Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law-enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless ...
Constructive possession can also refer to items inside of a vehicle. The owner and driver of the vehicle can be in constructive possession of all things inside their car. If a minor were driving their vehicle with passengers possessing alcohol or any illegal substance, the driver may be cited for constructive possession.
The mere evidence rule was solidified in the case Gouled v. United States. In Gouled, the Court found a Fourth Amendment violation when a warrant was used to obtain the defendant's documents that were later used at trial. Gouled also suggested that more than just papers were categorically protected by the Fourth Amendment. [3]
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.The Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.
Adverse possession in common law, and the related civil law concept of usucaption (also acquisitive prescription or prescriptive acquisition), are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission of its legal owner.
In many legal systems, there may also be constructive possession by attornment. The law relating to perfection of security interests by taking of possession can sometimes be confused with the law relating to the granting of security interests, which provides that the deposit of certain assets (usually documents of title) can amount to an ...
“Reward was dependent on gaining status, and with status came power — generally power over others,” said Deitch. He left Daytop and then moved to Chicago, where he worked in public health helping to oversee a variety of drug treatment programs including innovative ones that integrated a softer version of the “therapeutic community ...
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing police dog during a routine traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even if the initial infraction is unrelated to drug offenses.