Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-prong test later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court as the test for determining whether a police or government search is subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment:
Frazier v. Cupp (1969) - one person can give consent in case of joint custody; Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) - government must show that consent occurred; United States v. Watson (1976) - valid consent from person under arr
Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011) An individual litigant has standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds of federalism. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) An Arizona law that authorizes local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws is preempted by federal law. Arizona law enforcement may inquire about a resident's ...
Case name Citation Date decided Pereira v. United States: 347 U.S. 1: 1954: Radio Officers' Union v. NLRB: 347 U.S. 17: 1954: Walder v. United States: 347 U.S. 62
800-290-4726 more ways to reach us. Sign in. Mail. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: ... Katz-Lacabe et al v. Oracle America, Inc.c/o Settlement Administrator1650 Arch Street, Suite ...
In response to Katz v. United States (1967) and Berger v. New York (1967), the United States Congress enacted the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, of which Title III is known as the "Wiretap Act." Title III was Congress' attempt to extend Fourth Amendment-like protections to telephonic and other wired forms of communication.
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law under the Fourth Amendment, because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.