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.
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband.
Near 3 a.m. on August 7, 1999, a police officer in Baltimore County, Maryland pulled over a car for speeding and for the driver's failure to wear a seatbelt.The car was being driven by Donte Partlow, the vehicle's owner, and had two passengers: Joseph Pringle in the front seat, and Otis Smith in the backseat.
Adverse possession in common law, and the related civil law concept of usucaption (also acquisitive prescription or prescriptive acquisition), are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission of its legal owner.
One officer is alleged to have received $15,000 from inmates over the course of eight months for delivering contraband. The three officers have been booked into the jail where they worked.
California, [7] the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent, which had caused ambiguity. [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] The case involved the plain view seizure of weapons related to a robbery, even though the warrant was signed by a judge who had specifically denied permission to seize weapons as part ...
A search will be reasonable under section 8 if it is 1) authorized by law, 2) the law itself is reasonable, and 3) the search was conducted in a reasonable manner. [3] A reasonable law under section 8 is one which properly balances the privacy interests of the person with the law enforcement objectives of the state. [4]