Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Forfeiture is precluded if criminal charges related to the property seizure are never filed against a person, or prosecutors fail to establish the person’s criminal culpability. [78] 3rd party owners need to prove their own innocence. [78] 100% of proceeds go to law enforcement when a forfeiture is pursued by local agencies.
A California court convicted him under state law, and when Roth appealed the decision, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. In the majority decision, written by Justice Brennan, a new test was created for determining what can be considered obscene (the Hicklin test was used since a ruling in 1857, which the Court abandoned in Roth ).
Warrantless searches are searches and seizures conducted without court-issued search warrants.. In the United States, warrantless searches are restricted under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not ...
Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.
Federal civil forfeiture cases usually start with a seizure of property followed by the mailing of a notice of seizure from the seizing agency (generally the DEA or FBI) to the owner. The owner then has 35 days to file a claim with the seizing agency. The owner must file this claim to later protect his property in court.
Review of state court decisions by U.S. District Courts Florida v. Royer: 460 U.S. 491 (1983) Search and seizure of an airline passenger walking through an airport Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy: 460 U.S. 766 (1983) Environmental law; psychological effects do not need to be evaluated as part of an Environmental Impact ...
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.
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]