Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several US states; Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wisconsin. U.S. states that authorize police [ 1 ] to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of committing a crime to state their name.
The judge issued a warrant to be served by the county sheriff's office. It was strictly limited to the 59 titles named by the Attorney General. On the same day, deputies served the warrant at P–K News Service in Junction City, the county seat. They found copies of 31 of the listed books offered for sale and seized 1,715 copies in all.
However, certain exceptions to the warrant requirement exist. After stopping a person based upon the reasonable belief that the person might be engaged in unlawful activity, or following a routine encounter such as a traffic stop, the police in the United States may perform a cursory search of the persons outer clothing for their own safety ...
A Kansas county prosecutor is withdrawing the search warrant used to raid a local newspaper and the judge who signed the warrant has a history of DUI arrests. Here are the latest developments in ...
Federal search warrants may be prepared on Form AO 93, Search and Seizure Warrant. [13] Although the laws are broadly similar, each state has its own laws and rules of procedure governing the issuance of warrants. Search warrants are normally available to the public. On the other hand, they may be sealed if they contain sensitive information. [14]
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.
Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961), full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri , is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials.
Harvard Law Review. 119: 531. JSTOR 4093493. SSRN 697541. Saylor, James (7 November 2011). "Computers as Castles: Preventing the Plain View Doctrine from Becoming a Vehicle for Overbroad Digital Searches". Fordham Law Review. 79 (6): 2809. Archived from the original on March 30, 2023. Agati, Andrew (1995).