Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Constructive possession can also refer to items inside of a vehicle. The owner and driver of the vehicle can be in constructive possession of all things inside their car. If a minor were driving their vehicle with passengers possessing alcohol or any illegal substance, the driver may be cited for constructive possession.
This led to the classic articulation of the mere evidence rule, which stated that the Fourth Amendment allowed only search and seizure of instrumentalities, fruits of the crime, and contraband, and that mere evidence could not be searched or seized. [4] The mere evidence rule has been praised as a valuable protection of individual privacy.
The general rule attaching to the three types of property may be summarized as: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property. [1] This rule varies by jurisdiction. [2]
The "Rule of Four" has been explained by various Justices in judicial opinions throughout the years. [2] For example, Justice Felix Frankfurter described the rule as follows: "The 'rule of four' is not a command of Congress. It is a working rule devised by the Court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review, the ...
In certain cases, the possession does not need to be actual possession, but may be constructive possession. For example, possession of a document of title will often suffice where it is not possible to possess the goods. [6] In many legal systems, there may also be constructive possession by attornment.
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law-enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless ...
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.The Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.