Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Mitchell applied for certiorari before the United States Supreme Court, which accepted the case to decide "[w]hether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement." Oral argument was held on April 23, 2019. [5] On June 27, 2019, the Court announced its decision.
On appeal, the state appeals court stated an intention to reverse, but transferred the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision that the officer had violated McNeely's Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari on 25 ...
John Moore first visited UCLA Medical Center on October 5, 1976, after he was diagnosed with hairy cell leukemia.Physician and cancer researcher David Golde took samples of Moore's blood, bone marrow, and other bodily fluids to confirm the diagnosis and recommended a splenectomy because of the potentially fatal amount of swelling in Moore's spleen. [3]
From a blockbuster Second Amendment decision to a more technical case about retaliatory arrests, sharp disagreements have emerged on the Supreme Court over the reasoning of recent rulings ...
Summers, the Supreme Court held that police officers executing a search warrant were allowed to detain people on the premises while they conducted the search. This case limits that to the "immediate vicinity" of the place being searched, so police searching a basement apartment couldn't search a man leaving from near the apartment in a car.
Associate Justice John Few wrote in the majority opinion: “The state did not ‘inflict’ an ‘unusual punishment’ as the section prohibits.
The Supreme Court held that there was no constitutional violation in this case. In the Court's holding, it stated: “[w]e therefore hold that unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” [ 1 ] The Court relied on ...