Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: 58 Ill. App. 3d 57, 373 N. E. 2d 1013: Holding; When a search warrant specifies the person or people named in the warrant to be searched and the things to be seized, there is no authority to search others not named in the warrant, unless the warrant specifically mentions that the unnamed parties are involved in criminal activity or exigent circumstances are clearly shown.
James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court forbade the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment for the use of impeaching statements made by a defense witness.
However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest. [19] However, it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest.
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the smell of raw cannabis is grounds for police to search a vehicle. ... His lawyers argued the smell of cannabis alone should not be probable cause now ...
On May 13, 1968, Richard Brown was arrested outside his Chicago, IL. apartment by two members of the Chicago Police. [1] The two officers, William Nolan and William Lenz, entered Mr. Brown's apartment without probable cause later testifying that they had entered to question Brown concerning the death of Roger Corpus, who had been killed a week prior.
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the legal standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal and for a court's issuing of a search warrant. [1] One definition of the standard derives from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Beck v.
The Illinois Supreme Court found a major criminal justice reform bill was indeed constitutional on Tuesday, which will see the state end cash bail in the next 60 days.
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with warrantless arrests and the Fourth Amendment.The Court ruled that even if an officer wrongly arrests a suspect for one crime, the arrest may still be "reasonable" if there is objectively probable cause to believe that the suspect is involved in a different crime.