Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding criminal procedure, including: Article Three, along with Amendments Five, Six, Eight, and Fourteen. Such cases have come to comprise a substantial portion of the Supreme Court 's docket.
United States v. Apple; Court: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey: Full case name: United States of America, State of New Jersey, State of Arizona, State of California, District of Columbia, State of Connecticut, State of Maine, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of New Hampshire, State of New York, State of North Dakota, State of Oklahoma, State of Oregon ...
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. Drayton (2002) - police do not have to advise you of rights before search
Apple had previously challenged the U.S. Department of Justice's authority to compel it to unlock an iPhone 5S in a drug case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn (In re Order Requiring Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued by the Court, case number 1:15-mc-01902 [68 ...
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.
In 1990, a young woman was strangled on a jogging path near the home of Pat Brown and her family. Brown suspected the young man who was renting a room in her house, and quickly uncovered strong ...
They offer an unvarnished look at the sort of behavior that inmates, their families, attorneys, advocates and news organizations like The New York Times and The Marshall Project have documented ...
R. v. Jordan [2] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected the framework traditionally used to determine whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaced it with a presumptive ceiling of 18 months between the charges and the trial in a provincial court without preliminary inquiry, or 30 ...