The statement is true as the court reversed itself as the New Jersey court did regarding automobile search being the right decision to prevent crimes.
Stare decisis is Latin for "to hold fast to what has been decided." If a prior court has made a ruling on the same or a closely comparable matter when a court is faced with a legal argument, the court will follow that precedent when making its conclusion.
On September 24, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a decision that allowed police to search cars without first obtaining a warrant. If the authorities were to believe potential causes and sources, this warrantless search of a car would have yielded unmistakable proof of a crime. No state rule or subjectivity is present in this situation, negating the need for such state-specific judgments. The court made the correct judgment to go in the opposite direction as the New Jersey court did with regard to car searches.
Therefore the statement courts normally follow the rule of stare decisis when deciding cases. there are times, however, as in-state v. Witt, a new jersey supreme court case discussed in class, where a court will reverse itself as the new jersey court did regarding automobile searches stands TRUE.
To know more about the rule of stare decisis, refer to this link:
https://brainly.com/question/4997437
#SPJ4
