Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Any amount above $250,000 goes to a special non-law enforcement fund. [50] California Cash below $40,000: Conviction of "a defendant" required, which may or may not be the owner, but only applies if an owner contests forfeiture. Property must be linked to the crime beyond reasonable doubt after conviction.
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4.
People have lost their tents, clean clothes, personal records, IDs, medications and more, according to a lawsuit accusing the city of Los Angeles of illegal seizure and destruction of property.
Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the authorities.In the United States, it is a type of criminal-justice financial obligation.It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime.
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the length of a seizure, a federal court ruled last week, significantly restricting how long law enforcement ...
A distraint in progress, depicted in an 1846 painting by Peter Schwingen. Distraint or distress is "the seizure of someone’s property in order to obtain payment of rent or other money owed", [1] especially in common law countries. [2]
Bradford believes that hundreds and perhaps thousands of other California property owners, or their descendants, may seek financial remedies under the proposed law. "I can't assign a dollar figure ...