Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) contains both an “elements clause” and a “residual clause.” [8] The elements clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” and the residual clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it, “by its nature, involves a ...
PACER (acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records) is an electronic public access service for United States federal court documents. It allows authorized users to obtain case and docket information from the United States district courts , United States courts of appeals , and United States bankruptcy courts .
Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States "[held] that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule ". [ 1 ]
Davis is now appealing the decision to the U.S. 6th Circuit. She and her attorneys hope the case will ultimately become a vehicle to overturn the right of same-sex couples to marry.
United States v. Davis may refer to: United States v. Davis, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on tax treatment of divorce settlements; United States v. Davis, an 11th Circuit ruling on the need for a warrant to obtain cell phone location data; United States v. Davis, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the residual clause of the Hobbs Act
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973), was a 1973 United States Supreme Court case concerning criminal procedure and collateral attacks on criminal convictions. The majority opinion, authored by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, held that when claims of unconstitutional jury discrimination are brought on postconviction collateral review, they are subject to the timeliness ...