enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Searches incident to a lawful arrest - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_incident_to_a...

    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.

  3. Thornton v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v._United_States

    Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile's occupant, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the officer to search the vehicle's passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest. [1]

  4. Chimel v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimel_v._California

    Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]

  5. United States v. Robinson - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Robinson

    United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."

  6. Birchfield v. North Dakota - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birchfield_v._North_Dakota

    Birchfield was a consolidation of three cases: Birchfield v.North Dakota, Bernard v.Minnesota, and Beylund v.Levi.Birchfield was charged with violation of a North Dakota statute for refusing to submit to blood alcohol content testing; Bernard was charged with a violation of a Minnesota statute for refusing to submit to breath alcohol testing; Beylund underwent a blood alcohol test consistent ...

  7. People v. Diaz - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Diaz

    People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (Cal. January 3, 2011) was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. [1]

  8. Police Cannot Seize Property Indefinitely After an Arrest ...

    www.aol.com/news/police-cannot-seize-property...

    "In situations where there is a lawful arrest, but no prosecution, there are no clear rules on retaining personal property. In these cases, police have been confiscating phones to punish protestors."

  9. Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the...

    The Bill of Rights in the National Archives. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be ...