Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Carroll v. United States , 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception .
San Francisco Police searching a vehicle after a stop in 2008.. The motor vehicle exception is a legal rule in the United States that modifies the normal probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, when applicable, allows a police officer to search a motor vehicle without a search warrant.
The Court wrote that “the Carroll doctrine does not declare a field day for the police in searching automobiles. Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search.” Because the United States admitted that the officers did not have probable cause, the Court held that the Carroll exception was not applicable. [8]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Click Download AOL Desktop Gold or Update Now. 4. Navigate to your Downloads folder and click Save. 5. Follow the installation steps listed below. Install Desktop Gold.
By John Kruzel. WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide whether federally mandated warnings on cigarette packs that graphically illustrate the health risks of ...
Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the Carroll doctrine [1] in a case with a significant factual difference—the search took place after the vehicle was moved to the stationhouse. The search was thus delayed and did not take place on the highway (or street) as in Carroll. [2]
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.