Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 inspector returned twice more, again without a search warrant, and was again denied entry. A complaint was subsequently filed against the tenant, and he was arrested for violating a city code. He filed suit under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The California district court of appeal, relying on the previous case of Frank v.
Federal search warrants may be prepared on Form AO 93, Search and Seizure Warrant. [13] Although the laws are broadly similar, each state has its own laws and rules of procedure governing the issuance of warrants. Search warrants are normally available to the public. On the other hand, they may be sealed if they contain sensitive information. [14]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Based on this surveillance and information from a second informant, a detective wrote an affidavit and a judge issued a search warrant. The police conducted the search, but the search warrant was later found to be invalid because the police lacked the probable cause for a warrant to be issued in the first place. The evidence obtained in the ...
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]
A black BMW with a stolen license plate waited nearby, Det. Emily Delph wrote in a search warrant affidavit. An hour later, the BMW was seen in the jewelry district of downtown Los Angeles, where ...
Case history; Prior: Franks v. State, 373 A.2d 578 (Del. 1977): Subsequent: Franks v. State, 398 A.2d 783 (Del. 1979): Holding; Where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.