Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the length of a seizure, a federal court ruled last week, significantly restricting how long law enforcement ...
The Texas Constitution Article I Section 9 confirms a person’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In 2014, the Supreme Court held in Riley v. In 2014, the Supreme Court held in ...
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be ...
A Georgia man is suing the Glynn County Police Department after he was arrested for refusing to give them his name. The arrest lacked probable cause, an officer later wrote in an incident report.
Dareton police search the vehicle of a suspected drug smuggler in Wentworth, in the state of New South Wales, Australia, near the border with Victoria.. Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and ...
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Originally, remote surveillance of a person's communications, such as a telephone call, was not considered search and seizure without an "actual physical invasion" of a defendant's property. [1]
At least 25 times since 2014, courts either ruled that Kansas law enforcement trampled search and seizure protections; or lawsuits alleging Fourth Amendment violations have led to payouts, court ...
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the matter of whether wiretapping of private telephone conversations, conducted by federal agents without a search warrant with recordings subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the target’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.