Ad
related to: consent to search vehicle formform-ds-3053.pdffiller.com has been visited by 1M+ users in the past month
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
One is the "Consent to Search" law which requires an officer to inform someone they have the right to deny a search and to make sure that person understands that right. The other is the "NYPD ID" law, which requires the officer, in certain situations, to hand out business cards with their name, rank, badge number and command.
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) - search valid if police reasonably believe consent given by owner; Florida v. Bostick (1991) - not "free to leave" but "free to decline" on bus; Florida v. Jimeno (1991) - can request officer to limit scope of search; Ohio v. Robinette (1996) - do not have to inform motorist is free to go; United States v.
San Francisco Police searching a vehicle after a stop in 2008.. The motor vehicle exception is a legal rule in the United States that modifies the normal probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, when applicable, allows a police officer to search a motor vehicle without a search warrant.
police approaches suspect and uses consensual encounter to get a consent to search (of person, luggage, etc) police pull over automobile ("seizure") for minor infraction and request consent to search vehicle; The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled police do not need to inform people of their right to refuse.
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), was a search and seizure case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle (specifically, in the trunk) to be searched as well.
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched. [1]
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.
Ad
related to: consent to search vehicle formform-ds-3053.pdffiller.com has been visited by 1M+ users in the past month