Ad
related to: illegal seizure of personal property examples in california free form pdfuslegalforms.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
- Real Estate Forms
Home Sales, Contract for Deed
State Specific Real Estate Forms
- Affidavit Forms
General, Heirship Affidavit Forms
State Specific Affidavit Forms
- Power of Attorney Forms
General, Limited, or Child Care POA
State Specific POA Forms
- Legal Form Packages
Real Estate, Employment, Bankruptcy
Contractors, LLC Formation Packages
- Real Estate Forms
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4.
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. [2] [3]
"The plaintiffs have alleged that the seizures at issue, though lawful at their inception, later came to unreasonably interfere with their protected possessory interests in their own property ...
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Originally, remote surveillance of a person's communications, such as a telephone call, was not considered search and seizure without an "actual physical invasion" of a defendant's property. [1]
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures.
California v. Ciraolo , 476 U.S. 207 (1986), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that aerial observation of a person's backyard by police, even if done without a search warrant , does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
Bradford believes that hundreds and perhaps thousands of other California property owners, or their descendants, may seek financial remedies under the proposed law. "I can't assign a dollar figure ...
Ad
related to: illegal seizure of personal property examples in california free form pdfuslegalforms.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month