Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the United States, the plain view doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement [1] that allows an officer to seize evidence and contraband that are found in plain view during a lawful observation.
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures.
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 ...
Woven through thousands of court papers, the special counsel has made his public report. This is what it says.
The first part of the test is related to the notion "in plain view". If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed. [18]
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.
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.
At least four U.S. Supreme Court justices have signaled support for an extreme legal doctrine that would give state legislatures unchecked power over elections and political maps.