Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In cases where property is forfeited by default, up to 70% of proceeds go to law enforcement. In cases where forfeiture is contested, up to 100% of proceeds go to law enforcement. [92] Utah Prosecutors required to provide clear and convincing evidence that property is connected to a crime. [93]
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.
Standing in cases in which plaintiffs assert interest in aesthetic or recreational interest in property (in this case, Mineral King area) Wisconsin v. Yoder: 406 U.S. 205 (1972) Freedom of religion, high school education Apodaca v. Oregon: 406 U.S. 404 (1972) State juries may convict a defendant by less than unanimity Jackson v. Indiana: 406 U ...
Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1]
Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a seizure of property like that which occurs during an eviction, even absent a search or an arrest, implicates the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held that the Amendment protects property as well as privacy interests, in both ...
Bond moved to suppress the "brick" of methamphetamine on the basis that the agent had conducted an illegal search of the bag when squeezing it. [4] He claimed that this was a violation of the Federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. [4] The district court denied the motion, and found Bond guilty ...