Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On April 8, 2022, Minneapolis implemented a new ban on "no knock" warrants, described by NBC News as "being called one of the strongest of its kind in the nation." [ 2 ] Minnesota state lawmakers were unable to reach agreement before the end of the 92nd Minnesota Legislature in mid-2022 on further limits to "no-knock" warrants, after objections ...
Minnesota v. Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States . The Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 10, 2001. The court held that the police search of a probationer supported by reasonable suspicion and pursuant to a probation condition satisfied the requirements under the Fourth Amendment.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison will join the review of the fatal shooting of a Black man by Minneapolis police, authorities said Friday, shortly after police released body camera footage ...
A Minnesota man has been arrested in connection to a homicide case five months after a model was found stuffed in a fridge in a Los Angeles apartment last year.. Maleesa Mooney, 31, was murdered ...
Getting a search warrant begins in a police department and ends with a specific, restricted list of items allowed to be seized on a specific property.
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (in case citations, D. Minn.) is the federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Minnesota. Its two primary courthouses are in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Cases are also heard in the federal courthouses in Duluth and Fergus Falls.
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), is a landmark search and seizure case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.In a 7–2 decision, the court held that a person staying as a guest in the house of another had a legal expectation of privacy, and that a warrantless entry into that house to arrest the person tainted the arrest and the individual's subsequent statements.