Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]
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.
Warrantless search incident to arrest must be contemporaneous with and in general vicinity of arrest to be reasonable; consent from hotel personnel, even in management, is insufficient to permit search of guest room without warrant. California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed and remanded. Court membership; Chief Justice Earl Warren
Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled against the retroactive application of Chimel v. California.The Court also ruled that evidence from mistaken identity arrests can be admissible as long as other factors support probable cause.
Call Incident Commander Lt. Anthony Sotello at 661-721-6300 extension 5506 Call 911 California authorities are asking for the public's help in locating escaped convict Cesar Hernandez.
A two-week undercover operation based in Sacramento County led to 37 served search warrants and 23 arrests throughout Northern California, as a regional task force continued a crackdown on child ...
People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (Cal. January 3, 2011) was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. [1]