Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The police may not move objects in order to obtain a better view, and the officer may not be in a location unlawfully. These limitations were detailed in the case of Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987). The plain view doctrine only eliminates the warrant requirement, not the probable cause requirement.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court that ruled that a person in police custody following a misdemeanor traffic offense was entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment pursuant to the decision in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents a prosecutor from using evidence that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to states as well as the federal government.
Municipal Courts and County Courts are law courts of limited jurisdiction in the U.S. state of Ohio.They handle cases involving traffic, non-traffic misdemeanors, evictions and small civil claims (in which the amount in controversy does not exceed $3,000 for small claims and $15,000 for municipal court).
The Ohio Supreme Court ruling went back to a Cleveland case in which a man was sentenced to nine months in prison for abusing a kitten. ... Misdemeanor charges could lead to a year or two in jail.
Disorderly conduct is typically classified as an infraction or misdemeanor in the United States. However, in certain circumstances (e.g., when committed in an airport , a park, a government office building, or near a funeral ) it may be a felony in some US states.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) prohibited state residents from tracking another person without their consent, signing the bill into law Thursday. S.B. 100 is set to take effect in March and makes it ...
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.