Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert: 231 U.S. 399 (1913) Weeks v. United States: 232 U.S. 383 (1914) establishment of the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence Ocampo v. United States: 234 U.S. 91 (1914) sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases: Shreveport Rate Case: 234 U.S. 342 (1914) Commerce clause, regulation of ...
Weeks v. United States , 232 U.S. 383 (1914) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . [ 1 ]
"The power of Congress over Indian Affairs may be of a plenary nature, but it is not absolute." US v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U.S. 40 (1946), 329 U.S. 54. Since the exclusion of the Kansas Delawares from distribution under the act was "tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation toward the Indians," 430 U.S. 85-89, the exclusion does not offend the Due Process ...
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 ...
Lorena W. Weeks (born 1929) was the plaintiff in an important sex discrimination case, Weeks v. Southern Bell (1969). She claimed that Southern Bell had violated her rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act when they denied her application for promotion to a higher paying position because she was a woman.
The majority reviewed the history of the exclusionary rule established in early 20th-century cases such as Weeks v. United States (1914) and Gouled v. United States, (1921) and applied to state courts in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). The exclusionary rule is not a right provided by the Constitution itself, it is a judicially-created prophylactic rule to ...
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6—3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In Weeks v.
Sylvia Roberts (1933–2014) was an American lawyer known for legal work on behalf of patients at the East Louisiana State Hospital's Forensic Unit, for the National Organization for Women's (NOW) Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDEF), as an educator and advocate for the legal rights of women in Louisiana, and on the behalf of victims of domestic violence.