Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A major point in the case was whether or not Brenda Marsh had the legal right to control the dissemination of her son's autopsy photos, and though the court determined that she did, it ruled on a technicality that at the time of the events, the law had not yet been "clearly established." [10]
A Jamie Oliver online imposter who stabbed his housemate to death after spying on her with hidden surveillance devices has been found guilty of murder. Sheldon Rodrigues, 30, became angry and ...
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "[a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some ...
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) - search valid if police reasonably believe consent given by owner; Florida v. Bostick (1991) - not "free to leave" but "free to decline" on bus; Florida v. Jimeno (1991) - can request officer to limit scope of search; Ohio v. Robinette (1996) - do not have to inform motorist is free to go; United States v.
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is attempting to rally support for a bill that would reveal to Americans if their household devices are spying on them.. Mr Cruz took to the Senate floor on Tuesday to ...
Here’s what to know if Texas police ever asks to search your cellphone or smart device. ... A case decided in 2020 found that law enforcement cannot use information from the lock screen of a ...
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.
Texas law states: “A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed ...