enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Searches incident to a lawful arrest - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_incident_to_a...

    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.

  3. Chimel v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimel_v._California

    Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]

  4. Virginia v. Moore - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Moore

    The Court decided unanimously in favor of Virginia. In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia that was joined by seven justices, the Court held that because the Fourth Amendment was not written with the intent to incorporate individual states' arrest statutes and because the arrest was based on probable cause, Moore had no constitutional grounds to have the evidence suppressed.

  5. United States v. Robinson - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Robinson

    United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."

  6. United States v. Rabinowitz - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Rabinowitz

    A warrantless search of a surrounding area incident to a lawful arrest is constitutional and not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Court membership; Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Associate Justices Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton

  7. Police Cannot Seize Property Indefinitely After an Arrest ...

    www.aol.com/news/police-cannot-seize-property...

    Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.

  8. Thornton v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v._United_States

    Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile's occupant, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the officer to search the vehicle's passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest. [1]

  9. Kentucky v. King - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_v._King

    Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.