Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler .
They claimed that the Library Genesis websites "deprive [them] and their authors of income from their creative works, devalue the textbook market and [their] works, and may cause [them] to cease publishing certain works". They demanded control or deletion of the Library Genesis domains and the seizure of its operators' alleged profits. [25]
A search of the Gates' residence led to the discovery of additional marijuana and weapons. The Illinois Circuit Court decided that the search was unlawful based on the test established in the Supreme Court ruling in Spinelli v. United States. In essence, the affidavit did not provide enough evidence to establish probable cause, which led to the ...
Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 (1970) was a search and seizure case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1970, in which the Court held that a search of a suspect's house is not "incident to the arrest" when the suspect's arrest took place outside.
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.
Pages in category "Search and seizure case law" The following 33 pages are in this category, out of 33 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. A. Abel v ...
This article is a chronological list of United States criminal case law articles on Wikipedia that discuss the Fourth Amendment constitutional provision against unreasonable search and seizure in its relation to consent to search.
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.