Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-prong test later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court as the test for determining whether a police or government search is subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment:
Case name Citation Date decided Pereira v. United States: 347 U.S. 1: 1954: Radio Officers' Union v. NLRB: 347 U.S. 17: 1954: Walder v. United States: 347 U.S. 62
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) The Fourth Amendment's proscription on unreasonable search and seizure does not apply to telephone wiretaps. (Overruled by Katz v. United States (1967)) Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Exclusionary rule applied to state prosecutions. Schmerber v.
The D.C. Circuit court was the first to apply mosaic theory to a Fourth Amendment issue in United States v. Maynard, a case involving GPS surveillance of a car over a period of twenty-eight days. [1] [17] To answer this question, the court applied the test developed by Justice Harlan in Katz v. United States. [19]
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law under the Fourth Amendment, because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.
California, 453 U.S. 420 decision in July 1981, overruled by the United States v. Ross , 456 U.S. 798 decision in June 1982. There have been 16 decisions which have simultaneously overruled more than one earlier decision; of these, three have simultaneously overruled four decisions each: the statutory law regarding habeas corpus decision Hensley v.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that "a search and seizure [was] equivalent [to] a compulsory production of a man's private papers" and that the search was "an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." [1]