Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been cited as widening the scope of search.
The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States. [1] [2] The motor vehicle exception allows officers to search a vehicle without a search warrant if they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is in the vehicle. [3]
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is the name of two related lawsuits by author E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump, who served as the 45th president of the United States and current president-elect of the United States. The two suits resulted in a total of $88.3 million in damages awarded to Carroll
That would have ended Carroll's case, because the United States had not waived its immunity from defamation claims. ... The case is Carroll v Trump et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos ...
Decades after she was allegedly raped by a New York real estate mogul who would go on to be the 45th President of the United States, E Jean Carroll is getting her day in court.. Ms Carroll, a ...
California v. Acevedo , 500 U.S. 565 (1991), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court , which interpreted the Carroll doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches. The Court stated, "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is ...
Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States involving search and seizure. At issue was whether the Fourth Amendment's motor vehicle exception permits a police officer uninvited and without a warrant to enter private property, approach a house, and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house that is otherwise visible from ...
574 U.S. 1 Decided October 6, 2014. Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, if a state prisoner claims that a state court misapplied federal law, a federal court of appeals may only grant habeas relief if the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as ...