Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It stated in clear terms that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment rules regarding search and seizure applied to state governments. [1] While this principle had been outlined in other cases, such as Mapp v.
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 ...
The warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is not absolute, and a number of exceptions to that requirement have been recognized by the courts, based upon such factors as whether it is reasonable under the circumstances for officers to obtain a warrant, and whether evidence might be lost or destroyed before a warrant can be obtained.
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.
This meant that the plain view doctrine did not apply, and the officers needed a warrant. The evidence of the stolen record player could not be used against the defendant because of the exclusionary rule, which is the remedy available when evidence is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. [16]
In United States constitutional law and criminal procedure, the good-faith exception (also good-faith doctrine) is one of the limitations on the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment. [ 1 ] For criminal proceedings, the exclusionary rule prohibits entry of evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure , such as one executed ...
The average Tesla owner obviously isn’t blowing up their vehicle outside of a Trump hotel. So should they be worried about the police having power to conduct a warrantless search of their Tesla ...
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment.In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable."