Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Police are not required to conduct a search in a way that gives the individual an opportunity to revoke consent, as determined in United States v. Rich , where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that "officials must conduct all searches in plain view of the suspect, and in a manner slowly enough that he may ...
Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (2014), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that explored the limits of Georgia v. Randolph, a 2006 case that held that consent to search a dwelling is invalid in the presence of an objecting co-resident. [1]
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) - search valid if police reasonably believe consent given by owner; Florida v. Bostick (1991) - not "free to leave" but "free to decline" on bus; Florida v. Jimeno (1991) - can request officer to limit scope of search; Ohio v. Robinette (1996) - do not have to inform motorist is free to go; United States v.
California law states police can only search your phone under these conditions.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled that in a case involving a consent search, although knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary, the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to refuse consent under the Fourth ...
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.
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched. [1]
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body.