Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In United States constitutional law and criminal procedure, the good-faith exception (also good-faith doctrine) is one of the limitations on the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment. [ 1 ] For criminal proceedings, the exclusionary rule prohibits entry of evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure , such as one executed ...
An officer acting in good faith and within the scope of a search warrant should not be subjected to Fourth Amendment constitutional violations. It is the magistrate’s or judge’s responsibility to ascertain whether the warrant is supported by sufficient information to support probable cause.
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the extent of discretion given to police officers acting in good faith. The Court held that where police reasonably believe their warrant was valid during a search, execution of the warrant does ...
Good faith exception: If police officers acting in good faith (bona fides) rely upon a defective search warrant, then the evidence acquired may still be used under the good-faith exception. Independent source doctrine : If police obtain evidence illegally, but also obtain the same evidence through an independent, legal means, the evidence is ...
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as ...
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]
Whether the latter provision of DOMA violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause was debated among legal commentators. [19] Some scholars viewed DOMA as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. [20] [21] Other legal scholars disagreed. [22] [23] Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v.
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1]