Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
Frazier v. Cupp (1969) - one person can give consent in case of joint custody; Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) - government must show that consent occurred; United States v. Watson (1976) - valid consent from person under arrest; United States v. Mendenhall (1980) - consent stop converted to Terry stop; South Dakota v.
Record group: Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United States, 1685 - 2004 (National Archives Identifier: 350) Series: Civil Case Files, compiled 1939 - 1967 (National Archives Identifier: 584939) File unit: Beulah Sweeney v. Katz Drug Company, 1950 - 1950 (National Archives Identifier: 283619)
In Katz v.United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), electronic eavesdropping devices attached to the outside of a phonebooth or a home were deemed to violate the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because the interior private life of the homeowners was exposed along with information about illegal activity.
The D.C. Circuit court was the first to apply mosaic theory to a Fourth Amendment issue in United States v. Maynard, a case involving GPS surveillance of a car over a period of twenty-eight days. [1] [17] To answer this question, the court applied the test developed by Justice Harlan in Katz v. United States. [19]
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) The Fourth Amendment's proscription on unreasonable search and seizure does not apply to telephone wiretaps. (Overruled by Katz v. United States (1967)) Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Exclusionary rule applied to state prosecutions. Schmerber v.
Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution abrogates state sovereign immunity. It is significant as one of only three cases allowing Congress to use an Article I power to authorize individuals to sue states, the others being PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey and Torres
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law under the Fourth Amendment, because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.