Ads
related to: warrant check california freereviewpublicrecords.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.
In the United States, any person, including a private investigator, criminal research or background check company, may go to a county courthouse and search an index of criminal records by name and date of birth or have a county clerk search for records on an individual. Such a search may produce information about criminal and non-criminal ...
Such warrants look like checks and clear through the banking system like checks, but are not drawn against cleared funds in a checking account (demand deposit account). Instead, they may be drawn against "available funds" or "out of fund 0027" so that the issuer can collect interest on the float or delay redemption.
A courtroom at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles. The court announced changes in February that limit the criteria that can be used for public searches of records.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Ads
related to: warrant check california freereviewpublicrecords.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month