enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Plain view doctrine - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine

    The officer must be lawfully present where he or she sees the item. For example, an officer may not enter a suspect's home without a warrant and rely on the plain view doctrine. However, if an officer is inside a suspect's home under an unrelated warrant, he or she may rely on the plain view doctrine, subject to the doctrine's other ...

  3. Horton v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California

    Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures.

  4. 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.

  5. Exigent circumstance - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

    Emergency aid doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment, allowing warrantless entry to premises if exigent circumstances make it necessary. [8] A number of exceptions are classified under the general heading of criminal enforcement: where evidence of a suspected crime is in danger of being lost; where the police officers are in hot pursuit; where there is a probability that a suspect ...

  6. 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]

  7. Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the...

    According to the plain view doctrine as defined in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), [ 119 ] if an officer is lawfully present, he may seize objects that are in "plain view." However, the officer must have had probable cause to believe the objects are contraband, [ 120 ] and the criminality of the object in plain view must be obvious by its ...

  8. List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    probable cause relating to the plain view doctrine under the Fourth Amendment: United States v. Dunn: 480 U.S. 294 (1987) open fields doctrine: Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca: 480 U.S. 421 (1987) Asylum applicants must show "well-founded fear" of persecution to establish their eligibility Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass ...

  9. Coolidge v. New Hampshire - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_v._New_Hampshire

    Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception.. The state sought to justify the search of a car owned by Edward Coolidge, suspected of killing 14-year-old Pamela Mason in January 1964, on three theories: automobile exception, search incident to arrest and plain view.