Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.
California v. Ciraolo , 476 U.S. 207 (1986), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that aerial observation of a person's backyard by police, even if done without a search warrant , does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
There are, however, some limitations to this such as mental health, correctional and juvenile probation facilities. It is a violation of one's publicity rights to record people and use their name, likeness or image without written permission from each person in the video if that video is used to produce profit of any kind. [39]
PHOTO: The seal of the U.S. Justice Department is seen on the podium in the Department's headquarters briefing room before a news conference with the Attorney General in Washington, Jan. 24, 2023.
The aerial surveillance doctrine’s place in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence first surfaced in California v.Ciraolo (1986). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether law enforcement’s warrantless use of a private plane to observe, from an altitude of 1,000 feet, an individual’s cultivation of marijuana plants in his yard constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. [1]
But the Court noted that "incidental restrictions on freedom of movement would not tend to affect an individual's sense of security and privacy in traveling in an automobile." Indeed, the California court's holding was a kind of incentive for the police to conduct "roving patrols" that would violate the Fourth Amendment rights of drivers.
California as heard before the Supreme Court combined two cases: Riley's case and United States v. Wurie. Riley argued that the digital contents of a smartphone do not threaten the safety of police officers, and that searches for which officers only have a belief that they may find evidence of a crime still violate constitutional rights. [12]
The police department in Worcester, Massachusetts, routinely violates individuals' constitutional rights by using excessive force and allowing undercover officers to engage in sexual contact with ...