Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In early cases in the United States, the Supreme Court held that when a person is on probation, the standard required for a search to be lawful is lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable grounds" [10] or "reasonable suspicion". Specifically, the degree of individualized suspicion required of a search was a determination of when there is a ...
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant (warrantless arrests) be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody.
Remand is not required where there is nothing left to do in the case. "Generally speaking, an appellate court's judgment provides 'the final directive of the appeals courts as to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's determination that the action appealed from should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified'". [16]
Gates, the Supreme Court held that the totality of the circumstances test should be used to assess whether an anonymous tip is sufficient to provide probable cause. [10] Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice William Rehnquist explained that a totality test was superior to a bright line rule because magistrates would not be "restricted in ...
The Supreme Court, in finding the arrest to be constitutional, stated that the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant's car. [3] The Court emphasized that "probable cause" was the standard for conducting the arrest, not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" as is required for criminal convictions. The Court stressed that if the "beyond a ...
The defendant had argued that anticipatory warrants in general violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause," because the anticipated probable cause does not exist at the time of the warrant's issuance. The Court first noted that the courts of appeals had unanimously rejected this argument ...
The Court held that probable cause determinations for warrantless searches should be reviewed de novo, but also that "an appeals court should give due weight to a trial court's finding that the officer was credible and the inference was reasonable." [7] Ornelas' conviction was vacated and the case was remanded to the Seventh Circuit.
A grant of appellate review is dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG) when a court with discretionary appellate jurisdiction later decides that it should not review the case. [1] Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States occasionally grants a petition of the writ of certiorari , only to later DIG the case.