Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
However, if an officer is inside a suspect's home under an unrelated warrant, he or she may rely on the plain view doctrine, subject to the doctrine's other requirements. [17] In Arizona v. Hicks, the police officers were in the apartment under another exception to the warrant requirement, exigent circumstances. This qualified as a lawful entry ...
Most Internet users expect some extent of privacy protection from the law while they are online. However, scholars argue that lack of understanding of the Internet as either a public or private space leads to issues in defining expectations of the law. [21] The Fourth Amendment may not protect informational privacy.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception.. The state sought to justify the search of a car owned by Edward Coolidge, suspected of killing 14-year-old Pamela Mason in January 1964, on three theories: automobile exception, search incident to arrest and plain view.
The plain meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself. According to the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning.
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures.
However, pursuant to the plain-feel doctrine (similar to the plain-view doctrine), police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the type of contraband is immediately apparent. [10] The Supreme Court has placed very liberal requirements on what is "immediately apparent" regarding contraband.
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!
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.The Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.