Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Malice is implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. [1] Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case. In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist in order to ...
The California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act is in §502 of the California Penal Code. According to the State Administrative Manual of California, the Act affords protection to individuals, businesses, and governmental agencies from tampering, interference, damage, and unauthorized access to lawfully created computer data and ...
There’s an easy way to find out: conduct a reverse phone lookup — for free. But is there a truly free reverse phone lookup? Yes — there are plenty of sites that offer free reverse phone lookups.
PHOTO: Map of 4 Northern California cities where Matthew Muller allegedly broke in (Map tiles by Google Earth) MORE: Survivors of so-called 'Gone Girl' case reflect on the life-changing experience
The California Bureau of Investigation (CBI or BI) is California's statewide criminal investigative bureau under the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ), in the Division of Law Enforcement (DLE), administered by the Office of the State Attorney General that provides expert investigative services to assist local, state, tribal, and federal agencies in major criminal investigations ranging ...
Search giant Google agreed to a $93 million settlement with the state of California on Thursday over its location-privacy practices. The settlement follows a $391.5 million settlement with 40 ...
People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (Cal. January 3, 2011) was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. [1]