Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The plain view doctrine was first articulated in the Supreme Court case of Coolidge v. New Hampshire. [4] The original formulation included three factors. First, the officer must be lawfully present when viewing the evidence or contraband.
He believed that Justice Stewart's opinion in Coolidge was the correct interpretation of the plain view doctrine. [24] [d] Brennan noted that a warrantless search was per se unreasonable unless it met a warrant exception. [26] A warrant had to describe, with particularity, the items to be searched for and seized. [27]
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception.. The state sought to justify the search of a car owned by Edward Coolidge, suspected of killing 14-year-old Pamela Mason in January 1964, on three theories: automobile exception, search incident to arrest and plain view.
probable cause relating to the plain view doctrine under the Fourth Amendment: United States v. Dunn: 480 U.S. 294 (1987) 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 ...
According to the plain view doctrine as defined in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), [ 119 ] if an officer is lawfully present, he may seize objects that are in "plain view." However, the officer must have had probable cause to believe the objects are contraband, [ 120 ] and the criminality of the object in plain view must be obvious by its ...
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.
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States handed down in 1990. In the case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an ...
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.The Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.