Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
California v. Acevedo , 500 U.S. 565 (1991), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court , which interpreted the Carroll doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches. The Court stated, "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is ...
California v. Acevedo: 500 U.S. 565 (1991) police may search a container in a car without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company: 500 U.S. 614 (1991) Batson's prohibition on race-based use of peremptory challenges applies in civil trials Connecticut v. Doehr: 501 U.S. 1 (1991)
Case name Citation Date decided Stevens v. Dept. of Treasury: 500 U.S. 1: 1991: In re Amendment to Rule 39: 500 U.S. 13: 1991: In re Demos: 500 U.S. 16: 1991
The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States. [1] [2] The motor vehicle exception allows officers to search a vehicle without a search warrant if they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is in the vehicle. [3]
C. Cady v. Dombrowski; California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co. California v. Acevedo; California v. Carney; California v. Ciraolo; California v.
(The Center Square) – Former Illinois State Rep. Eddie Acevedo's testimony in a high-profile corruption case got off to a bumpy start Monday with a contempt warning from the judge. Judge John ...
Art Acevedo — a former police chief in Houston and Miami, and a candidate at one time to lead the LAPD — said that local agencies should be able to focus on combating violent and property ...
California v. Acevedo , 500 U.S. 565 (1991) Sanders , 442 U.S. 753 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, absent exigency , the warrantless search of personal luggage merely because it was located in an automobile lawfully stopped by the police, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under ...