Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Emergency aid doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment, allowing warrantless entry to premises if exigent circumstances make it necessary. [8] A number of exceptions are classified under the general heading of criminal enforcement: where evidence of a suspected crime is in danger of being lost; where the police officers are in hot pursuit; where there is a probability that a suspect ...
A 2021 transparency report showed that 25% of data requests from law enforcement to Google were geo-fence data requests. [3] Google is the most common recipient of reverse location warrants and the main provider of such data, [4] [5] although companies including Apple, Snapchat, Lyft, and Uber have also received such warrants. [1] [3]
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.
But an officer may make a warrantless entry when “the exigencies of the situation” create a compelling law enforcement need. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011). The question presented here is whether the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect always—or more legally put, categorically—qualifies as an exigent circumstance.
In the first half of 2020, the latest data set available, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple received more than 114,000 data requests from U.S. law enforcement agencies and supplied data in 85% ...
Warrantless searches are searches and seizures conducted without court-issued search warrants.. In the United States, warrantless searches are restricted under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not ...
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.
A 2021 transparency report showed that 25% of data requests from law enforcement to Google were geo-fence data requests. [5] Google is the most common recipient of geo-fence warrants and the main provider of such data, [ 4 ] [ 6 ] although companies including Apple , Snapchat , Lyft , and Uber have also received such warrants.