Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A geofence warrant or a reverse location warrant is a search warrant issued by a court to allow law enforcement to search a database to find all active mobile devices within a particular geo-fence area. Courts have granted law enforcement geo-fence warrants to obtain information from databases such as Google's Sensorvault, which collects users ...
A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.
The dissent, authored by Judge Jill Pryor, disagreed, concluding that, "my answer to the question of what law enforcement officials must do before forensically searching a cell phone at the border, like the Supreme Court’s answer to manually searching a cell phone incident to arrest, 'is accordingly simple—get a warrant. ' " [18]
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
California that a person’s cell phone can’t be searched by law enforcement without a valid warrant because there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy. ... in a criminal case. A judge-issued ...
Quartavious Davis is a United States federal legal case that challenged the use in a criminal trial of location data obtained without a search warrant from MetroPCS, a cell phone service provider. Mobile phone tracking data had helped place the defendant in this case at the scene of several crimes, for which he was convicted.
The Sheriff’s Office said that it is not agency practice to contact residents by phone regarding arrest warrants. Sheriff’s Office deputies “will never request money or gift cards in lieu of ...
The New York Times called the case "a significant victory for law enforcement." [3] The Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote that the opinion was based on a "misguided belief that a user understands and voluntarily chooses to reveal their location to the cell phone provider and ultimately the government through the user's own free will." [4]