Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: Lewis v. County of Sacramento, 98 F.3d 434 (9th Cir. 1996); cert. granted, 520 U.S. 1250 (1997).: Holding; High-speed chases with no intent to harm suspects physically or to worsen their legal plight do not give rise to liability under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [1]
Motion to suppress denied; reversed, California Court of Appeal; reversed, 136 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2006); cert. granted, 549 U.S. 1177 (2007). Holding; Automobile passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the car in which they are riding is held at a law enforcement traffic stop. California Supreme Court vacated and ...
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.
California v. Ciraolo , 476 U.S. 207 (1986), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that aerial observation of a person's backyard by police, even if done without a search warrant , does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
A group of House Democrats Tuesday called for action from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, days after CBS News published an investigation which found dozens of law ...
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.
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.