Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law-enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless ...
Constructive possession can also refer to items inside of a vehicle. The owner and driver of the vehicle can be in constructive possession of all things inside their car. If a minor were driving their vehicle with passengers possessing alcohol or any illegal substance, the driver may be cited for constructive possession.
The Court recognized that while the rejection of the mere evidence rule may "enlarge the area of permissible searches," the protections of the 4th Amendment, like the reasonableness and warrant requirements, would sufficiently safeguard the right to privacy. [11] The abandonment of the mere evidence rule has been criticized.
Adverse possession in common law, and the related civil law concept of usucaption (also acquisitive prescription or prescriptive acquisition), are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission of its legal owner.
A search will be reasonable under section 8 if it is 1) authorized by law, 2) the law itself is reasonable, and 3) the search was conducted in a reasonable manner. [3] A reasonable law under section 8 is one which properly balances the privacy interests of the person with the law enforcement objectives of the state. [4]
A 7.0 magnitude earthquake was reported off the coast of Northern California on Thursday, according to the United States Geological Survey. The epicenter of the "strong" quake was off the coast ...
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence (the knock-and-announce requirement) does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.
And to complete the fit, Sevigny slipped into a pair of transparent black tights, as well as a set of golden block heels, also from Saint Laurent, which had square toes and straps around the ankles.