Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
When the anticipatory warrant is predicated on a triggering condition, the Fourth Amendment requires that there is probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will occur, and that if it occurs, that there is a fair probability that the contraband will be found at the place to be searched. In this case, the warrant application ...
In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable." [1] Johnson is commonly cited for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment creates a "warrant requirement" for searches, and warrantless searches are "per se unreasonable."
The "special needs" exception is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general requirement that government searches be supported by a warrant and probable cause. [1] The exception applies when (1) the government conducts programmatic searches that are primarily aimed at advancing some special need other than criminal law enforcement, and (2) the government’s search program is reasonable ...
Where the magistrate or judge who issued the warrant was not neutral and detached from the case; Where the warrant was issued based on an affidavit so clearly lacking support for probable cause; Where the warrant was so clearly deficient, such as with respect to the location to be searched or objects to be seized [9] In Illinois v.
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant (warrantless arrests) be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody.
The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation." Despite finding that the evidence was obtained in an unconstitutional manner, the court denied "appellant's motion to exclude the fruits of that electronic search and seizure under the 'good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule recognized in United States v.
Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that, based on the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not conduct a warrantless search of a third party's home in an attempt to apprehend the subject of an arrest warrant, absent consent or exigent circumstances.
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 ...