Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
However, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed these rulings. Relying largely on federal precedent, especially Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the "protective search" violated the Fourth Amendment, and thus the "poisonous fruit" of the illegal search must be discarded. Additionally, the Michigan Supreme Court grounded its decision on ...
The California Constitution originally made the Supreme Court the only appellate court for the whole state. As the state's population skyrocketed during the 19th century, the Supreme Court was expanded from three to seven justices, and then the Court began hearing the majority of appeals in three-justice panels.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz , 496 U.S. 444 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints . The Court held 6-3 that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."
Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled against the retroactive application of Chimel v. California.The Court also ruled that evidence from mistaken identity arrests can be admissible as long as other factors support probable cause.
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 a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was unconstitutional for California to require Bayer AG's Monsanto unit, which makes Roundup, and some agricultural producers to ...
A state appeals court ruled that California can continue providing personal information of gun owners to researchers to study gun violence, reversing last year's decision by a lower court judge ...
The Court extended that holding in this case, addressing the standard for deciding what are the fruits of an illegal search in state criminal trials. Clark's opinion addressed “the specific question as to whether Mapp requires the exclusion of evidence in this case which the California District Court of Appeal has held to be lawfully seized ...