enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Ker v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ker_v._California

    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.

  3. Riley v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California

    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.

  4. Gilbert v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_v._California

    Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), was an important decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was argued February 15–16, 1967, and decided June 12, 1967. The case involved Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights, the taking of handwriting exemplars, in-court identifications and warrantless searches.

  5. People v. Diaz - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Diaz

    People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (Cal. January 3, 2011) was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. [1]

  6. Digital Search and Seizure - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Search_and_Seizure

    Instead of the Fourth Amendment protecting private spaces defined by physical boundaries, The Court defined private spaces as where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." [2] Since Katz, additional case law has defined the scope of "reasonable expectation of privacy" to include cellphones [3] and location data gathered by cellphones. [4]

  7. Police Cannot Seize Property Indefinitely After an Arrest ...

    www.aol.com/news/police-cannot-seize-property...

    "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 ...

  8. FBI Seized $86 Million From People Not Suspected of Any ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/fbi-seized-86-million-people...

    For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us

  9. Chimel v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimel_v._California

    Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]