Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4.
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures.
The corrupt and illegal practices preventions acts, 1883 and 1895. [46 & 47 Vict C. 51, and 58 & 59 Vict. C. 40.] With notes of judicial decisions, and with short introductory chapters on election petitions under these acts, election contests under these acts, the general policy and effect of these acts and the parliamentary common law of agency.
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.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Originally, remote surveillance of a person's communications, such as a telephone call, was not considered search and seizure without an "actual physical invasion" of a defendant's property. [1]
The bills turn the spotlight on a phenomenon that is woven into the Golden State's history, said California state Sen. Steven Bradford, a Democrat from Gardena who authored three of the pending bills.
Civil forfeiture begins when government suspects that a property is connected with illegal drug activity, and files a civil action: [22] The government simply files a civil action in rem against the property itself, and then generally must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is forfeitable under the applicable ...
"The plaintiffs have alleged that the seizures at issue, though lawful at their inception, later came to unreasonably interfere with their protected possessory interests in their own property ...