Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: Franks v. State, 373 A.2d 578 (Del. 1977): Subsequent: Franks v. State, 398 A.2d 783 (Del. 1979): Holding; Where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be ...
An anticipatory warrant was not defective under the Fourth Amendment for failing to list the "triggering condition" necessary for its execution, because a warrant only needs to describe with particularity the place or person to be searched and the items to be seized. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Court membership; Chief ...
Where the warrant was so clearly deficient, such as with respect to the location to be searched or objects to be seized [9] In Illinois v. Krull (1987), [ 10 ] the Court extended the good-faith exception where an officer reasonably relied on a statute authorizing warrantless searches that was later found to be unconstitutional, citing the same ...
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant.
A warrant is generally an order that serves as a specific type of authorization, that is, a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, that permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights in order to enforce the law and aid in investigations; affording the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is performed.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his or her person.