Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Official Code of Georgia Annotated or OCGA is the compendium of all laws in the state of Georgia. Like other state codes in the United States, its legal interpretation is subject to the U.S. Constitution , the U.S. Code , the Code of Federal Regulations , and the state's constitution .
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law. [2] [3] Paragraph II. Protection to person and property; equal protection. Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Paragraph III.
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.
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.
Prosecutors need to prove that a 3rd party owner knew about the criminal use of their property. [46] All proceeds go to law enforcement. [46] Alaska Property owner needs to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the property at stake is not connected to a crime. [47] 3rd party owners need to prove their own innocence. [47]
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.
Distraint is the act or process "whereby a person (the distrainor), traditionally even without prior court approval, seizes the personal property of another located upon the distrainor's land in satisfaction of a claim, as a pledge for performance of a duty, or in reparation of an injury."
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]