Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Town's motion for summary judgment. [30] The church then appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding the town's ordinance was content neutral. [30] Citing Hill v.
The jurisdiction of the court is prescribed by Article VI, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution. [6] Most of the appeals heard by the court go through the Arizona Court of Appeals, except for death penalty cases, over which the Arizona Supreme Court has sole appellate jurisdiction. The court also has original jurisdiction in a few other ...
In a historic decision Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the state must adhere to a 160-year-old law barring all abortions except in cases when “it is necessary to save” a pregnant ...
The Civil War-era law, enacted long before Arizona became a state on Feb. 14, 1912, had been blocked since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing the constitutional right ...
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to stay the ruling on June 28, 2012. [6] In July 2012, Arizona petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling. [7] The Supreme Court granted the petition in October 2012, [8] and it heard oral arguments on March 18, 2013. [9]
The court's action Monday pushes that back to Sept. 26, her office said. The enforcement date hinges heavily on when the state's legislative session ends. Last year, it wrapped up July 31.
The Court noted in a supplemental opinion that the case law it had relied on was all focused on Miranda warnings, not confessions, and there was other case law that said involuntary confessions could never be harmless. [1] The Court therefore ordered a new trial. The state of Arizona appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.