Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Investigators must normally obtain a court-issued warrant before seizing property, by presenting enough evidence to a magistrate judge to meet the probable cause requirement. [13] When using the plain view doctrine, investigators must possess the evidence needed to meet the probable cause requirement, as they are only exempt from the step of ...
In the Court of the Crimson King (subtitled An Observation by King Crimson) is the debut studio album by English progressive rock band King Crimson, released on 10 October 1969, by Island Records. [3]
“We appreciate the Court eloquently and succinctly rejecting the defense attorney’s inflammatory and headline-grabbing characterizations. We agree with the Court’s observation that politics ...
The jury said when the observation hatch to Binfield's cell door was covered, "there was an 11-minute delay before the prison staff entered the cell", with "no urgency" to call an emergency.
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that aerial observation of a person's backyard by police, even if done without a search warrant, does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It has been suggested that the jury be given a checklist to evaluate eyewitness testimony when given in court. R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony: How well could the eyewitness observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch?
The aerial surveillance doctrine’s place in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence first surfaced in California v.Ciraolo (1986). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether law enforcement’s warrantless use of a private plane to observe, from an altitude of 1,000 feet, an individual’s cultivation of marijuana plants in his yard constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. [1]
Obiter dicta (often simply dicta, or obiter) are remarks or observations made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, do not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument". [1]