Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
At least 25 times since 2014, courts either ruled that Kansas law enforcement trampled search and seizure protections; or lawsuits alleging Fourth Amendment violations have led to payouts, court ...
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be ...
Dareton police search the vehicle of a suspected drug smuggler in Wentworth, in the state of New South Wales, Australia, near the border with Victoria.. Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and ...
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be ...
Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 (1970) was a search and seizure case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1970, in which the Court held that a search of a suspect's house is not "incident to the arrest" when the suspect's arrest took place outside. The police officers therefore required a search warrant. [1]
Lawsuit demands public access to Spartanburg search and seizure information after citizen denied records. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of South Carolina resident Adrianne Turner, who submitted a ...
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), [1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 6–3, that police may not conduct vehicle searches, specifically ones involving drug-sniffing police dogs, at a checkpoint or roadblock without reasonable suspicion. [2]