Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Criminal procedure. In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant 's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to ...
For criminal proceedings, the exclusionary rule prohibits entry of evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure, such as one executed under an invalid search warrant. [2] However, the good-faith exemption allows evidence collected by law enforcement officers pursuant to a defective search warrant if the officers reasonably ...
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 ...
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 ...
Wolf v. Colorado. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6—3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In Weeks v.
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that absent exigency, the warrantless search of a passenger's container capable of holding the object of a search for which there is probable cause is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it is justified under the automobile exception as an effect of the car.
Diaz (2011) 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. [2][3] The case arose from inconsistent rulings on cell phone searches ...
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.