Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), elaborated on the community caretaking doctrine. Under the Fourth Amendment, "unreasonable" searches and seizures are forbidden. In addition to their law-enforcement duties, the police must engage in what the court has termed a community caretaking role, including such duties as removing ...
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.
Diaz (2011) Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. [2][3] The case arose from inconsistent rulings on cell phone searches ...
December 17, 2023 at 3:30 AM. Just before midnight on a Tuesday in May 2016, Kyle McCool answered a knock on his door. Sheriff’s deputies and a police detective stood on the other side, carrying ...
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable "searches" and "seizures." The Court first ruled that when the police officer moved the stereo equipment to record the serial numbers, he conducted a Fourth Amendment "search," unrelated to the initial reason the police were in Hicks's apartment, to search for weapons and the person who fired the bullet through the floor of the apartment.
Police Cannot Seize Property Indefinitely After an Arrest, Federal Court Rules. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the length of a seizure, a ...
Laws applied. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. [1] A 6–3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police followed his vehicle after he left his apartment just before it was to be searched.
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.