Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The case concerned the extent of the government's power to limit an individual's complete control of his or her home pending the arrival of a search warrant. A divided Court held that the search was not unconstitutional because there was a reasonable law-enforcement need to acquire a warrant, namely, to prevent the potential destruction of ...
Writing for the Court, Justice White wrote that, “having concluded that Frank v. State of Maryland, [1] to the extent that it sanctioned such warrantless inspections, must be overruled, we reverse.” [2] He first reviewed principles of the Fourth Amendment, noting that “the basic purpose of this Amendment...is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary ...
Case history; Prior: Franks v. State, 373 A.2d 578 (Del. 1977): Subsequent: Franks v. State, 398 A.2d 783 (Del. 1979): Holding; Where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.
Certiorari was granted in the case on October 19, 2020. The case was argued on February 24, 2021, and decided on June 23, 2021. In a unanimous decision, Justice Elena Kagan delivered the majority opinion. [2] The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires that police officers get a warrant before entering a home without permission.
The case was understood to create a cause of action against the federal government similar to the one in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the states. However, the Supreme Court has sharply limited new Bivens claims. The Supreme Court has upheld Bivens claims only three times: in Bivens (1971), Davis v. Passman (1979), and Carlson v. Green (1980).
While she pleaded for prosecutors to take up her college rape complaint, Shannon Keeler studied in Spain, won a national championship in lacrosse, earned a bachelor's degree and fell in love.
Based on this surveillance and information from a second informant, a detective wrote an affidavit and a judge issued a search warrant. The police conducted the search, but the search warrant was later found to be invalid because the police lacked the probable cause for a warrant to be issued in the first place.
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant.