Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The open-fields doctrine (also open-field doctrine or open-fields rule), in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal doctrine that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, "unless there is some other legal basis for the ...
Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which established the open-fields doctrine. [1] In an opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court held that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects', is not extended to the open fields."
United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Background [ edit ]
Federal agents are allowed to search private property without a warrant under this Prohibition-era Supreme Court precedent.
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'n v. Debenedictus: 480 U.S. 470 (1987) substantive due process, the takings clause of the 5th Amendment: O'Connor v. Ortega
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6—3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.
United States v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294 (1987), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution . [ 1 ]
Writing for the Court, Justice White wrote that, “having concluded that Frank v. State of Maryland, [1] to the extent that it sanctioned such warrantless inspections, must be overruled, we reverse.” [2] He first reviewed principles of the Fourth Amendment, noting that “the basic purpose of this Amendment...is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary ...