Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States "[held] that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule ". [ 1 ]
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule) Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (invocation of the right to counsel under Miranda) Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (charitable deductions under §170 of the Internal Revenue Code) Davis v. United States (1974), 417 U.S. 333; Davis v. United States ...
In Davis v. United States (2011), [16] the Court ruled that evidence gathered from a search performed in reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent that was later overruled as being unconstitutional (here, a vehicle search that was rendered unconstitutional in view of Arizona v. Gant) was admissible under the good-faith exception. [17]
This file is a work of an officer or employee of the Supreme Court of the United States, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government , the file is in the public domain in the United States.
Case name Docket no. Date decided Thompson v. Hebdon: 19–122: November 25, 2019 Rotkiske v. Klemm: 18–328: December 10, 2019 Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. 18–801
Former state Sen. Wendy Davis said she didn't speak in public after the u0022Trump Trainu0022 incident until the fall of 2021. At that event, she hired private security for the first time in her ...
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) contains both an “elements clause” and a “residual clause.” [8] The elements clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” and the residual clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it, “by its nature, involves a ...
The attorney general says the law and facts were on his side — but perhaps not the politics of the case.