 (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

EdwardLawson2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Plaintiff" versus "respondent" versus "defendant"

In the opening paragraph, I changed "plaintiff" to "respondent," because that was Lawson's role in Kolender v. Lawson.

In a civil case or an appellate case, the party before "v." is always the plaintiff, and the party after "v." is always the respondent.

In a criminal case, there is some disagreement whether the party before "v." is the plaintiff versus the prosecution, but that is moot because Lawson was the defendant in the original criminal case and did not appeal that case.

The last paragraph in topic Civil rights case refers to Lawson as "defendant," without any citation. Site [1]Alchetron has this identical paragraph, also without any citation. I Googled that topic and found no original sources. DavidForthoffer (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]