Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a Supreme Court case holding that the installation and use of a pen register by the police to obtain information on a suspect's telephone calls was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence no search warrant was required.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) The prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant (exculpatory evidence) to the defense. Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514 (1972) The Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right under the Sixth Amendment has been ...
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court that held that bank records are not subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] The case, along with Smith v. Maryland, established the principle of the third-party doctrine in relation to privacy rights.
Writing for the Court, Justice White wrote that, “having concluded that Frank v. State of Maryland, [1] to the extent that it sanctioned such warrantless inspections, must be overruled, we reverse.” [2] He first reviewed principles of the Fourth Amendment, noting that “the basic purpose of this Amendment...is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary ...
Pauley found no reason why Smith v. Maryland, which concluded that phone metadata was outside the expectation of privacy, would not apply to the NSA's program. [8] Pauley also held that the data collection was supported by the NSA's internal procedures that were in turn authorized under security-oriented statutes like the Patriot Act.
The Oklahoma court erred in ruling that Payne v. Tennessee (1991) "implicitly overruled" Booth v. Maryland (1987) in regards to the victim's family members' testimony of the defendant(s) and opinion(s) of the sentence. Payne did not specifically state this, and only the Supreme Court can overrule its own precedent.
United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012), [1] was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Reacting to the precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case United States v.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States, the prosecution must turn over to a criminal defendant any significant evidence in its possession that suggests the defendant is not guilty (exculpatory evidence).