Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A hub-and-spoke conspiracy (or hub-and-spokes conspiracy) is a legal construct or doctrine of United States antitrust and criminal law. [1] In such a conspiracy, several parties ("spokes") enter into an unlawful agreement with a leading party ("hub"). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained the concept in these terms:
The Carl B. Stokes Federal Court House Building is a skyscraper located in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. It is also known as the Carl B. Stokes Federal Court House Tower, Federal Court House Tower, and the Stokes Tower. The 23-story building is 430 feet (130 m) tall and is located at the corner of Huron Road and Superior Avenue. [1]
Standing at 496 ft (151 m) tall, the building is currently tied with The Hub on Causeway Tower as Boston's 23rd-tallest buildings. [citation needed] It is part of the Custom House District, which was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. Since 1997, it has housed a Marriott timeshare hotel. [2]
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 ...
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?
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.
Open fields near Lisbon, Ohio.. The open-fields doctrine (also open-field doctrine or open-fields rule), in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal doctrine that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.