Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
B. Bailey v. United States (2013) Beck v. Ohio; Bell v. Wolfish; Berger v. New York; Birchfield v. North Dakota; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents; Board of Education v.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
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 ...
Violations of the Fourth Amendment can upend the lives of those who experience them. In Sabetha, police arrested Austin Wasinger four months after the death of his 1-month-old son, Caldyn, on Dec ...
Jun. 10—ALBANY — Jurors in Oral "Nick" Hillary's federal civil trial decided former Potsdam Police Chief Edward F. Tischler and current Chief Mark R. Murray are not liable for Fourth Amendment ...
Even in a criminal case, the exclusionary rule does not simply bar the introduction of all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment. In Hudson v. Michigan, [30] Justice Scalia wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court: Suppression of evidence, however, has always been our last resort, not our first impulse.
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960), was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In an opinion authored by Antonin Scalia, the court held that a search and seizure is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment in cases where the police officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that a traffic violation has occurred. The personal, or subjective, motives of an officer are not a factor in the Court's Fourth Amendment analysis of ...