enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Collins v. Virginia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_v._Virginia

    Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States involving search and seizure. At issue was whether the Fourth Amendment's motor vehicle exception permits a police officer uninvited and without a warrant to enter private property, approach a house, and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house that is otherwise visible from ...

  3. Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

    Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

  4. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago,_Burlington...

    Justice Harlan argued that the concept of due process of law required fair compensation to be given for any private property seized by the state. In responding to the City of Chicago's claim that due process of law was served merely by allowing the railroad company's grievance to be heard, Harlan stated that satisfying legislative procedure alone is not enough to satisfy due process: "In ...

  5. Supreme Court Can Protect Property Owners From Eminent ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/supreme-court-protect-property...

    The U.S. Supreme Court invited such abuses with its 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London , which blessed the use of eminent domain to promote economic development by transferring property ...

  6. Police Cannot Seize Property Indefinitely After an Arrest ...

    www.aol.com/news/police-cannot-seize-property...

    Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.

  7. Hudson v. Michigan - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Michigan

    Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence (the knock-and-announce requirement) does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.

  8. US Supreme Court reinforces police power in seized vehicle ruling

    www.aol.com/news/us-supreme-court-reinforces...

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday reinforced the power of law enforcement authorities to retain seized property belonging to people not charged with a crime, ruling in favor of Alabama officials ...

  9. Vale v. Louisiana - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vale_v._Louisiana

    Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 (1970) was a search and seizure case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1970, in which the Court held that a search of a suspect's house is not "incident to the arrest" when the suspect's arrest took place outside.